Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

If you’ve been following the news over the last couple of days, you may have heard about Gary Goodyear, Canadian Minister of State for Science and Technology, and his strange remarks regarding evolution. On Tuesday it was reported that he was asked whether he believed in evolution, and his response was, “I’m not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate.” This created a bit of a stir, naturally, and he has since changed his answer – now saying that he does believe in evolution, but that the question was irrelevant.

Irrelevant, Gary? No matter what your beliefs, evolution is currently one of the most contentious points between religion and science – and as you are the Minister for Science, I’d say it is pretty clear what side you should be on. The question is as relevant as ever, and your wishy-washy answers have got a lot of rationally-thinking people feeling uneasy. I’d like to note that I personally am fine with Mr. Goodyear being a Christian. Despite what my personal feelings are on the compatibility of his religion with science, the fact is that many brilliant and successful scientists in the past have been religious in one way or another. But the way he drags religion into a question that should be purely scientific, quite frankly worries me. It’s not too hard to picture him promoting so-called “intelligent design” as a valid alternative to evolution. This is a road that we as a country do not want to go down. We’ve done a good job so far of keeping religion out of our government, and I’d like to see it stay that way.

Despite successfully running in several cities in Canada, including London, Calgary, and Toronto, the Atheist Bus Campaign was blocked from running in Ottawa (Link). Despite the city staff’s approval of similar Christian bible study advertisements, the ads were disallowed from being placed on Ottawa buses with no obvious explanation.

Despite this seeming like a gross violation of the Freethought Association of Canada’s freedom of speech, it’s troubling that the city government in our Nation’s capital would so blatantly apply a double standard to religious and non-religious messages. This would be less troubling if the city had a policy against religious messages of any sort, but this is simply not the case.

“I don’t follow the logic,” said Bus Stop Bible Studies founder David Harrison. “Why would they approve ours and not theirs? If we don’t stand up for (the atheists’) rights, ours will be trampled too.”

Hell, even the other side is sticking up for the rights of the non-believers. To say that I am ashamed in the City of Ottawa would be a gross understatement.

Now, if somebody really wanted to spice this debate up, they would try to get Qur’an verses displayed on the buses.

Originally posted on That’s the Way the Banana Crumbles.

Often times, the purpose or practicalities of a cause can get lost in the hype. Today, the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) held their “Day of Action” to protest what they believe to be unfair tuition fee increases in Ontario. Whereas there are certainly arguments to be made for lowering–or even the elimination of–tuition fees, it is far from a consensus belief held by students, or the rest of society. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, there is a disturbing lack of information surrounding their campaigns, with more of a focus on protests and rallies than working towards actual change.

Rallies are a good way of drawing attention to issues, but in order for them to be effective, the people first need to know what the issues are. The meaningless charts and statistics in the UTSU fliers are meant to make it look like the students are getting ripped off, but very few people are aware of the actual budgetary situations faced by both the government and the universities. Education funding is not a simple issue, and student politicians do everybody a disservice when they try and pretend that it is. Critical thinking is not just about science and pseudo-science, but also applies to your day-to-day life. The next time somebody hands you a flier and tells you to join their cause, take a moment to ask them why they think their cause is important; if they aren’t able to give you a satisfactory answer, then maybe you should take their claims with a grain of salt. The burden of proof is on them to convince you of their position. The worst that can happen is that you become more informed.

In this article, Hitchens talks about “the GOP ticket’s appalling contempt for knowledge and learning”. It saddens me that these things go largely unreported by the media, whereas past religious affiliations of Senator Obama can form a nation-wide scandal.

In what is certifiably a rare occurrence, I’ve found myself reasonably impressed by the skepticism found in a special news article.  Specifically, by the piece 9/11 Conspiracy Files, which aired on CBC Newsworld this week.

The hour-long program focuses on perhaps the largest foundation of the 9/11 “Truthers’” conspiracy theory, the collapse of WTC7.  In it, while true douchebags like Dylan Avery of Loose Change are given time to have their say, it’s the engineers, firefighters and the families of the victims who have the final word.  What’s more, the program makes no hesitation to refute conspiracy theory claims surrounding the collapse of the third tower with real science, reason, and at times just plain common sense.

For those unfamiliar with the Truthers’ nonsense, the meat of the 9/11 conspiracy theory surrounds the collapse of WTC7, which they say is a “smoking gun” for the government’s supposed involvement in the attacks, as it had not appeared to have sustained significant damage and must therefore have been destroyed in a controlled demolition through the use of explosives.  The program’s response to this argument, based on official research into the collapse of the tower, leaves no stone unturned, as it picks apart every conspiracy theory claim neatly thoroughly.

First and foremost, the argument that WTC7 suffered no damage prior to its collapse is debunked by foorage from all angles of broken windows as well as fire and smoke pluming from all sides.  On the claim that the fire left raging in the building could not be hot enough to melt the steel foundations of the structure, a team of engineers explain that the melting of the steel isn’t necessary to produce a collapse.  Instead, the steel needs merely to be weakened by the intense temperatures of the fire to the point where it can no longer support the weight of the structure (This is accomplished long before the steel is at its melting point).  Conspiracy theorists even argue that the sight and sound of the building’s collapse indicate that explosives were present in the building to initiated its destruction.  The program offers two explanations for this.

One is practical:  Those “hearing” and “seeing” explosions have little to no experience on what real-life explosions sound and look like, and thus cannot be relied on to provide a realistic assessment.  The other explanation is more technical.  The “explosion” seen by observers is itself a result of the collapse.  As the structure’s foundations fails and it begins to collapse, air within the building is trapped, much like in a balloon.  The pressure builds until the air is finally able to escape, which it does very violently.  Indeed, this may be called an explosion, but not as a result of explosives.  It is, rather, a result of the physics of the building’s collapse, and nothing more.

We here at Lintbox have yet to write an extensive piece on 9/11 conspiracy theories, which we should sometime in the future (at the risk of facing the often very harsh responses from Truthers.)  Nevertheless, CBC/BBC managed to produce one very satisfying, scientific approach to the conspiracy theory, and for that I’m left impressed.  Maybe there’s hope for the media, after all!

Scientific American has published this handy map of the creationism battle in the United States. Specifically, the map explains what’s currently going on — and where.

This is a must see for anybody who is concerned about, but not too familiar with, the current creationism battlegrounds.

The BBC has published this follow-up on the legality of Google Street View in the UK, which I had previously written about here. Thankfully, the Information Commissioner has ruled on the side of sanity by upholding Britain’s privacy laws as they are written, as opposed to how they are sometimes interpreted by certain police officers and concerned citizens on the lookout for terrorists.

The project drew criticism from privacy campaigners worried it could breach data protection laws.

But the Information Commissioner said it was “satisfied” that Google had put in place safeguards to avoid risking anyone’s privacy or safety.

In a lot of places, but especially in the UK, there seems to be a growing gap between how the people on the street interpret privacy laws, and how the judicial and institutional levels of government uphold them. For now, the opinion of the latter group seems to be prevailing, but all it could take is a strong push of public opinion for the laws to change. It is of the paramount importance that free democratic societies not lose such basic rights as the ability to take pictures and video in public. Privacy laws making it illegal to do these things could strike a crippling blow to our freedom of speech, and more specifically, the free press. Privacy laws exist to protect citizens from surveillance and observation by their government; not to allow the government to censor free activity.

It said the safeguards Google was putting in place, such as blurring faces and registration plates, were sufficient to allay worries about privacy.

The statement said: “Although it is possible that in certain limited circumstances an image may allow the identification of an individual, it is clear that Google are keen to capture images of streets and not individuals.”

It’s refreshing to see that somebody is finally recognizing that Google Street View is not a sinister plan to go around violating people’s privacy by catching them in embarrassing situations and profiting off of their images, but rather an attempt to catalogue images of streets.

Every once in a while some sort of consumer/privacy watchdog group decides to criticize Google over matters of privacy, not fully appreciating how far Google goes to protect the privacy of their users. Naturally, privacy issues are going to arise when you’re in the business of collecting and sorting through information, but none of Google’s past actions have shown them to be a threat to anybody’s privacy. Fears that Google will pull an AOL are completely unwarranted.

“We’ve always said we will not launch in UK until we are comfortable Street View complies with local law,” they added, “and that we will use technology, like face-blurring, license plate blurring and operational controls, such as image removal tools, so Street View remains useful and in keeping with local norms wherever it is available.”

I won’t delude myself into thinking that as a company, Google can do no wrong. At the end of the day, they’re still a for-profit organization looking out for their interests, and the interests of their shareholders. However, Google is smart enough to know that its success in the information trade depends almost exclusively on its ability to keep user information confidential. The only reason it can compile as much information as it has is because people trust Google with that information; and the instant they do anything to betray that trust, their user base will instantly evaporate. So we don’t have to trust that Google will behave in a moral fashion out of the goodness of their hearts; we know that they’ll do it, because it’s good for business.

—

• BBC.co.uk: Google Street View gets go ahead
• Lintbox.com: Quit Touching My Privacy
• BBC.co.uk: Innocent photographer or terrorist?
• Wikipedia.org: AOL Search Data Scandal

Privacy advocacy group ‘Privacy International’ in the UK is all up in arms about Google Street View’s recent endeavor to start mapping out the streets of England. The BBC writes about it here.

Privacy debates are always interesting to me, because despite the legitimate points that can be raised on either side of the issue, I find that arguments are always riddled with false analogies and fallacies galore¹. Take this argument, for example:

“In our view they need a person’s consent if they make use of a person’s face for commercial ends,” said Simon Davis of the group.

The problem with this argument is that Google does not intend to use peoples’ faces for commercial ends. If anything, the people (and their faces) are in the way of what the Street View teams are trying to accomplish — the faces are incidental to the purpose of the project. This is an example of a false premise; Privacy International is assuming that the purpose of Street View is to take pictures of people to use commercially, when they are actually taking pictures of streets and buildings to use commercially. Furthermore, you can always ask Google to remove your image if you don’t like all of the fame and wealth associated with being an internet celebrity. I’m fairly certain that the people over at Privacy International are aware of the false premise, but they will continue to make this argument because it’s one that will allow them to challenge Google on a legal basis (if it ever comes to that).

However, what really takes the cake is this next section:
Read the rest of this entry »

In the past, we’ve blogged about issues such as ISP bandwidth throttling, and net neutrality. According to the CBC, the Canadian government has formed an organization exclusively to deal with issues between telecommunications companies, and consumers/small businesses. Unfortunately, word of the organization still hasn’t gotten around.

The Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services was established a year ago, but few Canadians are even aware there’s an agency where they can take their cell phone and internet gripes.

Science and skepticism thrive on the exchange of information. The whole point of the skeptical movement is to make information available for those who choose to seek it out. Therefore, even though this might seem like a tangentially related issue to the science/skepticism focus of this site, maintaining a free and open internet through combating unfair telecommunications practices is just as important of a battle as fighting mysticism and pseudoscience. In Canada, unlike the United States, we don’t have competition to take care of unfair telecommunications practices; so it’s reassuring to know that our government hasn’t completely abandoned us.

From the CCTS website:

Please feel free to contact us in the following ways:

General Inquiries: info@ccts-cprst.ca
TSP membership inquiries: info@ccts-cprst.ca

Hours of Business: Monday to Friday 09:00 – 17:00 HRS Eastern Standard Time.

Toll Free: 1-888-221-1687
Ottawa local: 613-244-9585
TTY: 1-877-782-2384

Please note: CCTS policy prevents us from accepting complaints over the phone. However, we can provide advice on whether or not you should file a written complaint and how to file a written complaint.

Fax: 1-877-782-2924
Mail: P.O. Box 81088, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1B1

—

• CBC.ca: Telecom complaints agency celebrates birthday in obscurity
• Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services Inc.

Admittedly, there’s a fine line between skepticism and cynicism — one that’s easy to cross if you don’t watch where you step. Skeptics are accused of making the world a dull place by taking all of the magic and wonder out of everything. As the poet John Keats once said (back when Philosophy and Science were pretty much the same thing):

“Philosophy will clip an angel’s wings, conquer all mysteries by rule and line, empty the haunted air, and gnome mine unweave a rainbow.”

This criticism has been leveled both at me, personally, and has been leveled at the entire skeptical movement for quite some time. Most of the people I talk to about skepticism don’t understand why we have to go around raining on others’ parades. However, skepticism isn’t about parades or precipitation, but rather looking for the true beauty in the world around us, rather than settling for apparent surface beauty. Great skeptics, like Carl Sagan, have pointed out that we need not divorce our sense of wonder from our skeptical mindset in order to further scientific inquiry and understanding¹:

“The size and age of the Cosmos are beyond ordinary human understanding. Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. In a cosmic perspective, most human concerns seem insignificant, even petty. And yet our species is young and curious and brave and shows much promise. In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival. I believe our future depends on how well we know this Cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.”²

Science has shown us that we can find more beauty through unweaving the rainbow then we could ever have hoped to find just by looking at, and being content with, the pretty colors in the sky. But there is another concern that is often raised about skepticism. Few people argue that logic and rationality lack a place in our understanding of the world, but some feel that skepticism fails to account for the magic and mystery of fantasy and fiction. Good stories are often capable of reaching people in ways that good logic and scientific inquiry often can’t, and appeals to emotion are able to evoke responses much stronger than can be generated through logic and reason.

Read the rest of this entry »