January 27, 2008
Disagreeing With Michael Shermer Part 3
I don't want to be too hard on Dr. Shermer because I normally like his work. Also, not having actually read his book, I can't offer a critique of his arguments; all I'm responding to is the Skepticality interview, which I thought could have been just a tad more, uh, skeptical.
(Sorry, Swoopy. In your shoes I doubt that I would have done anything differently. Except on the Kindle and Microsoft, perhaps...)
So I'm going to end this series (I think I hear both of my readers cheering) with an edited version of the email that I sent to the podcast's feedback address right after listening to the show. It's a bit breathless and not totally coherent, but here it is:
I just listened to your excellent interview with Michael Shermer. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Shermer, but I wonder whether he has let his ideology (Libertarianism) blind him in his idealization of free markets. That's a subject that he addressed in his July, 2006, Scientific American column, The Political Brain. In that column he pointed out how MRIs of both Democrats and Republicans show that they each tend to look at evidence that confirms their positions and ignore evidence that is in conflict with them, but he seemed to imply that as a Libertarian, he was immune to that effect. So I wish you had pressed him a bit more on a few points.
For example, in comparing the "African village" with the Manhattan "village" there was no mention made of all the people who are living in poverty or of the homeless problem. Did you know that on any given night there are nearly 200,000 veterans who are sleeping on the streets? Many of them are quite visible in Manhattan.
Or concerning Wal-Mart, he seemed to paint its critics as thinking of Wal-Mart as "evil" for putting Mom and Pop shops out of business. Well, I don't consider Wal-Mart or its management "evil", and I recognize that things change and the trend has been toward consolidation, where economies of scale can allow large stores to charge less than smaller stores, etc. However, I do fault Wal-Mart for not providing health insurance for their employees and for paying lower wages than those stores that they have put out of business. And for not letting their employees form unions. And for paying outlandish salaries to their executives. That last point can be made about many companies these days.
On some topics I can heartily agree with what Dr. Shermer said, such as the discussion of higher wages not necessarily making people happier. Nearly two years ago I took an early-out offer and retired on a salary that is about half of what I had been making. And you know what? I barely notice the difference. (And I realize that however I may feel about it, I'm just one data point.)
And regarding third party candidates being viable, that will never happen as long as we have a winner take all system of voting, because it's unlikely that a third party will ever be able to assemble and maintain a large enough block of voters, except perhaps in limited regions. However, if we were ever to adopt one of the more innovative voting systems, then there is a good chance that other candidates could get a foot in the door. For example, in a three way race, it's easy to conceive that a majority of the voters might prefer the third guy as their second choice; in a voting system where they could indicate that preference, then third parties would stand a chance.
And finally, I wish you had pressed him on his statement that the two parties don't offer much of a difference. I see a clear difference between the parties on a wide range of issues. To over-generalize:
Health insurance: Dems are for, Reps are against
Gay rights: Dems are for, Reps are against
Tax and spending policies: Dems favor more equitable taxes, balanced budgets, and responsibly putting tax money to work to help the citizenry, whereas Reps pretend to like smaller government, but they really just want lower taxes on the wealthy and are willing to run up big deficits to help those wealthy folk. Both sides do like pork, however.
Constitution: Dems favor it, Reps hate it, at least when they are in power
Global warming: Dems favor trying to do something about it, Reps are opposed
Evolution: Dems accept it as a fact, a lot of Reps don't
Science in general: Dems pretty much accept it (although they may sometimes exaggerate on an issue), Reps have declared war on it (just ask Chris Mooney).
Religion in government: Dems accept the separation of church and state, many Reps don't
Torture: Dems oppose its use, many Reps like it
Crime and drug policy: OK, there you got me. The parties really are too close on these issues. If I had my druthers, no one would ever be jailed simply for using a drug; in fact, I'd pretty much eliminate prisons except for violent offenders. But that's a subject for another day.
Anyway, you know that I love your show, so please don't take anything I say as a personal criticism. It's just that there are some things that I'd like to ask Dr. Shermer myself. And I'm kicking myself for not attending his lecture in Philadelphia last week; I let a little thing like the cold weather keep me in my warm home.
Maybe I was a little snarky there. Ok, a lot snarky.
Just a couple more points. During the interview Dr. Shermer alluded to the drop in the stock market prices. I wonder if he realizes that the drop in the stock market, the coming recession, and the problems in the real estate markets and mortgage industry are the result of the banks being given too much freedom (there's the free in free markets) and then abusing that freedom.
No matter how much Shermer argues that we evolved to be fair traders, the world today is very different from the world where that evolution took place. Sure, in a small community where everyone knows everyone, there are many reasons to be honest in one's dealings, but in a world where you don't know or see your customers, well, I'm not sure that the same rules apply.
Remember, it was the free market system that gave us the slave trade. [Snark! Snark!]
Disagreeing With Michael Shermer Part 2
At one point in the Skepticality interview, Dr. Shermer states that he doesn't think electronic books will ever overtake paper books. He points out that the Kindle isn't there yet "and I don't think it ever will be."
Dr. Shermer doesn't mention if he has ever actually tried a Kindle, so I don't know if he's speaking from experience, but it sounds like he is just speculating. So let me point to Steve Gibson's review of the Kindle for a somewhat different take.
Speaking (well, typing) as someone who owns over 2,000 books, I can't wait until there is a device that will let me hold a good chunk of my library in my hand. Of course, wishing doesn't make it so, but I see several things that make me optimistic.
It looks like the Kindle is much better than its critics (most of whom have never used it) want you to believe. If it were just a little bit cheaper, I'd probably try it out.
But I'm hoping that once the API for the iPhone is opened up for developers, we'll see some sort of iBook app, because I could very easily read a book on my iPhone's screen.
Dr. Shermer talks about not wanting to drag a device onto an airplane. I frankly don't understand his point. I just recently finished reading Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, and I can state unequivocally that I would much rather have dragged a handheld device around than that 10 pound opus. In fact, it's partly because the book was so heavy, that reading it was sometimes a difficult proposition.
It did build up my biceps, however...
Frankly, Dr. Shermer sounds a little bit like the guy who, on the subject of the recently invented telephone, wrote in the May 26th, 1883 edition of Scientific American:
Despite the fact that recent experiments have demonstrated the possibility of telephoning over long circuits, it is to be doubted if the instrument will be used otherwise than locally. It is too sensitive to induction, to atmospheric electricity and to grounds for circuits exceeding a few miles in length. The experiments have been tried under the best, not under the worst conditions. It is hardly possible for the telegraph business of two large cities to be conducted by telephone by the senders of messages themselves, for 500 wires might not suffice to prevent a block in busy hours and merchants could not and would not wait. To operate telephones as the telegraph is now used would be equally impractical. Even where the instruments as little liable to disorder as the Morse, the greater danger of errors would weigh against them. There is no system of signals as clear as the present Morse code, as interpreted by the sounder. Each letter of a word is given in[and] the ordinarily good operator seldom err[s]or in the record. By telephone, it is the sound of a word and not its vowel and consonants which the operator receives and a mistake can easily happen even out of the best conditions. It is to be doubted too of the repetity [sic] of transmission by telephone, where the message had to be written down at the receiving station would even approximate that of the Morse system. Proper names, scientific terms and phrases in a foreign language etc., would have to carefully spelled out and even then would fall wide of accuracy.
Season Five
I'm really enjoying Season Five of The Wire, although some other folks are not.
It looks like they are bringing back a lot of characters from earlier seasons, possibly to resolve some plot lines. Or not.
I'm looking forward to watching all five seasons from the beginning once again.
Disagreeing with Michael Shermer Part 1
Michael Shermer has been touring to promote his latest book, The Mind of the Market. In fact, he was here in Philadelphia a couple weeks ago, and I greatly regret that I didn't make the effort to attend his lecture. Maybe if he comes back when it's warmer...
But I did listen to his interview on Skepticality, where he said a few things that I disagree with. Rather than one long post, I'll divide this up into several posts, one for each topic.
For example, at one point Shermer states that the government didn't have to "go after Microsoft" for being a monopoly. He points to the fact that Firefox and Safari are better browsers than Microsoft's own Internet Explorer.
Excuse me?
Doesn't Shermer realize that there might not be a Firefox and Safari if the government hadn't "gone after Microsoft"? Apparently not.
He doesn't seem to recall that in the mid 90's, Microsoft nearly drove Netscape (the number one browser at the time and the predecessor of Firefox) out of business. Microsoft, because of its monopoly in the Windows operating system, was able to strike deals with personal computer manufacturers to bundle its applications software. That's how Microsoft Word displaced WordPerfect as the leading word processor.
Because of the contracts that Microsoft forced on the computer vendors, they weren't able to offer alternatives to their customers. For example, if they wanted to offer a computer without an operating system (so that the customer could supply his own), they had to charge the same price as they did for a computer with Windows, and pay Microsoft the royalty.
I'd say that's exactly the sort of situation where a little legal intervention is appropriate. It would seem that Shermer's ideology (he's a Libertarian) is getting in the way of his clear thinking.
(And yes, the same accusation might be leveled at me. I'm a Liberal Democrat.)
Speaking of Liberalism, Shermer decries the fact that he can't get his Conservative friends to accept the facts of global warming or evolution and equates this with his Liberal friends not accepting free markets.
Say what?!
Isn't that setting the bar awfully low for Conservatives? Evolution and global warming are backed up by tons of scientific studies, and in fact Darwin's concept of evolution by natural selection has been confirmed by so much evidence from so many different fields that it is now one of the central tenets of biology. By contrast, the concept of free markets is a political ideology.
I just wish someone had challenged him on this statement.
January 06, 2008
The Final Season
The 5th and final season of The Wire begins tonight on HBO.
Some have called The Wire the best show on television, and who am I to disagree? It's certainly one of the most well-thought-out shows that I've ever watched, and it's gripping viewing.
Tonight's episode has been posted on iTunes, and I just watched the first scene (will save the rest to watch on the Big Screen), and it reminds me of something a cop once told me.
About 25 years ago, Skip, a patrolman on the Philadelphia police force, regaled me with stories of how they would often interrogate suspects by linking them up to a machine (any machine that seemed intimidating) and telling them it was a lie detector. It very often worked at scaring the suspect into making admissions he might not otherwise have made.
On tonight's Wire episode, they use a Xerox machine, and one of the detectives wonders how long they've been using tricks like this. At least 20 years, replies another.
This season is supposed to concentrate on the news media, and they've set themselves up nicely with one line of dialog: "Americans are a pretty stupid people by and large. We pretty much believe whatever we're told."
Should be a great season!
January 02, 2008
Who Will Be the GOP Nominee?
Giuliani is imploding faster than Veteran's Stadium.
Romney is saying one crazy thing after another.
Huckabee, well, the closer people look at him the less they like him. And the GOP moneyed interests viscerally hate the guy.
Is it possible that the Republicans will head into their convention without knowing who their nominee will be?
I know that a lot of the GOP base doesn't trust John McCain, but I think it is looking more and more likely that he will be their anointed one. And as much as I dislike McCain for many, many reasons, I think he is the least scary of all the Republicans in the field.
Just my two cents.