1. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #180104 by hungarianelephant on May 14, 2008 at 8:16 am

al-rawandi - Have you been reading Cormac McCarthy again?

EDIT - Ah, you have. Note to everyone else - not recommended while you are in hospital awaiting the birth of your first child. For lots of reasons.

2. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179959 by hungarianelephant on May 14, 2008 at 3:16 am

Theological pedantry alert

Funes is emphatically not saying that aliens are equivalent to humans. Rather, if you read what he is saying, he is comparing them to other "earthly creatures".

If they're not human, they don't have a soul, and the question of sin doesn't arise. Any more than it does with a snail.

I felt it was important to get that cleared up.

I wonder what fides has to say about all this?

3. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179413 by hungarianelephant on May 13, 2008 at 8:16 am

112. Comment #179407 by al-rawandi on May 13, 2008 at 8:06 am

But to be honest, most of the upper strata of Saudi society is western educated, and not particularly radical. Hopefully those people inherit the kingdom.

I wonder about that, though.

I went to college with the Crown Princess of Jordan, who was possibly the most deeply irritating person I have ever met. She didn't like me much either, but this is not relevant for present purposes. What is clear is that she and her family were quite western, not just in their education but in their general outlook. You'd almost think that the Enlightenment is about to descend on the Middle East.

Back home, the picture isn't so rosy. Given the choice, you'd probably take sensible leadership and nutjob population over nutjob leadership and sensible population, and both beat the crap out of nutjobs leading nutjobs. But you have to wonder whether they'll be able to hang onto power if they insist on being sensible. It's also possible that we could end up with another Iran or two.

And of course, the killer of Daniel Pearl was also western-educated, at the London School of Economics. It doesn't seem to immunise you against insanity.

4. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179397 by hungarianelephant on May 13, 2008 at 7:56 am

al-rawandi - Hard to disagree.

Of course, the Venezuelans don't riot if you put their flag on a football, so it's not nearly as much fun.

EDIT - Oil nearly always seems to be in the control of unpleasant regimes. I'm increasingly convinced that this isn't a coincidence. With resources at its disposal, oil-owning regimes can behave pretty much how they want without responding to the concerns of the citizenry. If they had to tax them, they might just provoke a revolution.

5. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179387 by hungarianelephant on May 13, 2008 at 7:34 am

104. Comment #179380 by al-rawandi on May 13, 2008 at 7:28 am

However, the oil market is global. If the US were not so dependent on oil, global demand would be low, and the price would fall dramatically.

Economically, there's negligible difference between buying your oil from Canada, pushing up the price that the Saudis sell their oil for, and buying it for that price from the Saudis while Canada sells to China.

Where is Teratornis?

6. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179381 by hungarianelephant on May 13, 2008 at 7:29 am

78. Comment #179304 by irate_atheist on May 13, 2008 at 5:04 am

People may be expecting me to comment here on this risible activity, but I won't.

Ah, you will.
Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go ON.

(This comment will make no sense if you ever change your avatar.)

7. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179267 by hungarianelephant on May 13, 2008 at 2:10 am

"Someone's making a lot of money and it's really, really wrong," added Twyman, who founded the Prayer at the Pump movement to seek help from a higher power to bring down fuel prices, because the powers in Washington haven't.

Seriously, if this is the religious right, we're all screwed.

8. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179265 by hungarianelephant on May 13, 2008 at 2:02 am

222. Comment #178985 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 10:50 am

And it's not based on consent of the majority, the general structure, the constitutional structure if you will is determined not by consent of the actual majority, but consent of hypothetical, perfectly capable but entirely equal persons.

And what does that mean?

The problem is firstly in determining what hypothetical, capable, equal persons might decide. And secondly in resolving disputes between competing interpretations. As I mentioned in the previous post, it's perfectly possible to imagine more or less unequal societies on which there would be differing opinions as to fairness, even from behind the veil of ignorance.

If you want a working demonstration of different preferences, consider recruitment into the US Army. Most of the front line infantry are from poor backgrounds. They may join for a number of different reason, but the basic economics of the situation are quite clear. You have a small chance of being killed. If you survive, you get your college fees paid for, which gives you a chance of a less poor life. You have no idea when you sign up what your personal outcome will be - a true veil of ignorance. There are plenty of people willing to take that chance, and plenty who are not - a difference of opinion.

Once it's recognised that there are possible differences of view, there are two obvious ways of resolving them. One is simple coercion based on the views of a "correct" group, which I doubt Rawls would have endorsed. The other is majority rule. Granted, I don't recall him specifically endorsing that, but it seems to be the logical conclusion.

That's not to toss out the entire body of work. It's useful to try to imagine society might look without the current vested interests. It's also useful to ask whether a given society is one which could possibly be said to be Rawlsian. The treatment of the mentally ill springs to mind - a disgrace in this country (Ireland) at least, and one couldn't reasonably be chosen in ignorance of whether of not you will suffer.

In any event, I'd be interested to read your paper on Rawls and religion. Is it published yet?

Interesting how far this discussion has come from the original topic. Jurisprudence is usually discussed in a vacuum. You lose marks in the exam by trying to link it back to the natural world.

9. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #179257 by hungarianelephant on May 13, 2008 at 1:25 am

15. Comment #179006 by Robert Maynard on May 12, 2008 at 11:29 am

Right, but who said life-prolonging medicine should only start when you're old? What if we developed technology that allowed people to literally stop physically aging at, say, 30? Now think of the money we might save. :P

That's a good point, provided of course that we all agree that we can't all expect to retire at 65 and live at the expense of the under-65s.

In the early days of the NHS, its proponents used to argue that it would save money in the long run. It would create a healthier population, therefore reducing dependency on healthcare.

This wasn't quite as much bollocks as it sounds, since much of the service at the time was geared towards dealing with infections which caused premature deaths. Some would say it still is geared that way. Still, the law of unintended consequences has a nasty habit of biting you in the arse.

However, I'm digressing. The issue is whether we should regard death as (a) something to be put off at any cost and/or (b) an affront to human dignity. I say no. It seems to put me in a minority.

10. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178980 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 10:37 am

215. Comment #178961 by scooternyc on May 12, 2008 at 10:11 am

To reduce any particular potential law down to the simplest objective statement is best as it then embraces all human liberty.

The difficulty is in determining what is "simple".

The European Convention on Human Rights tried to lay down objective statements. But in an effort to keep it simple, it had to introduce "simple" qualifiers. The result, by any reasonable legal standard, is a mess, as a cursory googling of "UK Human Rights Act" will disclose. Some would go further and argue that the HRA is actually responsible for a reduction in the total amount of liberty in Britain. And seeing the way in which the cases on house arrest were argued, I'd have to have some sympathy.

217. Comment #178969 by MPhil on May 12, 2008 at 10:25 am

What I'm saying is that the issues of political philosophy and jurisprudence (philosophy of law) are closely related to the issues of morality. "Justice" and "Fairness" for example. These need to be grounded in rationality itself. John Rawls has shown how to do this.

In principle, yes.

What Rawls never properly demonstrated was why his thinking should lead to his particular model. For example, if you had a good chance of a very high standard of living, but a small chance of a short, miserable life, you might actually prefer this to an "everyone is only ok" model.

As a practical matter, it seems to me that all Rawls achieved was a shifting of the debate into particular terms. Furthermore, the Rawlsian model cares nothing for notions such as a priori individual liberty: it assumes a general social right to determine the general social order, based presumably on the consent of the majority.

It's a pretty hard sell.

11. The Stupidity of Dignity

Comment #178968 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 10:24 am

How did the United States, the world's scientific powerhouse, reach a point at which it grapples with the ethical challenges of twenty-first-century biomedicine using Bible stories, Catholic doctrine, and woolly rabbinical allegory?

(1) Science delivers technological progress.
(2) Most people don't understand the technology, let alone really know what to do with it.
(3) Science disclaims ownership of the moral questions as to how technology should be deployed.
(4) Vacuum.
(5) The loudest of those who have anything to say fill it.

Philosophy is held in even lower regard by the general public than science. It's all very well saying that religion doesn't provide good answers, but it provides certain ones. If you want to counteract its malign influence, you have to bring philosophy to the masses.

Generally the article made some good points, but it was disappointing to end with

Worst of all, theocon bioethics flaunts a callousness toward the billions of non-geriatric people, born and unborn, whose lives or health could be saved by biomedical advances. Even if progress were delayed a mere decade by moratoria, red tape, and funding taboos (to say nothing of the threat of criminal prosecution), millions of people with degenerative diseases and failing organs would needlessly suffer and die. And that would be the biggest affront to human dignity of all.

Why? Why should death be regarded as an affront to human dignity? Death is the fate of every human and every other organism. But there seems to be an almost uncontested assumption that the indefinite prolongation of life is, or would be, a Good Thing.

This is not only impossible, it is also ruinous. Health economists reckon that 90% of health spending goes on the last 10% of lives. In the days when it could still count, the NHS reckoned that two thirds of its budget was spent on people in the last two years of their lives. To put that into perspective, it is 5% of GDP, or about the same as spending on education.

Is it not time we grew up a bit?

12. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178955 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 9:54 am

irate, I should have thought that the Daily Mail would be ideal for the aforementioned problem with your cat (205).

13. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178953 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 9:50 am

7. Comment #178240 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 2:00 am

One of the things we rarely discuss when debating people's reasons for continuing to believe in God and go to church is the sheer, soothing familiarity of the routine - and yet I think it's actually a very important factor. Anything that is predictable and has a particular, dependable pattern can be rather hypnotic, comforting, reassuring. No surprises. No jolts. Nice and safe. And let's not forget that, in the UK, at least, congregations consist overwhelmingly of older people, who have a tendency to be even more resistant to change than the rest of us. So a new minister; or an old minister who's read a new book; or a new style of service; a new hymn book; a new style of music; chairs arranged in a new formation; coffee served before rather than after the service - almost anything can trigger huge resentment.

This is absolutely correct. And the experience of churches up and down Britain is that whenever they try to breathe new life into the musty church, it works for a while and then they end up with fewer people than before, having alienated many of those who went for the tradition. It usually ends with an uneasy compromise. Or in tears.

One other point is that for all the public image of pomp and ceremony, there's very little in Britain that provides a clear link to previous generations. We're not family-oriented. Our cuisine was largely forgotten during the industrial revolution, and "British cooking" means modern stuff that you didn't learn from your mother. We have no ancient equivalent of Germany's Christmas markets, which go back hundreds of years, and few long-standing traditions.

What we did have was a church which didn't seem to have changed in centuries. This was bollocks, of course. The standard prayer book is from 1662, and thus wasn't used for the first three quarters of Christianity in these islands. The hymns are mostly 19th century, with a smattering of Wesely (who wasn't even part of the established church) and his contemporaries in the 18th. But still, the sense was there that little had changed for a very long time. The oldies at the back were arriving on a warm summer's evening just the same as when they were children. Bowls being played on a pristine lawn, the click of leather on willow, and cucumber sandwiches with the crusts removed.

Take away the comfort of the (perceived) tradition, the familiar cadences, the beautiful but archaic Jacobean sentences, and for many, there's not a lot of point in the whole thing. I certainly felt that way in my churchgoing days.

That said, my objection to the introduction of modern hymns was that they were, almost without exception, crap. The words were cringeworthy. The tunes would not make the top dozen in the Eurovision, not even if you sang La La La La La La La instead. Cliff Richard would consider them trite and pointless. There's nothing inherently bad about guitars or tambourines. Or even young men with beards playing them. But did the devil take all the best tunes again?

Next time someone tells you about Christian art, just remember that if they want to claim Bach, they also have to take U2's early, forgotten and unlamented shite.

14. Church of Scotland mediators to quell disputes

Comment #178938 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 9:12 am

Bald men. Comb.

Life. Get.

15. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178936 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 9:10 am

MPhil, do you go along with the notion of "innate grammar"?

Or do you not want to get into a Chomsky discussion after what happened to the last one? And the 87 before that.

16. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178927 by hungarianelephant on May 12, 2008 at 8:33 am

I agree with MPhil that Artful hasn't established that "meaning" is non-physical.

Even if he does, however, that just proves the existence of at least one abstract concept, which we can add to "truth", "justice" and "zinginess".

And that didn't prove the existence of God in the thirteenth century, and it still doesn't today.

17. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177404 by hungarianelephant on May 9, 2008 at 3:32 am

I'm not sure how I missed this, but why exactly does the C of E need a "head of research"? Can't they just ask the sky-bloke? I mean, he's supposed to be omniscient, right?

18. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177403 by hungarianelephant on May 9, 2008 at 3:30 am

Thanks Logicel, but ... I'm an eggplant? Think I'd better change my avatar to something in aubergine.

19. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177361 by hungarianelephant on May 9, 2008 at 1:21 am

I enjoyed this bit:

The Church of England disputed the forecasts last night. Lynda Barley, its head of research, said: "These statistics represent a partial picture of religious trends today. In recent years church life has significantly diversified so these traditional statistics are less and less meaningful in isolation.

Huh? What kind of management consultant gobledegook is that? Don't look at the figures, folks. It doesn't matter that people aren't coming to church, because they do ... er ... lots of other religious stuff. What do you mean, "what exactly"? It's diversified, I tell you. Now please leave me alone. I'm busy trying to leverage our customer focussed employees to deliver shareholder value.

"There are more than 1.7 million people worshipping in a Church of England church or cathedral each month, a figure that is 30 per cent higher [than the Sunday attendance figure used by Christian Research] and has remained stable since 2000. We have no reason to believe that this will drop significantly."

And I'm absolutely not going to tell you how we come to those figures. Well alright, we do a headcount. No, we don't know that those are 1.7 million different people. Yes, I suppose it's possible that we're counting people who come every week 4 times. Well, 8 times if they come twice. Look, it's the same way that airports count passenger numbers, alright? Please shut up.

20. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #177356 by hungarianelephant on May 9, 2008 at 1:06 am

465. Comment #176988 by D'Arcy on May 8, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Al asks about the incentive driving people without a profit motive. Let's just say that homo sapiens managed without wages and profits for most of its ?100,000 year existence.

Are you sure? How would you characterise barter, for example?

21. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177350 by hungarianelephant on May 9, 2008 at 1:00 am

94. Comment #177145 by Ed-words on May 8, 2008 at 4:45 pm

I am half Irish myself so I can say this. Have you noticed how many arrogant fools in the public eye are Irish?

Here, let me fix that for you.

I am half Irish myself so I can say this. Have you noticed how many arrogant fools in the public eye are pretend to be Irish because of some distant ancestor for reasons of political expediency?

Done.

(3/16 Irish and living in Ireland for 7 years, if it matters.)

22. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176877 by hungarianelephant on May 8, 2008 at 8:11 am

If your strike rate is as good as Dirk Kuyt's, I'll take my chances ;)

Off topic, moi?

23. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176870 by hungarianelephant on May 8, 2008 at 7:57 am

Good point.

Janet, a memo please to George Gillett, c/o Liverpool Football Club, Anfield, Liverpool ...

24. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176857 by hungarianelephant on May 8, 2008 at 7:22 am

There's a strategy? Has anyone told the owners?

25. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176853 by hungarianelephant on May 8, 2008 at 7:15 am

Well on the bright side, at least there's one actual deity supporting Liverpool. Most just think they are.

Cheer up, Quetz. I'm sure you'll win the league again in the next 18 years or so.

26. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176850 by hungarianelephant on May 8, 2008 at 7:01 am

450. Comment #176847 by al-rawandi on May 8, 2008 at 6:54 am

Liverpool fans are some cross between Kamikazes, Hells Angels, and al-Qaeda

SSSSHHHH! They can't take criticism or inconvenient facts. Remind you of anything?

Didn't Forest just get promoted to the Championship, or whatever it's called this year?

27. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176842 by hungarianelephant on May 8, 2008 at 6:48 am

444. Comment #176821 by Bonzai on May 8, 2008 at 5:55 am

I don't see your points really. So because government agencies are not always wise in giving grants therefore private industries are better decision makers because .. ? Maybe as far as profit making is concerned but why must profit making coincide with public interest and the logic of scientific discovery and technological innovations?

Yes, private industries make stupid decisions too. But if they are stupid enough, or big enough, or there are enough of them, they go bust. Governments are limited only by what they can extract from the citizenry without inciting a revolution. This can, and does, mean that they spend foolishly on foolish projects with impunity.

You are correct, of course, to say that $$$ does not necessarily equal public interest. It doesn't follow that therefore the government should either undertake the work that it deems the private sector will not do, nor that it should be the sole arbiter of what R&D gets done.

I think any one who wants to make the point that somehow private greed somehow serves society best overall would have a lot of work to make their case.

I also cannot see what the grant giving process have anything to do with the qeustion of what motivates inventors.

Unless I have misunderstood you, you were arguing that innovation could be adequately cultivated under a government funded system. What I am suggesting is that this is unlikely, or at best is likely to be staggeringly inefficient in the development phase. That doesn't address the question of what motivates inventors. My original point was that whatever the motivation of inventors, profit has been a fairly successful driver of development, as distinct from research. That does not justify the capitalist system, per se, but it does set a standard by which other systems must be judged.

448. Comment #176838 by al-rawandi on May 8, 2008 at 6:32 am

I was in Manchester last week (hence the Arkwright and Lowry references), and managed to get in a visit to one of the old cotton mills.

Seeing how things used to work there is a sobering experience. I can begin to understand what Marx and Engels were on about. Until now they seemed far detached from a modern reality. Are any of their points still valid? I'd like to reserve judgment until I've also reread the Communist Manifesto.

Years later, the City of Manchester tried to erect a statue of Engels on the site of his father's mill. (It's still waiting for the statue of Rutherford, which would of course be politically incorrect in a self-styled "Nuclear Free City". WTF does that mean? Is it entirely composed of electrons?) It found that it couldn't do so, because a motorway has been built through it. Having chosen an entirely different site, it ran into a different problem. It couldn't find any representation of Engels, because Stalin had his contribution expunged.

Read into that what you will.

Likewise, read what you will into the fact that two of the great cults of the 20th century, communism and Manchester United, were born within 400 yards of each other.

28. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176823 by hungarianelephant on May 8, 2008 at 5:57 am

442. Comment #176810 by Bonzai on May 8, 2008 at 5:21 am

However, I do have a lot of problems with the unsubstantiated claim that the profit motive and the drive of getting ever more,--pure greed,--is intrinsically tied to innovations and that without it, society would become stagnant. This is a myth propagated by economics textbooks, and it is stated as an axiom without any supporting evidence.

It's a long time since I read Adam Smith, but I do wonder if the proponents of this argument actually mean something quite different from Smith.

The famous example given by Smith is of the division of labour in the production of pins. The point being that no one suddenly invented the WonderPin pin-maker, or some other creation with misPlacEd capiTalS. It was a long process of incremental innovations to the method of producing it.

When you're competing with other pin manufacturers, you try to find some way to get ahead - or someone else will. It is a method of self-preservation. Can it also be creative? Possibly - many business people take a lot of pride in the creation of their business and what they consider their unique business culture. But I digress.

His point is that this sort of innovation drives along the process of making pins more efficiently. The same might be applied to many other fields of business.

Is this the only kind of "innovation"? I don't think even Adam Smith would have thought that it was. You might paint the Sistine Chapel for money, but as you observe, that is presumably not why Michaelangelo became an artist. Likewise you might invent the jet engine or the clockwork radio, or spend years trying to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, for the sheer love of it, even at the expense of more lucrative pursuits.

This doesn't undermine Smith's basic hypothesis. It just cautions us against interpreting it too liberally.

Just seen your last post - I will also plead the tenth.

29. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176816 by hungarianelephant on May 8, 2008 at 5:45 am

Bonzai - How do you decide who gets the grants enabling them to "think and tinker"?

30. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176808 by hungarianelephant on May 8, 2008 at 5:19 am

438. Comment #176799 by Bonzai on May 8, 2008 at 3:40 am

So you are basically saying that the inducement of profit is necessary for innovations because that provides the incentives for folks that own a lot shit to deploy their resources in such a way to get more shit.

No. There are other ways. A lot of innovation comes out of the military, especially during war time. Other big government projects have also been successful in innovation, but as far as I can remember they all had some war connection. But it takes an enthusiastic Nietzschian to argue in favour of war on that ground.

There's also coercion, which hasn't worked terribly well.

Profit is a method of inducing innovation, which I would argue is the least unpalatable and most efficient method created so far.

That is true, but only because some private, unaccountable horders are allowed to own a large portion of a country's resources and production capacity and to do as they please with these assets to begin with.

That's a telling way of putting it. In what sense are the owners of property "private", "unaccountable" or "horders"; in what sense do "resources" and "production capacity" belong to a country? You could argue in entirely the other direction - that property accumulated by rightful means belongs absolutely to the holder, and coerced attempts to relieve him of it (viz. government) are inherently immoral. We never hear this, of course, because our academics are more familiar with Marx than Nozick.

Your argument, while correct, is not much different from the hypothetical argument I came up with in my previous post that the Church (and the lords) was necessary for the arts because no one else would spend so lavishly on paintings, sculptures and fine music. Well, true technically but it was historically contingent.

I agree, to a point. Of course this is entirely different from the argument that the Church is therefore a Good Thing. The leap that has to be made is that "fine art outweighs the bad points of the Church". Or here, "innovation outweighs the bad points of capitalism". The general assumption is that increasing general wealth is a Good Thing, and the evidence of the alternative systems tried is that they don't achieve it as well as capitalism, whatever its faults. That's open to challenge on the basis that (a) the assumption is incorrect, or (b) there is a better system which will demonstrably work. But until that challenge is taken up, it's just a lot of strident people shouting about "injustice", as defined by them.

If development has to rely solely on market force and the profit motive then we are likely screwed because R&D is a high risk undertaking and it may take a while before new discoveries become marketable.

That's very possibly true. In fact if you look at the pharma industry closely, you realise that overall it actually loses money. Most biotech companies run out of cash before they get a product out. Most of the rest are taken over, or their technology inlicensed by big pharma. Very few join the top table.

Investment behaviour in the sector (and generally) appears irrational. The ability to generate cash over time is heavily discounted in favour of immediate returns. Meanwhile, there is never a shortage of people prepared to put their money into small biotech stocks which, overall, will lose money, but picking the right one will strike gold. The behaviour of investors as individuals is much more rational - given the typical investment cycle, it doesn't make sense to take the long view: the company will go bust before then.

I don't know how we can address this. What I do know is that in its 40 year history, the eastern bloc produced not a single new drug.

most innovations could have taken place in university labs if they are not so underfunded and have to rely on deep pockets

By what standard are universities "underfunded"?

Also, pharmacology has to be built on basic research in biology, physiology and chemistry, all of these are done in university labs mostly funded by the government (hence tax payers). The pharmaceutical industry benefits directly from these research and pays not a red cent for them except for its normal share of taxes (which is quite minimal comparing to the money it has to cough up in order to do all the necessary R&D itself)

There's a kernel of truth in this, but again it brings us back to the original point about distinguishing invention from development. For example, the latest and greatest thing in pharma, monoclonal antibodies, are something that the US govt are now trying to take credit for. And it's technically true that some of the early research was funded by the taxpayers. Since then, in excess of $10bn of private money has been spent on researching specific biologics and developing them into usuable treatments, dwarfing the original taxpayer contribution.

This was once characterised by a poster on another thread as "putting it in a blister, selling it and calling yourself an innovator". Plenty of people want to buy into this demonisation of the industry, for various reasons. But as I think your post recognises, the reality is a little more complex than that, or indeed what some overpaid CEO writes in the annual report.

31. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #176764 by hungarianelephant on May 8, 2008 at 1:21 am

430. Comment #176585 by Bonzai on May 7, 2008 at 4:20 pm

I think we need to draw a distinction here between invention and development.

If you want to paint a picture in a particular novel way, the main thing you need is an inventive brain. The other stuff you need - canvas, brushes, paints, maybe a couple of knives, are easily and cheaply obtained. Some of Lowry's best work was pencil on bits of card.

Some scientific discoveries are like that. What they required was some brilliant insight, basic equipment, time and the right kind of obsessiveness. It's reasonable to assume that this sort of activity might also go on in a non-profit environment, so long as the authorities desist from sending people to the gulags or depriving them of the time they need to do this (and it's noticeable how many of the great 19th century scientists were gentlemen of means).

But others need a staggering amount of money to develop them. Arkwright might have come up with the idea of the Spinning Jenny in a different society, but it took him years and lots of resources to develop it to a usable level. He's probably not going to invest in such a concept unless he thinks he can make some money at the end of it. Same goes for most of the inventions that created the industrial revolution.

The biggest share of non-military R&D spending goes into the pharma industry. There are a few brilliant individuals who are able to invent (or "discover") a new molecule, and demonstrably don't do so purely for profit - as you say, they are on fixed salaries and sign over the rights to their invention to the company. That alone won't get you anywhere. The aim is to turn it into a product which will help people's health, and for that you need resources, and for that you need profit incentive. Or some other alternative which we have yet to see.

32. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #176007 by hungarianelephant on May 6, 2008 at 10:44 am

The article doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It seems to presuppose that the only reason for a rebellion against the Catholic hierachy is its dealings with abuse by priests. Rat says "I feel deeply ashamed, though not ashamed enough to do anything about it" and everyone says "Oh, that's alright then. Revolution's off. See you Sunday."

One thing is right, though. If you don't like it, you can always shop elsewhere. Especially now that they don't have the power to burn heretics. A rebellion would be about as useful as an attempt to depose the Tesco board because you don't like their carrots.

33. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #176000 by hungarianelephant on May 6, 2008 at 10:38 am

16. Comment #175959 by Spinoza on May 6, 2008 at 9:33 am

Priests are not raping children because they are sex-starved (otherwise a heck of a lot more husbands would be raping their childrens' playmates). Priests are raping children because the priesthood has become a safe-haven for pedophiles.

Whether religion or genes caused them to BE pedophiles is somewhat irrelevant to the moral issue, which is that the religion has not, and is not dealing with the problem appropriately.

Absolutely correct. The celibacy rule is a red herring.

The enquiry into sexual abuse by priests in the Ferns Diocese in Co. Wexford, Ireland, concluded that a number of paedophiles had joined the priesthood precisely because of the trusted access it would give them to children.

The Catholic church will never deal with this issue - and possibly couldn't even if it wanted to. Let's not forget that Ratzinger was probably the man who knew more than any other single person about what had been going on, and orchestrated the cover-up.

34. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167664 by hungarianelephant on April 24, 2008 at 8:47 am

1008. Comment #167647 by irate_atheist on April 24, 2008 at 8:37 am

Don't tell me, elephant. Someone stole your penis.

Exactly how many elephant penis gags were you looking for, here?

35. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167644 by hungarianelephant on April 24, 2008 at 8:31 am

"Re-usage of similar parts in different organisms."

That might also suggest a non-designed process.

At best, for ID, it suggests a rather lazy and less than omniscient designer.

ID would also predict that designs were fit for the purpose for which they are actually used. Between my spine and my wife's pelvis, I would say that that prediction is falsified.

36. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167634 by hungarianelephant on April 24, 2008 at 8:19 am

986. Comment #167596 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 7:32 am

As per the Tenth Amendment, all powers which are not assigned to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution are reserved to the people or individual states. Since the federal Constitution does not mention education, and the U.S. Supreme Court has held conclusively there is no federal Constitutional right to an education, public education has always been under the general control of the individual states. It appears that public education as we know it today started with Michigan in the 1840's so we will need better cloning technology before asking any of the founding father's opinions.

That makes no legal sense. The absence of a right to education does not imply that the 10th amendment applies. There is no constitutional right to cigarettes, but there is absolutely no doubt that the federal government can control trade in them.

I think what you are saying here is that since public education didn't exist in the late eighteenth century, the Founding Fathers cannot be said to have had a view on it. That's fundamentally true, although it destroys Chuck Norris' argument.

What they did have clear views on was the separation of church and state. And we're not going to let you sneak a way round that with the Tenth Amendment. The Grumet decision already sorted that one out.

37. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #167446 by hungarianelephant on April 24, 2008 at 3:59 am

152. Comment #167336 by Raiko on April 23, 2008 at 11:01 pm

The problem with many scientific subjects, however, is that they have an impact on all of us. Take climate change and medicine, for example. So naturally, people do want to take part in the discussion, and that is quite alright. However, if they do want to take part, it is their job to get educated beforehand so they can take part in the discussion. It might be frustrating that you have to get into the subject first and do some work, before you can raise your voice, but any other way slows down the advance and progress on the subject.

I entirely agree.

Another part of the problem (he says, shifting towards Steve's position just a little) is that it's often difficult to separate scientific fact from scientifically based judgment.

You mention medicine. Take the simple question: is Vioxx safe?

On its face, this is a scientific question. But once you start poking around, you realise that "safe" is a moveable feast. Science can tell you exactly what side effects have been experienced in the patient population of the clinical studies in the duration of those studies. But, given that there are some side effects in some patients, as there always are, how do you decide whether these studies constitute "safe"?

In truth, "safety" is a concept that can't be divorced from effect. If Vioxx cured Alzheimers, it would be pronounced "safe" in a heartbeat. But it was a painkiller, and not a particularly good one. So when it turns out that it is causing cardiac problems in a very small proportion of the people taking it, it is pulled from the shelves.

The point is that this is a value judgment. In effect it is a political decision, though of course the FDA would never admit to that. FWIW, I think the FDA got it wrong in the first place: a medicine showing no benefit in effectiveness, a relatively trivial safety benefit (fewer gastric ulcers) and for a relatively non-serious complaint (pain) should have its general safety claims treated with much more scepticism. The Phase III should have been a bigger trial, which might have shown the problems earlier. For the same reason, I am infuriated by the high safety standards required of drugs for genuine unmet clinical need.

But the point is that these are political opinions, not medical ones. Without a basic understanding of the underlying medical science, but a detailed understanding of that does not necessarily make the opinion more valuable.

As a society, we decided that it was appropriate to have a licensing regime for drugs: a political decision. The criteria to be applied are also, in the end, a political matter.

Where it all goes pear-shaped is when people decide that not only are they to be sole masters of their own destiny (a fair enough argument, but one which is incompatible with a licensing regime), but they are also entitled to their own view of scientific facts. A recent example was of the group seeking Herceptin for early stage breast cancer. It was not licensed, because it had been scientifically proven not to work at that stage. That is not a value judgment, it is a statement of fact. They asserted that because their GPs, on the basis of no evidence, thought it might be a good idea, they were entitled to have it prescribed and paid for by the British taxpayer.

There is a world of difference between arguing about the criteria for licensing and arguing about scientific facts. We need to educate people about this, but scientists also need to recognise the distinction. Telling these women that scientists are the sole arbiters of their treatment is not an effective political strategy.

As was proven. They got their Herceptin. History does not relate who was deprived of safe and effective treatments as a result of the ensuing hole in the budget.

38. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #167430 by hungarianelephant on April 24, 2008 at 3:13 am

146. Comment #166650 by Teratornis on April 23, 2008 at 11:15 am

On what are you basing your cost estimate?

Honestly? I pulled it out of my arse. Or to be strictly accurate, I use the same method as estimating the cost of building projects or legal work: take the most outrageously large number you think it can possibly be, and double it.

We are talking about two different things here. I am talking about research to create reasonably economic alternatives to oil. You are talking about the cost of implementing those alternatives.

I'm in no position to disagree with your numbers. In fact they seem quite conservative. But one of the problems we face is that we don't really have much to start with at the moment. As you've been at pains to point out, much of our energy consumption is related to transport, and with a few exceptions, that requires a portable way of generating plenty of power, or at least of storing it efficiently.

Undoubtedly, part of the solution is to reduce transport, but that has realistic limits over a short to medium timescale. Converting cars to fusion, or some sort of fuel cell ultimately powered by it, would undoubtedly be monstrously expensive. But it would probably be less painful than simply running out of oil without a viable alternative. We have to start somewhere.

39. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166556 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 9:53 am

Steve - Always a pleasure talking to you.

Not to prolong the discussion, but I do think that there is a serious issue as to whether resources might not be better spent on research into alternative fuels rather than the proliferation of "green" projects and bribes to tinpot third world dictators not to develop their economy. A couple of hundred billion dollars, 2-3 years and a genuine political will to do it should, you might think, create something useful and economic. Manhattan Project, anyone? And if it comes out of the budget for the invasion of Iran, so be it: it may achieve more, and cheaper.

I'd like to see countries invited to contribute in proportion to their current energy use, the quid pro quo being that they will get a free licence to the technology produced.

The oil lobby will hate it. The Saudis will hate it more. Screw em. Time for some politics with backbone, I say.

40. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166520 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 9:35 am

138. Comment #166502 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:24 am

I may change my mind about this when I am in a less cynical mood.

Aye, but by then, so might I.

Of course it does, as without the science, you can't make any estimate of the economic consequences.

Yes you can, as long as you accept the science as a given, which he has. Even if he's not actually convinced of it.

41. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166498 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 9:21 am

133. Comment #166480 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:10 am

How exactly do you expect the general public to react to discussions of statistical significance?

Now you're creating straw men.

What I am saying is that those who insist on misleading the public can't expect to be taken seriously.

The honest answer would have been, "We see no evidence in the clinical studies of a link between autism and MMR. If there were such a link, we would have expected to see it. We will carry out further investigations. In the meantime, parents should not worry. The risks of not taking the vaccine are serious, and our advice is that they outweigh any risks the vaccine has."

And add to that:

"I would not hesitate to give this vaccine to my child."

What exactly is wrong with that? Why the need for extra spin? Is that really the best way of counteracting the stupidity of the Daily Mail?

136. Comment #166486 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:13 am

The problem is when the political debate includes statements, such as those made by Lawson, which are clearly ignorant of the science involved.

Perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly enough.

Lawson's ignorance of the science, or otherwise, is beside the point. At least for the purposes of argument, he accepted the science involved.

Call him out on the scientific inaccuracies if you want, but that doesn't have any bearing on the economic argument. That is an argument about economics and subsequently about politics. Science has no claim to eminent domain, and hurts its public image by making such a claim.

42. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166482 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 9:11 am

130. Comment #166469 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:04 am

If there was a god, I would say God help us if it is left to politicians like Lawson.

And you're entitled to that (political) opinion. It doesn't advance the (political) debate, though.

43. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166476 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 9:07 am

Yes, Steve, it is. They may have studied the vaccine, but no one had studied the proposed link between the vaccine and MMR.

If they had restricted themselves to saying that they saw no statistically significant incidence of autism in the clinical studies, that would have been fine. But to a man, they insisted that there was no such link.

44. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166462 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 9:00 am

110. Comment #166368 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 7:44 am

Steve (btw, what's the new avatar?), we talk past each other.

Lawson has been saying all kinds of stuff about global warming since. I heard him on radio 4 last year talking about the possible influence of the Sun and it perhaps not being due to CO2.

That is fundamentally irrelevant to the major point, which is the question of how to respond to global warming. Lawson's basic point is that even accepting the IPCC's projections, the economics of the proposed response of cutting carbon emissions are at best questionable. Grumbles about water vapour and the like are no more relevant to the question of economics than his view on the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

What characterises the general response to Lawson has been the failure to engage with the central, economic, argument. Given the way the carbon debate has been conducted, that is hardly surprising. But it is disappointing, and it does point up what I was originally talking about, which is the silencing of debate.

We don't need to cut back on the education or heathcare budgets at all. Just consider the amount spend on the Iraq war.

That's your argument?

Why is this a scientific question at all?

Because pumping CO2 into the atmosphere increases global warming. Not pumping so much into the atmosphere is not an extreme position.

Just because we aren't sure what is ahead, that is no reason not to slow down. It is a good reason to slow down.

That may be a valid point of view, but my point is that it is not a scientific one. "Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere increases global warming" is a scientific statement. As soon as you start talking about "extreme positions" and "reasons to slow down", you are not taking scientific positions but political ones. You are arguing about the best allocation of resources. I am not saying that at this point scientists should shut up. Of course they are entitled to an opinion. But it must be understood that it is an opinion and not a scientific deduction. In other words, everyone else is entitled to an opinion on that question too.

This is not how the debate is being conducted, and we all know it.

111. Comment #166371 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 7:45 am

Another factor to consider is that when one of these falsehoods is shown to be such, it reflects badly on the message as a whole.

Precisely.

I'm banging on about global warming because it's high up the political agenda. In fact, the Irish government put a leaflet through my door today telling me that it's the major issue we have to face, and that I should therefore support the Lisbon Treaty. So it must be true. But my complaints could equally be applied to lots of other subjects.

In an earlier post, Steve mentioned MMR. Now it may be a scientific fact that the MMR jab is safe. But the government's response to the suggested autism link bordered on the hysterical. Scientists were shoved in front of the camera to state, on the basis of no evidence because they hadn't studied it, that there was absolutely nothing to worry about. At best, this was misleading: the matter clearly merited further investigation at that stage. Couple that with the routine bullying the govt gets involved in on the subject of vaccines, and the fact that Tony Blair refused to disclose whether it had been given to his son, and what picture does it paint? Coercion, hypocrisy, cover up. You expect that from politicians, but the tool was science, and scientists, and it leaves a bad taste.

If science wants to be taken seriously by the general public, it needs to stop allowing itself to be used in this way.

45. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166365 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 7:41 am

104. Comment #166350 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 7:25 am

Firstly, Lord Lawson.

Yes, he made an inaccurate comment about global warming since 2000. For that he has been jumped on. But, from the very article you cite:

Lord Lawson accepts the IPCC's conclusion that we can expect to see a warming of between 3.2ºF (1.8ºC) and 7.2ºF (4ºC) by the end of this century.

It's a fairly odd sort of climate change denier who accepts the basic premiss of climate change.

Lord Lawson is a good example of the dangers of those who aren't experts in a subject making public comments about it.

He was speaking about the economic consequences. That is his area of expertise. I would rather trust his opinion on economic consequences than that of, say, an atmospheric scientist.

We really don't know what we will have to deal with. Short-term changes in climate have been happening faster than the worst predictions of climate models.

And yet, we are prepared to accept that it is worth spending hundreds of millions of dollars, which can therefore not be spent on education or healthcare, to mitigate effects that we don't even understand. What we do understand is that even if implemented to the last "i" and "t", Kyoto will have a negligible effect. Best guess: we delay the whole shooting match by around six years over the next fifty.

Why not spend it on research into fusion, or geothermal?

Why is this a scientific question at all?

It isn't, and by pretending that it is and tolerating no dissent from the accepted wisdom, we push people into extreme positions. Much as when the main parties decline to discuss immigration, the BNP increases its vote.

[Edit: will have to plead no. 10 for now, but I'll check in later.]

46. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166344 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 7:16 am

99. Comment #166338 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 6:53 am

But what do we do until the point at which the public is educated about the scientific method?
I haven't a clue.

For one thing we could cut out the spinning of science and the attempt to foreclose debate.

Climate change, for example, is a serious issue which needs to be addressed. But to listen to the way in which the issues are generally presented, there is only one possible solution and it must be implemented yesterday.

This is bollocks, and anyone with half a brain can spot it, even if they can't identify precisely what is wrong with it.

One strategy is to reduce carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels. We almost never hear about the second obvious alternative, which is to try to manage the way we cope with climate change. Since the first strategy is politically impossible and we're left with a fudge which will achieve almost nothing, it just might be sensible to consider trying to do the second, if nothing else in tandem with the first. The problem being that it doesn't give you a reasonable excuse to increase taxes.

Lord Lawson recently advocated the second strategy. And guess what? He's called a "climate change denier" (even though he isn't). Voices of reason are shouted down, and pretty soon the only ones you hear are the green lobby on one side, and the oil lobby on the other.

You don't have to accept anthropogenic climate change to realise that pulling hundreds of millions of years worth of oil deposits out of the ground, and burning it in a matter of decades, is not the smartest of ideas. If the debate were not so polarised, we might be able to have a sensible discussion about this, whether or not the scientific method is understood.

47. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #166337 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 6:48 am

92. Comment #166322 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 6:20 am

I think I am trying to understand why a typical member of the public seems to feel that their opinion has weight in areas of science. Perhaps it is because science is a such a foreign way of thinking that they don't understand the thought processes that they should go through to weigh things up.

One of the problems is that people masquerading as "scientists" keep trying to tell us what to do. And that proper scientific research is co-opted by politicians who use it for their own ends.

Steve refers to global warming. It's an excellent example. The science is that there can be little doubt that (a) the world is warming up, and (b) humans are at least contributing to this.

But self-appointed representatives of "science" won't stop there. They present data selectively (ever wondered why the baseline is always 1970?), pretend that future projections are set in stone when they are not, and, most importantly, tell us all that we must take drastic countermeasures by noon next Tuesday or face the apocalypse.

The application of science in a society is not, or at least not solely, a scientific question. Indeed, proper science expressly disclaims any notion that it is intended to prescribe any particular behaviour. It is a political question.

When you tell people in a democracy that science says they must behave in a particular way, for example by giving up their cars, you must expect a reaction. Rationally, it should focus on the weak points, namely the right of "scientists" to tell the rest of us what to do. This is particularly so when it turns out that some of the principal advocates have a vested interest, such as Al Gore's interest in a carbon credits corporation, and when it is perfectly obvious that Kyoto will make no meaningful difference other than costing hundreds of billions of dollars. But as a practical matter, resistance will hit anything where it thinks it might score a hit. It is polarisation.

Example: does the sun have anything to do with global warming? Scientific answer: possibly, but we're not sure. Political answer: science says global warming is caused by humans, la la la can't hear you. Response: er, we are being fibbed to here. Response after several translations: science says that the sun is responsible.

I have sympathy with epeeist's view that ignorance is lauded and that teaching is at fault. But I would also suggest that while governments insist on treating citizens like children who cannot be trusted with important decisions, this sort of thing will continue.

And I won't be drawn into a discussion about the Iraq dossier. I won't.

48. Gods and earthlings

Comment #166275 by hungarianelephant on April 23, 2008 at 4:35 am

coolwainy - You've missed the point.

If things are designed, then the statistical probability is that the designer is more complex than the designed. If humans are designed, then their designer (aka God) is more complex than them. But this leaves you with the problem of who designed God. Saying that God is the ultimate cause doesn't actually answer any questions, it's just a linguistic attempt to say "I don't know but I'll pretend that I do".

On the other hand, if complexity arises spontaneously from (certain kinds of) simplicity, then you don't need a designer. You just need something simple to get the whole thing going. Since this is demonstrably the case, it makes a creator-god very unlikely, and Dawkins has been very careful not to say "certainly non-existent".

49. Mecca should become core to measure time zones: scholars

Comment #165792 by hungarianelephant on April 22, 2008 at 10:34 am

What's the problem with time zones anyway? They're quite simple:

London - noon
Paris - 1pm
New York - 7am
Los Angeles - 4am
Mecca - 8th century

50. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165707 by hungarianelephant on April 22, 2008 at 4:28 am

45. Comment #165697 by AdrianT on April 22, 2008 at 3:58 am

We already have a practically atheist church in the UK - the Church of England. Aren't such services, for the few who actually go there, about showing off the new hat / keeping up appearances etc?

Well I haven't been in a number of years, but I used to be a server. This involved turning up at pretty much all the services, from the relatively popular to those with single-digit attendances. The lowest I remember was 4, and bear in mind this was in a pleasant Cheshire village with a real community nominally based around the church. You can imagine how bad things are for the CofE in other areas.

The really big ticket services - Midnight Mass and Christmas morning, possibly Easter - used to pack the church, standing room only. Most people seemed to be there purely out of a sense of tradition, and it's noticeable that over the last couple of years they can't even fill the building then. The majority of services were attended only by a few faithful. It's possible that they were there to show themselves to each other, but they seemed to be taking it seriously. And why in the world would you turn up at 8am on a Sunday when there are perfectly good services at ten to ten and 11?

Ten to ten was geared to, and relatively well attended by, families. On the whole, these also seemed to be people passing on a tradition. That left services like the twice monthly Communion. That's the only one where I got a distinct impression of fakery and false piety. Apart from the couples who realised they had to do this for a couple of months if they wanted to get married there, and would then never be seen again until their first child's christening, were a few Sunday besters, self-appointed pillars of the community and those who wanted to be. They'd number maybe a couple of dozen. Not particularly significant in the scale of things.

This is an n=1 sample, and years out of date, so should be taken with a pinch of salt, though I haven't seen much to convince me that it was unrepresentative.

Since I've moved to Ireland, I've seen a remarkably different pattern, at least outside the cities. Mass is very much part of people's lives. My (still Catholic) wife describes them as a "fashion parade" and refuses to go. (Her conversations with the invisible man take place in private, and the belief system is a la carte. I suspect she'll become a Buddhist eventually. But I digress.) It is noted and gossiped about if you don't turn up at least once a week. More particularly, it is a venue for people to meet and interact regularly. The only other remaining outlet in much of rural Ireland is the pub, and they are closing at a rate of around 5 a week.

It's easy to underestimate that factor when you live in Dublin, especially when you're the sort of person who never got anything out of the community aspect anyway. The article rather skirts around this issue, but it matters. If we want to remove the power of the church, we have to understand what people get out of it. And then somehow address it.