Lately, the issue of gun control has again become topical on social media in the wake of recent mass shooting deaths. It seems likely that very few people have changed their stance in response to the current spate of incidents. And it seems likely that social media posts for and against increasing gun control will continue to be posted after events happen - and the US continues to experience a high frequency of mass killings with firearms. Evidently the highest in the world, along with a large per capita percentage of gun owners.
I won't be rehashing all the old arguments for and against enhancements to existing gun regulation. It seems pretty clear that existing gun regulations have been notably ineffective at preventing mass shootings. There are three fundamentally different motives for mass shooting incidents:
1. Violent acts aimed at promoting some political or religious objective
2. Violent acts committed by individuals who feel they have been done some wrong
3. Violent act committed by people engaged in criminal activities
I'm not including herein any discussion of mass suicides using firearms. The incidents under #1 could be considered to be terrorist acts. The perpetrators often (not always) are willing to die in carrying out their violence, owing to a deep commitment to their cause, which can make it difficult to stop. Terrorism promotes the causes of governments or religious sects by instilling fear in their target population. Killing innocents is not only acceptable, but is often precisely the aim of the terrorists. Those engaging in terrorism see no meaningful distinction between innocent bystanders and military forces, insofar as they have little or no concern for anyone opposing their cause. A violent response to terrorism only aids the terrorists in recruitment of new terrorists to their ranks. Yes, self-defense is a reasonable response if one becomes involved in a terrorist attack, but it does nothing to prevent more terrorist attacks. Violence only begets more violence, in a perpetual circle of pointless vengeance.
Incidents under #2 are especially troubling because we aren't mind readers and have no capability for precognition (as in the movie Minority Report). Most gun owners have no criminal record and are not certifiably insane. By far the majority of them can experience personal setbacks (like divorce and being fired) without "going postal" - and they'll have little or no trouble passing a background check to obtain firearms and ammunition legally. A small fraction of them suddenly lose control and lash out with violence, many times with substantial firepower (e.g., assault rifles with large-capacity magazines, thereby enhancing their ability to kill many people). Many of them are not very concerned about being killed in the process of their vengeance, which (again) makes them difficult to stop.
Criminals, of course, recognize no particular obligation to obey any laws, and are more than willing to obtain firearms illegally. These days, it seems that despite stiff penalties for crimes committed while armed, most criminals carry firearms. They use them to ward off any efforts at self-defense by their victims, and to engage in "warfare" against their competitors in the crime business. Most are not very concerned about casualties among bystanders. Many firearms in the hands of criminals are obtained from non-criminal gun owners, often by those breaking in and entering homes (and businesses) to commit robbery. The "war" by police on criminals can result in racial profiling (leading to excessive police violence) and "collateral damage" to innocent bystanders. Most of them are not willing to die and, in fact, carry firearms as a self-defense measure (!) during their criminal activities.
Yes, it's a truism that guns are but a tool, and they don't kill without being in the hands of a human (except for firearm accidents). Nevertheless, the rampant proliferation of guns in American society has many impacts that lead directly or indirectly to mass shootings. It's easier to obtain a firearm than it is to become a legal motor vehicle operator (which includes penalties for irresponsible behavior, including forfeiture of the driving privilege). Contrary to a popular slogan, an armed society is not a polite society - it's a violent society!
It seems impossible to have a dialog on the issue of controlling firearms with the aim of reducing firearm violence. The topic is a deeply divisive one, with advocates on both sides adamantly resisting one another, challenging positions with the same old talking points without ever changing anyone's mind. The NRA has been such an effective lobby that any hint of enhanced gun control cannot make it through Congress, so national enhancements to gun contral seem out of the question. There's considerable variability among states regarding gun control, and at least superficially, there doesn't seem to be any consistent result associated with different levels of gun control. It's a complicated topic!
What we need is research into the topic of mass shootings, but in fact, legislation to prevent such research by the Centers for Disease Control has been pushed through Congress and signed into law. The issue of mass shootings is a challenge that has resisted any simple-minded "solutions" proposed and implemented. Spewing the same old talking points back and forth is pointless but we seem unable to get beyond the talking points and slogans on both sides.
We owe it to ourselves and our children and grandchildren to stop the pointless arguments and come together for a real dialog. Let most ideas at least be on the table, and let's think scientifically about what might work (or not). If after due consideration and on the basis of credible evidence, some notion is unworkable or ineffective, put it aside and move on. It's not worth repeating that this or that solution will not end all gun violence. Real solutions don't have to be 100% effective to offer real progress on reducing the frequency of mass shootings. It's not realistic to think that we can ever reduce the frequency to zero, so let's put that aside and start putting our efforts into finding methods to cut down on the massive number of mass shootings we have every year, without any requirement that it be 100% effective.
Friday, December 4, 2015
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
The evil of white privilege
Some recent news has revealed that some police have been planting drugs as evidence in prosecuting young black men and, as we have seen on numerous occasions, have been all too willing to use deadly force (or excessive force) preferentially on blacks and latinos. Yes, of course, this sort of racist behavior is not typical of all (or even most) police officers. And yes, of course, being a cop is dangerous and involves having to make split-second decisions. But the widespread existence of tolerance for this behavior when it occurs is simply shameful.
I grew up in a lily-white Chicago suburb, with virtually no blacks or latinos and only a few Jews. Hence, I had almost no experience with racial/cultural diversity. My first real contact with a diverse sample of Americans came when I was inducted into the Army. This turned out to be an unexpected benefit of my military service! In that experience, I actually got to know and become friends with a quite diverse group of people. The stereotypes I had heard as a boy were shattered by the reality of the experiences I had, and the main lesson I learned was that race is a meaningless notion. Knowing that someone is within a particular ethnic group is to provide no meaningful information about that person. You can only make meaningful judgments about someone after you get to know them personally and see by their actions just who they truly are. Most evolutionary biologists recognize that race has little or no substantive scientific value - apart from superficial physical characteristics and cultural differences, you simply can't assume you know anything useful about a person when you recognize their racial background. Default assumptions are often faulty.
As a white heterosexual male, I've experienced virtually nothing of the subtle and continuous discrimination that racial and gender stereotypes enable. No opportunities closed to me. No unjustified assumptions about my intentions and abilities. No barriers to the chance to pursue my dreams. It's only recently that I've begun to understand and appreciate the impact of the pernicious and pervasive treatment that many people experience on a daily basis as a result of white heterosexual male privilege (or "white privilege" for short). Imagine, if you can, my white heterosexual male friends, the effect of being stereotyped on a daily basis, by police, by employers, by strangers, and many others while simply going about the business of living. Imagine being seen by many as likely to be a drug dealer, a gang-banger, a vicious criminal, an ignorant laborer, an incompetent, a thief, a lazy welfare cheat - all by people who actually know nothing of who you are and what you truly represent as a human being. All they see are stereotypes.
When someone speaks up to defend themselves from this sort of treatment, they're often labeled a racist (an ironic twist) and a dangerous trouble-maker! The victims of this contempt and even hatred from certain segments of American society have to explain to their children why they're being subjected to ill treatment, having done nothing to deserve it. They have to train their children in how to deal with police who should be protecting their rights, not violating them. They have to take special care in how they dress, how they talk, and how they carry themselves in public to avoid the unwarranted default assumptions tied to racial and gender stereotypes that can lead to violence being visited upon them.
This is mostly invisible to most white, heterosexual males. It's apparently not happening to us, so it's convenient and comforting to assume that white privilege doesn't really exist; to conclude that it's just some "politically correct" notion being foisted upon us. We don't feel "privileged" because our privileged status is so pervasive, it's simply a constant background note. Only if we could spend time in someone else's place might we come to understand and appreciate what white privilege does for us on a daily basis. If we can picture what white privilege does for us by recognizing the impact of its absence, then we might be more willing to denounce the practice wherever and whenever it occurs. The police tend to line up in a "blue wall of silence" when they see it happening - no doubt by a misplaced loyalty to their biased colleagues and by the threat of being ostracized by those colleagues who engage in discriminatory practices. The majority of good cops should welcome the effort to cleanse bad cops from their midst. As the old saying goes ... evil is perpetuated when good persons stand by and say or do nothing to prevent evil.
If we become close to someone with a different racial/gender background, we can learn from them just what their actual experiences have been. It's not quite the same as experiencing it for oneself, but when hearing about what your friends actually have to deal with, anyone can begin to recognize white privilege for what it is - simple prejudice without any real justification. Stereotypes and default assumptions about someone are not a justifiable basis for genuine human interaction. For my white heterosexual male friends: get to know your diverse acquaintances. Among them you'll find people you want to have as friends, and some you don't want as friends - in the identical way your white heterosexual male acquaintances include people you like as well as those you don't like. Pre-judgment on the superficial basis of race or gender is simply not consistent with reality. Put such notions aside, if you can, and reach out to find friends among all your acquaintances. You can learn much from their experiences, if you're willing to listen and try to understand.
A footnote: if someone makes the default assumption that I fit some stereotype of a white heterosexual male (i.e, a "redneck"), without actually taking the time to know me as a person, that would also be a form of prejudicial discrimination. Hence, there are some people who are not white heterosexual males, who actually are racists. Sadly, such prejudices can be found within any group of humans.
I grew up in a lily-white Chicago suburb, with virtually no blacks or latinos and only a few Jews. Hence, I had almost no experience with racial/cultural diversity. My first real contact with a diverse sample of Americans came when I was inducted into the Army. This turned out to be an unexpected benefit of my military service! In that experience, I actually got to know and become friends with a quite diverse group of people. The stereotypes I had heard as a boy were shattered by the reality of the experiences I had, and the main lesson I learned was that race is a meaningless notion. Knowing that someone is within a particular ethnic group is to provide no meaningful information about that person. You can only make meaningful judgments about someone after you get to know them personally and see by their actions just who they truly are. Most evolutionary biologists recognize that race has little or no substantive scientific value - apart from superficial physical characteristics and cultural differences, you simply can't assume you know anything useful about a person when you recognize their racial background. Default assumptions are often faulty.
As a white heterosexual male, I've experienced virtually nothing of the subtle and continuous discrimination that racial and gender stereotypes enable. No opportunities closed to me. No unjustified assumptions about my intentions and abilities. No barriers to the chance to pursue my dreams. It's only recently that I've begun to understand and appreciate the impact of the pernicious and pervasive treatment that many people experience on a daily basis as a result of white heterosexual male privilege (or "white privilege" for short). Imagine, if you can, my white heterosexual male friends, the effect of being stereotyped on a daily basis, by police, by employers, by strangers, and many others while simply going about the business of living. Imagine being seen by many as likely to be a drug dealer, a gang-banger, a vicious criminal, an ignorant laborer, an incompetent, a thief, a lazy welfare cheat - all by people who actually know nothing of who you are and what you truly represent as a human being. All they see are stereotypes.
When someone speaks up to defend themselves from this sort of treatment, they're often labeled a racist (an ironic twist) and a dangerous trouble-maker! The victims of this contempt and even hatred from certain segments of American society have to explain to their children why they're being subjected to ill treatment, having done nothing to deserve it. They have to train their children in how to deal with police who should be protecting their rights, not violating them. They have to take special care in how they dress, how they talk, and how they carry themselves in public to avoid the unwarranted default assumptions tied to racial and gender stereotypes that can lead to violence being visited upon them.
This is mostly invisible to most white, heterosexual males. It's apparently not happening to us, so it's convenient and comforting to assume that white privilege doesn't really exist; to conclude that it's just some "politically correct" notion being foisted upon us. We don't feel "privileged" because our privileged status is so pervasive, it's simply a constant background note. Only if we could spend time in someone else's place might we come to understand and appreciate what white privilege does for us on a daily basis. If we can picture what white privilege does for us by recognizing the impact of its absence, then we might be more willing to denounce the practice wherever and whenever it occurs. The police tend to line up in a "blue wall of silence" when they see it happening - no doubt by a misplaced loyalty to their biased colleagues and by the threat of being ostracized by those colleagues who engage in discriminatory practices. The majority of good cops should welcome the effort to cleanse bad cops from their midst. As the old saying goes ... evil is perpetuated when good persons stand by and say or do nothing to prevent evil.
If we become close to someone with a different racial/gender background, we can learn from them just what their actual experiences have been. It's not quite the same as experiencing it for oneself, but when hearing about what your friends actually have to deal with, anyone can begin to recognize white privilege for what it is - simple prejudice without any real justification. Stereotypes and default assumptions about someone are not a justifiable basis for genuine human interaction. For my white heterosexual male friends: get to know your diverse acquaintances. Among them you'll find people you want to have as friends, and some you don't want as friends - in the identical way your white heterosexual male acquaintances include people you like as well as those you don't like. Pre-judgment on the superficial basis of race or gender is simply not consistent with reality. Put such notions aside, if you can, and reach out to find friends among all your acquaintances. You can learn much from their experiences, if you're willing to listen and try to understand.
A footnote: if someone makes the default assumption that I fit some stereotype of a white heterosexual male (i.e, a "redneck"), without actually taking the time to know me as a person, that would also be a form of prejudicial discrimination. Hence, there are some people who are not white heterosexual males, who actually are racists. Sadly, such prejudices can be found within any group of humans.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
What distinguishes us from terrorists?
Clearly, opening our nation up to resettlement of refugees from Syria (and elsewhere) exposes us to the risk of allowing a few terrorists to infiltrate the US by masquerading as refugees. And if one were to be a victim of an attack by one of those terrorists, I can only imagine the rage that someone might feel about the situation. But let's just think a bit deeper about what's going on. The refugees are fleeing the war and persecution by radical muslims - most of them have experienced directly the terror of living in fear of the radical theocrats. They only seek to escape the horror of these brutal theocratic regimes in their own nations.
What actually would be accomplished by turning these refugees away? Is it currently impossible for terrorists to gain entry into the US by any means other than hiding among refugees? Will any effort to offer help to these needy people be outweighed by the possibility that some of them are actually terrorist infiltrators? It seems obvious to me that turning our back on the refugees likely will cause some of the refugees to become supporters of the terrorists, if only as a means of self-defense. Closing our borders will not prevent terrorists from gaining entry - some are already here and more will arrive even without this heartless rejection of people in desperate need. It seems pretty evident to me that declining to accept refugees carries with the loss of any claim to being morally superior to terrorists (who also have utterly no concern for the suffering of the innocent). We become no better than the terrorists by not caring about what agonies will be inflicted upon the innocent among the refugees.
It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that refusing the pleas of the refugees indicates an utter lack of empathy - the ability to put oneself in the situation of another person, and to understand thereby what they must be experiencing. Empathy is the path to resolving differences and recognizing how you might feel in someone else's position. If you feel religiously inclined, empathy and the compassion it creates is one of the messages in the new testament - the parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind quickly. We can be so consumed with tribalistic fear of people from other cultures that our xenophobia dominates our compassion, which is precisely the opposite of the message attributed to jesus christ. That message is simply one of empathy and the recognition that we are all the same underneath all the tribalistic superficialities.
I have no wish to see more terrorists enter the US. I would not want to see more Americans become terrorist victims. I can understand the concerns, but what I'm trying to suggest is that turning our backs on people seeking our assistance is not the way to address the threat of terrorism. In fact, it actually is a recruiting tool for islamic jihadists, who want to spread the notion that the West is waging war, not on terror, but on islam. It really isn't in our best interest to shut the door on the refugees. Further, history tells us that many people coming to America from foreign soil become the most fervent of American patriots. If we refuse aid to the refugees, or discriminate against them if they are allowed in, we're only giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. Our own self-interest should be considered here, and a xenophobic reaction to the refugees is contrary to that self-interest. Shutting them out will not solve the challenge of terrorists on American soil.
Some have said that compassion is a weakness that will be exploited by the jihadists, who will be laughing at our weakness even as they kill us. But is this putative weakness not the same "weakness" of jesus himself, as claimed in the new testament? Is this "weakness" not one of our greatest strengths, as a nation? What does the inscription on the Statue of Liberty say?
What actually would be accomplished by turning these refugees away? Is it currently impossible for terrorists to gain entry into the US by any means other than hiding among refugees? Will any effort to offer help to these needy people be outweighed by the possibility that some of them are actually terrorist infiltrators? It seems obvious to me that turning our back on the refugees likely will cause some of the refugees to become supporters of the terrorists, if only as a means of self-defense. Closing our borders will not prevent terrorists from gaining entry - some are already here and more will arrive even without this heartless rejection of people in desperate need. It seems pretty evident to me that declining to accept refugees carries with the loss of any claim to being morally superior to terrorists (who also have utterly no concern for the suffering of the innocent). We become no better than the terrorists by not caring about what agonies will be inflicted upon the innocent among the refugees.
It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that refusing the pleas of the refugees indicates an utter lack of empathy - the ability to put oneself in the situation of another person, and to understand thereby what they must be experiencing. Empathy is the path to resolving differences and recognizing how you might feel in someone else's position. If you feel religiously inclined, empathy and the compassion it creates is one of the messages in the new testament - the parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind quickly. We can be so consumed with tribalistic fear of people from other cultures that our xenophobia dominates our compassion, which is precisely the opposite of the message attributed to jesus christ. That message is simply one of empathy and the recognition that we are all the same underneath all the tribalistic superficialities.
I have no wish to see more terrorists enter the US. I would not want to see more Americans become terrorist victims. I can understand the concerns, but what I'm trying to suggest is that turning our backs on people seeking our assistance is not the way to address the threat of terrorism. In fact, it actually is a recruiting tool for islamic jihadists, who want to spread the notion that the West is waging war, not on terror, but on islam. It really isn't in our best interest to shut the door on the refugees. Further, history tells us that many people coming to America from foreign soil become the most fervent of American patriots. If we refuse aid to the refugees, or discriminate against them if they are allowed in, we're only giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. Our own self-interest should be considered here, and a xenophobic reaction to the refugees is contrary to that self-interest. Shutting them out will not solve the challenge of terrorists on American soil.
Some have said that compassion is a weakness that will be exploited by the jihadists, who will be laughing at our weakness even as they kill us. But is this putative weakness not the same "weakness" of jesus himself, as claimed in the new testament? Is this "weakness" not one of our greatest strengths, as a nation? What does the inscription on the Statue of Liberty say?
Give me your tired, your poor,Surely these refugees are "tempest tost"! Do we truly want to wash our hands of that message? The message we should be sending is that secular America occupies the moral high ground, and is distinguishably the moral superior to the terrorists. We should be putting our American (and christian) ideals into real-world practice, not honoring them with lip service even as we dishonor them with our lack of empathy for the suffering of others. Ultimately, that's a better strategy for fighting terrorism than xenophobic tribalism and bombs.
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
Monday, November 16, 2015
Religion doesn't get a free pass here
With all the anger and sadness that's been generated by the terrorist attacks in Paris and Beirut, many seem to want to describe the terrorists as demonic, inhuman animals and downplay any role that religion might play in islamic terror. We always de-humanize our "enemies" to justify inflicting violence on them. Well, religion doesn't get a free pass, here. The Koran is full of calls for murder to be visited upon unbelievers (including, by the way, muslims guilty of "apostasy"). Islam is pretty far from a religion of peace if you simply read the primary source of their religious dogma. The jihadists are giving their koran a fundamentalist reading, and accept the koran's words literally, rather than cherry-picking only the parts that seem peaceful and loving.
ISIS is openly seeking to return to a 7th-century version of islam, with its harsh shariah laws and aggressive conquering of territory in order to impose islam on everyone in full force. They seek to hasten the islamic apocalypse, not unlike their christian counterparts. [They're quite willing to use modern weapons and the Internet to further their goals, however, in a classic case of fundamentalist hypocrisy.] These people are not simply lunatics or wild demons - they're intelligent people who have adopted a particularly virulent perspective on islam and believe in it with what is clearly religious fervor. That doesn't make them lunatics or demons - only people guided by a misguided flavor of their religious faith. That version isn't shared by most muslims around the world.
They're too weak to impose their will in "set piece" military actions and are too small a minority to impose their will politically, but rather use the classic tactics of the weak: guerrilla warfare and terrorism. They seek to enlist more muslims to their cause by inducing the non-muslim world to wage war on islam, thereby recruiting new followers from among muslims angered by collateral damage from the absurd, unwinnable "war on terror". The fear and anger they create by their terrorism is working. The "solution" many in the West favor is that of military action, rather than seeking some other way to solve the problem of terrorism. It should be evident that violence in return for violence is almost never a real solution to the problem (despite the prevalence of vengeance as an excuse for violence in so many movies), but we return to it again and again because vengeance is easily justified, despite the historical evidence that violence only creates more violence in return. An eye for an eye leaves both sides blind.
I'm not saying we should simply surrender to violent attack. We can and should defend ourselves, and we should seek out and bring justice to those who commit terrorist acts. But as I've mentioned in the past, we should not limit our our responses only to military ones. We must address the causes of terrorism, and one of the causes is religious fundamentalist extremism. Religion cannot be divorced from many extremists acts (bombing abortion clinics, for instance).
Very few christians today would be willing to enlist in or otherwise provide support for a crusade against muslims - historically, of course, the Crusades were precisely a war by christians on muslims to "rescue" the Middle Eastern "holy land" from the "barbaric" muslims. To the best of my knowledge, muslims have not forgotten about the Crusades, and it's understandable if they see the Western war on terror in different terms than we do. The fact is that christians and muslims not only share the same deity (under a different name) but both consider the biblical Jesus to be an important part of their faith. Further, beyond their religious dogma, the fundamentalist, extreme believers in both christianity and islam are really brothers under the skin. For the most part, christians today dismiss those willing to commit violence in the name of jesus and christian dogma as "not true christians" or simply "nut cases". Most modern christians want to wash the christian faith clean of any violence (despite its prominence in the bible - as well as the koran), and don't want to accept any responsibility for violence done in the name of christianity. I see both religions, christianity and islam, as cut from the same cloth. Most modern muslims also repudiate the violence and hate contained in the koran, not unlike the majority of modern christians who repudiate all the ugliness contained in the bible. It's within those groups of folks that we might be able to find a solution to terrorism done in the name of religion.
Many of those same christians, however, of late are seeing islam as being responsible for the terrorism its extremists inflict on the world (which, by the way, also is being visited on other muslims as well as christians). This is spawning the very hatred of muslims that the terrorists want to create by their deeds. I've said many times, we're losing the war on terror, because (among other things) we've allowed ourselves to get worked up into favoring solutions of violent vengeance rather than a rational consideration of the causes of terrorism and what we ought to do to try to find real solutions rather than inflicting hate and vengeance on all muslims. I'm not saying it's going to be easy. I'm fresh out of magic bullets and I'm definitely not in favor of singing kumbaya around the campfire with terrorists. We have to work out a non-violent solution between moderate muslims and the moderates in the non-muslim world.
ISIS is openly seeking to return to a 7th-century version of islam, with its harsh shariah laws and aggressive conquering of territory in order to impose islam on everyone in full force. They seek to hasten the islamic apocalypse, not unlike their christian counterparts. [They're quite willing to use modern weapons and the Internet to further their goals, however, in a classic case of fundamentalist hypocrisy.] These people are not simply lunatics or wild demons - they're intelligent people who have adopted a particularly virulent perspective on islam and believe in it with what is clearly religious fervor. That doesn't make them lunatics or demons - only people guided by a misguided flavor of their religious faith. That version isn't shared by most muslims around the world.
They're too weak to impose their will in "set piece" military actions and are too small a minority to impose their will politically, but rather use the classic tactics of the weak: guerrilla warfare and terrorism. They seek to enlist more muslims to their cause by inducing the non-muslim world to wage war on islam, thereby recruiting new followers from among muslims angered by collateral damage from the absurd, unwinnable "war on terror". The fear and anger they create by their terrorism is working. The "solution" many in the West favor is that of military action, rather than seeking some other way to solve the problem of terrorism. It should be evident that violence in return for violence is almost never a real solution to the problem (despite the prevalence of vengeance as an excuse for violence in so many movies), but we return to it again and again because vengeance is easily justified, despite the historical evidence that violence only creates more violence in return. An eye for an eye leaves both sides blind.
I'm not saying we should simply surrender to violent attack. We can and should defend ourselves, and we should seek out and bring justice to those who commit terrorist acts. But as I've mentioned in the past, we should not limit our our responses only to military ones. We must address the causes of terrorism, and one of the causes is religious fundamentalist extremism. Religion cannot be divorced from many extremists acts (bombing abortion clinics, for instance).
Very few christians today would be willing to enlist in or otherwise provide support for a crusade against muslims - historically, of course, the Crusades were precisely a war by christians on muslims to "rescue" the Middle Eastern "holy land" from the "barbaric" muslims. To the best of my knowledge, muslims have not forgotten about the Crusades, and it's understandable if they see the Western war on terror in different terms than we do. The fact is that christians and muslims not only share the same deity (under a different name) but both consider the biblical Jesus to be an important part of their faith. Further, beyond their religious dogma, the fundamentalist, extreme believers in both christianity and islam are really brothers under the skin. For the most part, christians today dismiss those willing to commit violence in the name of jesus and christian dogma as "not true christians" or simply "nut cases". Most modern christians want to wash the christian faith clean of any violence (despite its prominence in the bible - as well as the koran), and don't want to accept any responsibility for violence done in the name of christianity. I see both religions, christianity and islam, as cut from the same cloth. Most modern muslims also repudiate the violence and hate contained in the koran, not unlike the majority of modern christians who repudiate all the ugliness contained in the bible. It's within those groups of folks that we might be able to find a solution to terrorism done in the name of religion.
Many of those same christians, however, of late are seeing islam as being responsible for the terrorism its extremists inflict on the world (which, by the way, also is being visited on other muslims as well as christians). This is spawning the very hatred of muslims that the terrorists want to create by their deeds. I've said many times, we're losing the war on terror, because (among other things) we've allowed ourselves to get worked up into favoring solutions of violent vengeance rather than a rational consideration of the causes of terrorism and what we ought to do to try to find real solutions rather than inflicting hate and vengeance on all muslims. I'm not saying it's going to be easy. I'm fresh out of magic bullets and I'm definitely not in favor of singing kumbaya around the campfire with terrorists. We have to work out a non-violent solution between moderate muslims and the moderates in the non-muslim world.
Friday, November 13, 2015
Debates on the definition of an atheist
Today I saw a post about a Pew survey of atheists that said "Although the literal definition of 'atheist' is 'a person who believes that God does not exist' ... 8% of those who call themselves atheists also say they believe in God or a universal spirit." There are issues with this! Many atheists will dispute that definition, saying that an atheist is a person who does not believe a god-deity exists. Superficially similar, these are quite different definitions. The key notion is that belief means an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Belief in a deity, therefore, implies a state of mind with 100% confidence in the existence of that deity. Similarly, if atheists believed with 100% confidence that God does not exist, then their belief would be the mirror image of a believer's faith in God. Atheism could be seen as just another sort of religion, then.
What's wrong with belief, in either case, is that there's no absolute proof of the Abrahamic God's existence - or non-existence. If such proof existed, there'd be no need to discuss this topic at all. Everyone would already know for certain that God's existence or non-existence was an obvious fact. If someone believes either claim with unshakable confidence, they must do so in the face of inadequate evidence to support absolute confidence in their claim - either belief would, therefore, be an act of "faith" where by faith I mean "belief in the absence of evidence". Belief of either sort is, therefore, not rational.
On the other hand, if your definition of an atheist means someone who does not believe in a deity (the Abrahamic God, Odin, Amun, or whatever), then it would be an outright contradiction in terms to have 8% of atheists say they believe in God or a universal spirit (whatever that might mean). If someone claims to be an atheist and then turns around and says they're a theist clearly doesn't understand the definition of an atheist. The funny thing about people who call themselves atheists is that we wind up disagreeing with each other a lot! A continuing point of disagreement among atheists is the definition of atheist, as evidenced by the Pew survey result and the comments it has engendered among atheists. Evidently, 8% of people claiming to be atheists don't understand the term!
Many people who actually don't believe in a deity don't want to accept the atheist label, for reasons of their own, so they choose not to call themselves atheists. Agnostic seems to some to be a less negative label than atheist. An agnostic is someone who claims not to know for sure, but at the same time typically does not believe in God. Agnosticism is a claim about a lack of knowledge, not a claim about belief. A few atheists are absolutely certain there's no deity, a faith I don't share with them. They would be "gnostic" atheists, and there are large numbers of comparable "gnostics" among theists. I consider myself an "agnostic" atheist, as do most of the atheists I know.
It's quite possible to claim not to be affiliated with any organized religion and still be a theist (or deist, if you prefer). [This was the case for several of the framers of the US Constitution, most of whom favored a "wall of separation" between church and state, to prevent the tyranny of one religion over all others.] There are some who regularly attend organized religious services but in their own minds actually do not believe in a deity - closet atheists, if you will. The issue of whether or not you participate in organized religion isn't relevant to this discussion, but not having a religious affiliation is in no way equivalent to atheism.
Most of the atheists I know prefer the definition I mentioned above - atheism is the negation of belief, not a belief. There are many analogies: baldness is not a hair color, off is not a television channel, not collecting stamps is not a hobby. These analogies are intended to illustrate the simple point that unbelief simply is not a belief. Unbelief leaves open the logical possibility that at some point in the future, absolute proof of a deity's existence could be found. As things stand now, any logical discussion of God's existence (or non-existence) is limited to the degree of confidence (i.e., excluding absolute certainty) one might have in concluding that God exists (or does not), based on whatever "evidence" we can muster. Absolute positions are irrational in such a situation, because that degree of confidence just can't be justified.
It's common in science that two scientists can look at the same data and come to very different conclusions. Both may have what they consider to be good reasons for their opinions, but unless the data are unambiguous and of an extremely compelling nature, they may continue to disagree. Science, contrary to a common misconception, doesn't deal in truth. Absolute truth doesn't exist in science (although it does in mathematics). All scientific ideas are subject to question and revision, typically when new evidence comes to light. Scientists never claim to know all the answers, in part because to know all the answers would be the end of science! No one has to "believe" in science. There are vast amounts of compelling evidence that science works in a practical, factual way that doesn't involve faith at all. The thing about facts is that they're facts whether or not you believe in them.
I've described elsewhere the sort of evidence I'd find to be compelling regarding the question of God's existence. In the absence of that sort of compelling evidence, the way the world works seems to me to be entirely consistent with what you would expect if there was no such deity. The Abrahamic God is full of contradictions and is irrational, immoral, and even has human failings (e.g., jealousy!), despite the claims of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. That deity makes no sense to me. I have an expanded version of my position regarding religion elsewhere, if you're interested. Thus, it seems highly unlikely to me that the Abrahamic God exists, and the burden of proof lies with the theists, who are making the dubious positive claim that the Abrahamic God does exist. I'm only making the statement that I'm not buying in to that claim.
What's wrong with belief, in either case, is that there's no absolute proof of the Abrahamic God's existence - or non-existence. If such proof existed, there'd be no need to discuss this topic at all. Everyone would already know for certain that God's existence or non-existence was an obvious fact. If someone believes either claim with unshakable confidence, they must do so in the face of inadequate evidence to support absolute confidence in their claim - either belief would, therefore, be an act of "faith" where by faith I mean "belief in the absence of evidence". Belief of either sort is, therefore, not rational.
On the other hand, if your definition of an atheist means someone who does not believe in a deity (the Abrahamic God, Odin, Amun, or whatever), then it would be an outright contradiction in terms to have 8% of atheists say they believe in God or a universal spirit (whatever that might mean). If someone claims to be an atheist and then turns around and says they're a theist clearly doesn't understand the definition of an atheist. The funny thing about people who call themselves atheists is that we wind up disagreeing with each other a lot! A continuing point of disagreement among atheists is the definition of atheist, as evidenced by the Pew survey result and the comments it has engendered among atheists. Evidently, 8% of people claiming to be atheists don't understand the term!
Many people who actually don't believe in a deity don't want to accept the atheist label, for reasons of their own, so they choose not to call themselves atheists. Agnostic seems to some to be a less negative label than atheist. An agnostic is someone who claims not to know for sure, but at the same time typically does not believe in God. Agnosticism is a claim about a lack of knowledge, not a claim about belief. A few atheists are absolutely certain there's no deity, a faith I don't share with them. They would be "gnostic" atheists, and there are large numbers of comparable "gnostics" among theists. I consider myself an "agnostic" atheist, as do most of the atheists I know.
It's quite possible to claim not to be affiliated with any organized religion and still be a theist (or deist, if you prefer). [This was the case for several of the framers of the US Constitution, most of whom favored a "wall of separation" between church and state, to prevent the tyranny of one religion over all others.] There are some who regularly attend organized religious services but in their own minds actually do not believe in a deity - closet atheists, if you will. The issue of whether or not you participate in organized religion isn't relevant to this discussion, but not having a religious affiliation is in no way equivalent to atheism.
Most of the atheists I know prefer the definition I mentioned above - atheism is the negation of belief, not a belief. There are many analogies: baldness is not a hair color, off is not a television channel, not collecting stamps is not a hobby. These analogies are intended to illustrate the simple point that unbelief simply is not a belief. Unbelief leaves open the logical possibility that at some point in the future, absolute proof of a deity's existence could be found. As things stand now, any logical discussion of God's existence (or non-existence) is limited to the degree of confidence (i.e., excluding absolute certainty) one might have in concluding that God exists (or does not), based on whatever "evidence" we can muster. Absolute positions are irrational in such a situation, because that degree of confidence just can't be justified.
It's common in science that two scientists can look at the same data and come to very different conclusions. Both may have what they consider to be good reasons for their opinions, but unless the data are unambiguous and of an extremely compelling nature, they may continue to disagree. Science, contrary to a common misconception, doesn't deal in truth. Absolute truth doesn't exist in science (although it does in mathematics). All scientific ideas are subject to question and revision, typically when new evidence comes to light. Scientists never claim to know all the answers, in part because to know all the answers would be the end of science! No one has to "believe" in science. There are vast amounts of compelling evidence that science works in a practical, factual way that doesn't involve faith at all. The thing about facts is that they're facts whether or not you believe in them.
I've described elsewhere the sort of evidence I'd find to be compelling regarding the question of God's existence. In the absence of that sort of compelling evidence, the way the world works seems to me to be entirely consistent with what you would expect if there was no such deity. The Abrahamic God is full of contradictions and is irrational, immoral, and even has human failings (e.g., jealousy!), despite the claims of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. That deity makes no sense to me. I have an expanded version of my position regarding religion elsewhere, if you're interested. Thus, it seems highly unlikely to me that the Abrahamic God exists, and the burden of proof lies with the theists, who are making the dubious positive claim that the Abrahamic God does exist. I'm only making the statement that I'm not buying in to that claim.
Saturday, November 7, 2015
A Culture of Contempt
Some recent FaceBook postings brought up an old notion that's been something of a hot button issue for me. In this case, it was a comment by an IT guy about how stupid the people were who s/he was supposed to be helping. I understand perfectly how frustrating it might be to see computer-challenged people doing what are really dumb things - like not trying a reboot before calling for the IT folks, or forgetting to plug something in, or not backing up important files. I can see that might motivate such disregard. However, IT folks are a type of administrative support for the workers in the organization. They don't actually do the productive work of their organization - their job is to help the productive people who do the actual work for which the organization exists in the first place.
Is there anyone who hasn't been frustrated with some snarky bureaucrat who rejects your applications because you're not filling out the paperwork correctly, or who stonewalls you in your efforts to do something because there's some sort of a rule against it? What they do is give you all the reasons why you can't do something, rather than offering to work with you to find a way you can accomplish your intentions. This shows an obvious contempt for the people who come to them for help. From small businesses to giant corporations and massive government agencies, the presence of the bored, sarcastic, sneering admin type is a near universal. Not everyone in such positions is that way, of course, but a widespread culture of contempt exists in the workplace (and elsewhere), at least in my experience, and I know many others have experienced it.
When I was in the Naval Reserve, my monthly drill weekend job was to work in the training office. Our office existed to help all the sailors in the unit set up their training plans - mostly arranging for their annual (usually in the summer) period of "active duty for training" and obtaining the materials for the correspondence courses they needed for rank advancement. I had no prior experience or training for this job (it was all OJT), so I found myself emulating the contempt for their customers of the other guys in the training office, rejecting their paperwork because they hadn't filled it out correctly and so on. When our division officer (a very good officer and a friend) got wind of what we were doing, he called us all in and proceeded to read us the riot act about our attitudes. I was filled with shame over what I'd been doing. How many times had I been on the other side and encountered that contempt from some officious prick of a bureaucrat? Needless to say, I (and the other guys in the training office) changed my ways and tried to be as helpful as possible. The other sailors didn't know our job very well, of course, so it became our job to help them be successful in their goals, no matter how silly their efforts might seem to us.
One more anecdote in a related vein: when I was a grad student, I wrote a computer program that, because I was such an incompetent coder, took about 12 hours to run on the machine we had at the time. [Later, I was able to change the code to make it at least 10 times faster, but that's another story.] The students who were the computer operators asked me to stand by while the job was running for a while in the evening, so if something happened early and the job crashed, I might be able to fix my mistakes and get the job done that night. So I had a lot of time to sit and chat with the student operators. One night they told me about one of the senior scientists in the lab was always unsatisfied with what the operators did, complaining to their supervisor about them all the time, often for things that weren't actually their fault. So, naturally, the students found many creative ways to sabotage his jobs! Tit for tat, baby! Considering I could see for myself that the students were doing everything they could to make my project successful, I was horrified to hear about some self-centered scientist who treated them so badly. I made it a point to mention how much I appreciated their efforts when I talked with their supervisor, in fact. It makes no sense to create unnecessary trouble for people you depend on to get your projects done. If for no other reason than self-interest (to say nothing about being a decent human being), you should always treat your "subordinates" with respect because your success depends on their help. So the contempt culture can work both ways.
Very few of us work in a vacuum. Virtually all of us depend on others to get our work done (right down to the maintenance staff), or we serve others who need our help. There's no good reason to treat others with undeserved disrespect. Every person in an organization has a job to do that is important to that organization. Otherwise that job wouldn't exist. Why treat co-workers with routine contempt? There's no valid reason to feel a sense of superiority associated with you and your work, as you look down at whatever anyone else does. This sort of disregard for the work of others is unfortunately pretty widespread. Personally, I find that if I treat everyone as an important part of the work we all are trying to do, it pays dividends for me in many ways. Furthermore, it simply feels good and seems to be the right way to behave. You only get respect if you give it!
Is there anyone who hasn't been frustrated with some snarky bureaucrat who rejects your applications because you're not filling out the paperwork correctly, or who stonewalls you in your efforts to do something because there's some sort of a rule against it? What they do is give you all the reasons why you can't do something, rather than offering to work with you to find a way you can accomplish your intentions. This shows an obvious contempt for the people who come to them for help. From small businesses to giant corporations and massive government agencies, the presence of the bored, sarcastic, sneering admin type is a near universal. Not everyone in such positions is that way, of course, but a widespread culture of contempt exists in the workplace (and elsewhere), at least in my experience, and I know many others have experienced it.
When I was in the Naval Reserve, my monthly drill weekend job was to work in the training office. Our office existed to help all the sailors in the unit set up their training plans - mostly arranging for their annual (usually in the summer) period of "active duty for training" and obtaining the materials for the correspondence courses they needed for rank advancement. I had no prior experience or training for this job (it was all OJT), so I found myself emulating the contempt for their customers of the other guys in the training office, rejecting their paperwork because they hadn't filled it out correctly and so on. When our division officer (a very good officer and a friend) got wind of what we were doing, he called us all in and proceeded to read us the riot act about our attitudes. I was filled with shame over what I'd been doing. How many times had I been on the other side and encountered that contempt from some officious prick of a bureaucrat? Needless to say, I (and the other guys in the training office) changed my ways and tried to be as helpful as possible. The other sailors didn't know our job very well, of course, so it became our job to help them be successful in their goals, no matter how silly their efforts might seem to us.
One more anecdote in a related vein: when I was a grad student, I wrote a computer program that, because I was such an incompetent coder, took about 12 hours to run on the machine we had at the time. [Later, I was able to change the code to make it at least 10 times faster, but that's another story.] The students who were the computer operators asked me to stand by while the job was running for a while in the evening, so if something happened early and the job crashed, I might be able to fix my mistakes and get the job done that night. So I had a lot of time to sit and chat with the student operators. One night they told me about one of the senior scientists in the lab was always unsatisfied with what the operators did, complaining to their supervisor about them all the time, often for things that weren't actually their fault. So, naturally, the students found many creative ways to sabotage his jobs! Tit for tat, baby! Considering I could see for myself that the students were doing everything they could to make my project successful, I was horrified to hear about some self-centered scientist who treated them so badly. I made it a point to mention how much I appreciated their efforts when I talked with their supervisor, in fact. It makes no sense to create unnecessary trouble for people you depend on to get your projects done. If for no other reason than self-interest (to say nothing about being a decent human being), you should always treat your "subordinates" with respect because your success depends on their help. So the contempt culture can work both ways.
Very few of us work in a vacuum. Virtually all of us depend on others to get our work done (right down to the maintenance staff), or we serve others who need our help. There's no good reason to treat others with undeserved disrespect. Every person in an organization has a job to do that is important to that organization. Otherwise that job wouldn't exist. Why treat co-workers with routine contempt? There's no valid reason to feel a sense of superiority associated with you and your work, as you look down at whatever anyone else does. This sort of disregard for the work of others is unfortunately pretty widespread. Personally, I find that if I treat everyone as an important part of the work we all are trying to do, it pays dividends for me in many ways. Furthermore, it simply feels good and seems to be the right way to behave. You only get respect if you give it!
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Strange bedfellows? - Meteorology and Social Science
I recently gave a talk at the National Weather Association's Annual Meeting in OKC on the role for social science in the weather forecasting business. This is something I've long been saying is needed, as a result of my long friendship with the late Al Moller. It was Al who first made it clear to me that just putting out a good forecast is only the start of a chain of events that must take place if the forecast is to be of any value to the users. By the way, I should give credit to the late Allan Murphy for his insight that the value of a forecast is never determined by the forecaster, but by the user of the forecast.
Anyway, I've presented this concept in several talks, usually with a tweak or two based on my most recent thoughts regarding the topic. For a forecast to be effective, it must be:
1. Honest
2. Accurate
3. Received
4. Understood
5. Believed
6. Helpful in making a decision
Only the first two items are under the control of forecasters. Once a forecaster transmits a forecast, the rest of the steps depend on others. Forecasters are paid to forecast, not to do all these other things. Meteorology is what they are educated and trained to do. We shouldn't expect them to become social scientists, as well! Moreover, most forecasters know little or nothing about how to go about helping the users make good decisions. Note that most users have to account for many other factors that go into making a decision besides the weather, and most forecasters know little or nothing about those other factors most of the time. Weather information is just a part of the decision-making process. The thing is that progress in forecasting is written in to the system, so while this blog is mostly about social sciences, the meteorology will be forging ahead, without doubt.
The existing watch-warning system, which began to take form in the mid-1960s, has saved many lives. It's not a "broken" system, despite the fact that it likely is far from perfect. I think I can justifiably assert that no one actually knows just how effective it is, but there are obvious declines in fatality and injury rates that seem to justify the existing system. If we intend to change it, let's follow the famous dictum (often erroneously attributed to the Hippocratic Oath): First, do no harm! Don't make stupid bureaucratic decisions in haste, just for the sake of doing something, without first having a clear picture of the shortcomings of the existing system and having a proposed change that has been given something like peer review - some sort of vetting process that includes participation by both forecasters and users, who after all are the ones with the most at stake in any changes.
We meteorologists need help from social scientists: experts in communications, psychology, economics, etc., where we have no expertise. We need participation from them so that any studies that review the current situation and any proposals for change will take human factors properly into account. We need surveys of what the public knows and actually does under the current system, over a very broad spectrum of users, since "the public" is pretty far from a monolithic block. Ideas for changes need to be given thorough testing to see if they actual improve upon the existing system by helping users make their own decisions. We do not necessarily need to be telling users what to do!! What we really need is to learn how to make our products more effective at helping users make good decisions with the information we can realistically provide for them (including uncertainty information!)
Although the movement to get social science into meteorology has been percolating for quite some time, and has become something of an "in" thing to advocate, what's been absent is much real collaboration between meteorologists and social scientists to produce actionable results. We don't need more conferences, workshops, and other "feel good" exercises. We need folks to roll up their sleeves and start getting some useful results to provide a scientific basis upon which to move forward. No more kumbaya songs around the campfire, please. Let's make something real and substantive, not just endless palaver. When we make changes, they need to be tested to make sure they're doing what we wanted them to do. The process should be one of never-ending evaluation and revision (see below).
If social science is to have a role in weather forecasting, and I think it should, then what might it look like? Does it make sense to have a token social scientist in every forecast office? I think that makes little sense. What about a Social Science Center, comparable to the Storm Prediction Center? I think the NWS will have heartburn in setting up something like this. What do they know about the skills needed to make it be effective? How would they know to pick the right people and what resources to provide for them? I think the best path for integrating social science into weather forecasting is for the NWS to have a budget that includes the funding specifically designated to support ad hoc collaborative efforts with social scientists, who would stay with their own institutions but form working partnerships with meteorologists to answer specific questions. This gives the most flexibility and avoids the creation of isolated "lone wolves" or some bureaucratic agency that would be a stranger in the strange land of weather forecasting.
Further, the NWS needs to understand this effort is not some sort of one-time project. It must be a continuous process, because the social, cultural, technological, and meteorological landscapes are constantly changing. We shouldn't have to wait decades for it to become painfully clear the system needs to evolve in the face of change. However, it will take some time to gather data about what works and what doesn't work with the current system, and even more time to develop and test proposed changes. Finally, before implementing anything, there should be an extensive public education campaign to help users understand the forthcoming changes. Let's not make the same mistake we made when probability of precipitation (PoP) was implemented in the mid-1960s. We're still paying the price in credibility for that one!
If this is done right, it will be a boon to weather forecasting and our whole society will reap the benefits. Please, let's not screw it up this time!
Anyway, I've presented this concept in several talks, usually with a tweak or two based on my most recent thoughts regarding the topic. For a forecast to be effective, it must be:
1. Honest
2. Accurate
3. Received
4. Understood
5. Believed
6. Helpful in making a decision
Only the first two items are under the control of forecasters. Once a forecaster transmits a forecast, the rest of the steps depend on others. Forecasters are paid to forecast, not to do all these other things. Meteorology is what they are educated and trained to do. We shouldn't expect them to become social scientists, as well! Moreover, most forecasters know little or nothing about how to go about helping the users make good decisions. Note that most users have to account for many other factors that go into making a decision besides the weather, and most forecasters know little or nothing about those other factors most of the time. Weather information is just a part of the decision-making process. The thing is that progress in forecasting is written in to the system, so while this blog is mostly about social sciences, the meteorology will be forging ahead, without doubt.
The existing watch-warning system, which began to take form in the mid-1960s, has saved many lives. It's not a "broken" system, despite the fact that it likely is far from perfect. I think I can justifiably assert that no one actually knows just how effective it is, but there are obvious declines in fatality and injury rates that seem to justify the existing system. If we intend to change it, let's follow the famous dictum (often erroneously attributed to the Hippocratic Oath): First, do no harm! Don't make stupid bureaucratic decisions in haste, just for the sake of doing something, without first having a clear picture of the shortcomings of the existing system and having a proposed change that has been given something like peer review - some sort of vetting process that includes participation by both forecasters and users, who after all are the ones with the most at stake in any changes.
We meteorologists need help from social scientists: experts in communications, psychology, economics, etc., where we have no expertise. We need participation from them so that any studies that review the current situation and any proposals for change will take human factors properly into account. We need surveys of what the public knows and actually does under the current system, over a very broad spectrum of users, since "the public" is pretty far from a monolithic block. Ideas for changes need to be given thorough testing to see if they actual improve upon the existing system by helping users make their own decisions. We do not necessarily need to be telling users what to do!! What we really need is to learn how to make our products more effective at helping users make good decisions with the information we can realistically provide for them (including uncertainty information!)
Although the movement to get social science into meteorology has been percolating for quite some time, and has become something of an "in" thing to advocate, what's been absent is much real collaboration between meteorologists and social scientists to produce actionable results. We don't need more conferences, workshops, and other "feel good" exercises. We need folks to roll up their sleeves and start getting some useful results to provide a scientific basis upon which to move forward. No more kumbaya songs around the campfire, please. Let's make something real and substantive, not just endless palaver. When we make changes, they need to be tested to make sure they're doing what we wanted them to do. The process should be one of never-ending evaluation and revision (see below).
If social science is to have a role in weather forecasting, and I think it should, then what might it look like? Does it make sense to have a token social scientist in every forecast office? I think that makes little sense. What about a Social Science Center, comparable to the Storm Prediction Center? I think the NWS will have heartburn in setting up something like this. What do they know about the skills needed to make it be effective? How would they know to pick the right people and what resources to provide for them? I think the best path for integrating social science into weather forecasting is for the NWS to have a budget that includes the funding specifically designated to support ad hoc collaborative efforts with social scientists, who would stay with their own institutions but form working partnerships with meteorologists to answer specific questions. This gives the most flexibility and avoids the creation of isolated "lone wolves" or some bureaucratic agency that would be a stranger in the strange land of weather forecasting.
Further, the NWS needs to understand this effort is not some sort of one-time project. It must be a continuous process, because the social, cultural, technological, and meteorological landscapes are constantly changing. We shouldn't have to wait decades for it to become painfully clear the system needs to evolve in the face of change. However, it will take some time to gather data about what works and what doesn't work with the current system, and even more time to develop and test proposed changes. Finally, before implementing anything, there should be an extensive public education campaign to help users understand the forthcoming changes. Let's not make the same mistake we made when probability of precipitation (PoP) was implemented in the mid-1960s. We're still paying the price in credibility for that one!
If this is done right, it will be a boon to weather forecasting and our whole society will reap the benefits. Please, let's not screw it up this time!
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
The recurrence interval - a PR disaster for meteorology
The terrible floods that occurred recently in South Carolina have triggered the usual brouhaha over the notion of the "recurrence interval", with the SC event having been said by some to be even more rare than a "1000-year" event. The general public mostly takes this to mean at least 1000 years should pass between such events, so it seems weather disasters of this sort must be "freak" occurrences, demanding some sort of special explanation. Unfortunately, a ready "explanation" for this event has been that it was caused by anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) global warming (AGW). Even some people who should know better have jumped onto the AGW bandwagon with regard to this event. I'll return to that shortly, but first I want to try to dispel some of the misunderstandings associated with recurrence intervals.
Atmospheric events are not "periodic" - that is, they don't occur at regular intervals in time. If that were so, weather forecasting would be a heckuva lot easier and considerably more accurate. Hence, the perception that a recurrence interval is based on some periodic atmospheric behavior is simply a misunderstanding of the term's meaning. Forecasting is difficult, in part, precisely because weather is most definitely not periodic!
Recurrence intervals generally are calculated by fitting some sort of statistical distribution (e.g., a Poisson distribution) to the existing record of events. It doesn't take much knowledge to realize that we don't have a record of heavy rainfall events longer than about 200 years (in the USA), so how can we come up with a meaningful definition of a "1000 year" event? The answer is simple - we can't. To do so is an exercise in extrapolation, and extrapolation is well-known to be a risky thing to do. If we had 10 000 years of data for every location in the USA, we might well be able to have a plausible definition for a 1000-year event at all those places, but such data simply don't exist. What we can say, from our knowledge of the occurrences we have observed, is that the SC floods were an event that is outside of prior experience (in SC). This doesn't mean it's a "freak event" for which some exotic explanation must be offered. Curiously, given that weather events happen when the ingredients for such events are brought together, the chances for a similar event to occur soon after one event has already happened are relatively high. If the weather brought those ingredients together on one day, there's an increased probability that it might happen again soon after.
For flash flooding, in particular, it's not at all uncommon for heavy rain to occur on two (or more) days in succession. The first event saturates the soil, creating the hydrologic conditions that make it possible for a flash flood on the second day. This has happened many times in the history of flash floods around the world. It seems silly to refer to an event as a 100-year (or 1000-year) event when it happens on consecutive days! It's quite acceptable to use recurrence interval terminology in the context of communication among scientists, because (hopefully) they understand what the term means.
Fortunately, the notion of recurrence intervals is almost never mentioned in the context of major tornado outbreaks or high-impact tropical cyclone landfalls. Most people (at least in the USA) seem to understand that these are not "freak" events, but rather occur at irregular intervals when their ingredients come together. They occur somewhere in the USA every few decades or so ... frequently enough that the public is reminded of the possibility that such things can happen. Major rainfall events also occur at irregular intervals, and often enough that people should get the right message: really big events can happen somewhere in any given year. But for some reason I can't explain, the reference to recurrence intervals is common with respect to heavy rains, and so this issue comes up over and over again. It's a public relations nightmare that we should stop inflicting on ourselves. In scientific papers, discussion of recurrence intervals is more acceptable, but making public statements about them is just confusing and makes us look silly.
Finally ... was this event "caused" by AGW? In a word ... NO! The event happened because the ingredients for a flash flood-producing rainfall event were brought together. Nothing particularly exotic was required and those ingredients were not, on their own, remarkable or unusual. It's always rare for really heavy rainfalls to happen in any given location and this was an example of a somewhat atypical weather pattern in which the flash flood-producing rainfall ingredients to be brought together. The threat of an additional event - landfall of Hurricane Joaquin - was never realized, fortunately. Nevertheless, the numerical weather prediction models were quite accurate in anticipating the heavy rainfall event in SC days in advance; the forecasts for heavy rains were quite good, as a result.
A somewhat more nuanced description of the role of AGW in this event is that AGW is thought by many climate scientists to make it likely that extreme flash flood events will become more frequent. This event is consistent with that prediction but, on its own, doesn't provide "proof" that AGW was a contributing factor. There are indeed scientific studies that suggest that heavy rainfall events are becoming more frequent. Thus, it's appropriate to say that this SC flood case is one more piece of evidence to that effect. But to say that this event was caused by AGW is simply not scientifically acceptable.
Atmospheric events are not "periodic" - that is, they don't occur at regular intervals in time. If that were so, weather forecasting would be a heckuva lot easier and considerably more accurate. Hence, the perception that a recurrence interval is based on some periodic atmospheric behavior is simply a misunderstanding of the term's meaning. Forecasting is difficult, in part, precisely because weather is most definitely not periodic!
Recurrence intervals generally are calculated by fitting some sort of statistical distribution (e.g., a Poisson distribution) to the existing record of events. It doesn't take much knowledge to realize that we don't have a record of heavy rainfall events longer than about 200 years (in the USA), so how can we come up with a meaningful definition of a "1000 year" event? The answer is simple - we can't. To do so is an exercise in extrapolation, and extrapolation is well-known to be a risky thing to do. If we had 10 000 years of data for every location in the USA, we might well be able to have a plausible definition for a 1000-year event at all those places, but such data simply don't exist. What we can say, from our knowledge of the occurrences we have observed, is that the SC floods were an event that is outside of prior experience (in SC). This doesn't mean it's a "freak event" for which some exotic explanation must be offered. Curiously, given that weather events happen when the ingredients for such events are brought together, the chances for a similar event to occur soon after one event has already happened are relatively high. If the weather brought those ingredients together on one day, there's an increased probability that it might happen again soon after.
For flash flooding, in particular, it's not at all uncommon for heavy rain to occur on two (or more) days in succession. The first event saturates the soil, creating the hydrologic conditions that make it possible for a flash flood on the second day. This has happened many times in the history of flash floods around the world. It seems silly to refer to an event as a 100-year (or 1000-year) event when it happens on consecutive days! It's quite acceptable to use recurrence interval terminology in the context of communication among scientists, because (hopefully) they understand what the term means.
Fortunately, the notion of recurrence intervals is almost never mentioned in the context of major tornado outbreaks or high-impact tropical cyclone landfalls. Most people (at least in the USA) seem to understand that these are not "freak" events, but rather occur at irregular intervals when their ingredients come together. They occur somewhere in the USA every few decades or so ... frequently enough that the public is reminded of the possibility that such things can happen. Major rainfall events also occur at irregular intervals, and often enough that people should get the right message: really big events can happen somewhere in any given year. But for some reason I can't explain, the reference to recurrence intervals is common with respect to heavy rains, and so this issue comes up over and over again. It's a public relations nightmare that we should stop inflicting on ourselves. In scientific papers, discussion of recurrence intervals is more acceptable, but making public statements about them is just confusing and makes us look silly.
Finally ... was this event "caused" by AGW? In a word ... NO! The event happened because the ingredients for a flash flood-producing rainfall event were brought together. Nothing particularly exotic was required and those ingredients were not, on their own, remarkable or unusual. It's always rare for really heavy rainfalls to happen in any given location and this was an example of a somewhat atypical weather pattern in which the flash flood-producing rainfall ingredients to be brought together. The threat of an additional event - landfall of Hurricane Joaquin - was never realized, fortunately. Nevertheless, the numerical weather prediction models were quite accurate in anticipating the heavy rainfall event in SC days in advance; the forecasts for heavy rains were quite good, as a result.
A somewhat more nuanced description of the role of AGW in this event is that AGW is thought by many climate scientists to make it likely that extreme flash flood events will become more frequent. This event is consistent with that prediction but, on its own, doesn't provide "proof" that AGW was a contributing factor. There are indeed scientific studies that suggest that heavy rainfall events are becoming more frequent. Thus, it's appropriate to say that this SC flood case is one more piece of evidence to that effect. But to say that this event was caused by AGW is simply not scientifically acceptable.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Abortion, murder, morality, and reality
I expect that this one will elicit strong reactions from certain circles, but here goes ...
Recent discourse on social media has brought to light what seems to be a telling argument against any abortion: that it's a form of murder and, therefore, is considered both illegal and immoral. I have no reason to dispute that abortion kills an unborn person. I prefer not to go down the path of debating the details of when "life" begins or what differences exist between a fertilized egg and a person. I'm happy to leave those arguments to others.
To me, the fact that abortion kills an unborn person is the critical issue, and most opponents of all abortion adhere to the notion that all life is sacred and we should never allow murder to be legal. I'll get back to that shortly, but I want to consider just what it might mean to assume that all life is sacred. For those of us that eat animal flesh, we kill animals (or, have them killed for us and prepared in neat packages at the grocery or served to us in restaurants) all the time in order to feed on their flesh. That bothers some people so much that they become vegans, eating only non-animal foods. But of course, that usually involves consumption of vegetables (and fruits, of course), typically "killing" the vegetation (or at least interrupting its growth) in the process. There literally is no way to avoid ending life in order to survive. In many cases, humans have interfered in the natural genetics of animals and plants to maximize our food production. Many so-called "primitive" peoples went out of their way to "thank" the food from which they derived sustenance in order to survive, through rituals comparable to saying "grace" before a meal. It's the way of nature that life feeds on life, killing the food in the process in order that we can steal its energy to keep us alive. So just how sacred is all life to us? Ever eaten lobster or shrimp or crayfish? How do we eat them? Often by plunging them alive into pots of boiling water! Guess we don't consider their lives to be all that sacred! Other examples abound, including such things as "trophy" hunting. All life is, quite evidently, not all that "sacred" to us if "sacred" is taken to mean that we should never take that life to serve our own purposes.
Can we somehow survive by some means other than killing other life? Unless we learn how to accomplish photosynthesis in our own bodies, this seems to be an unobtainable ideal. At best, we can try to be grateful for the contribution to our lives by our food products and seek to minimize any suffering associated with their domestication and sacrifice of their lives. That's another whole debate of its own and I'm not wanting to go there in this blog. OK, so whatever idealism might be behind the notion that all life is sacred, we must nevertheless kill to survive and the lives we destroy to sustain ourselves are testimony to the fact that such idealism is hopelessly ... well, idealized, and impossible to achieve on a comprehensive basis.
So, if all life isn't sacred, is all human life sacred to us? The fact of the matter is that if we examine our actual behavior and how we respond to our circumstances, all of us can find circumstances in which the taking of human life (murder) is considered acceptable. For example, most of us feel that if someone threatens us with bodily harm, then it's morally defensible to respond to that threat by killing the threatening person. Sometimes we refer to that as "self-defense" or sometimes as "justifiable homicide". I'm pretty confident that by far the majority of the proponents of ending all legal abortions (which won't end illegal abortions, naturally) would accept that murder in self-defense (or in defense of others) is quite acceptable. There might be some debate over what circumstances murder is justifiable, but it doesn't change the fact that murder is "legal" and morally acceptable to almost all human beings, under certain circumstances.
And of course, there's the vast apparatus we have developed to kill humans in large numbers - war. Although there are "rules of war" that can be applied to define circumstances in which killing is not permissible in war, there's the usual debate over just what those circumstances might be. Many people believe that murdering POWs or non-combatants is not acceptable - and yet it happens in all wars on all sides. For war fatalities (that is, the person(s) killed in the process), there's no essential difference. They were murdered, plain and simple. Losing your husband (or father or son, or their female counterparts) to an enemy's bullet has exactly the same impact as if it were done by some deranged criminal on a murder spree. So long as we fight wars for reasons (always of arguable merit), it's pretty obvious that this is yet another situation in which we don't let our notions of the sanctity of human life interfere with killing people "justifiably".
Another exception to the rule is when the death penalty is imposed for certain crimes. Just what crimes deserve the death penalty is always at issue, naturally. People vary considerably in their positions about the death penalty. There's always a sort of inconsistency about the state killing people for killing other people and that bothers many opponents to the death penalty. Some governments feel quite expansive about what constitutes a capital crime, a concept that hardly has remained constant over time. Most of us no longer feel that a pickpocket deserves to die, for instance. Being opposed to Communism or Islam might still get some people killed, however. Not all countries or states have the death penalty, of course, but whether your government(s) allow it or not, many people (some of whom would be numbered among the extreme opponents of all abortion) would find it morally acceptable to murder a child molester (or a cop-killer or a serial murderer or a serial rapist or an abortion doctor), for example, even though the laws of the state have no legalized death penalty.
So, finally we arrive at the issue of abortion. Are there no possible circumstances under which abortion might be acceptable? Not according to some people, virtually all of whom do feel that murdering humans can in fact be quite justifiable - under certain circumstances. Of all the arguments against abortion, I find the "slippery slope" argument among the weakest of them. It seems to me that abortion should not be considered the primary means for birth control, but many (not all, of course) opponents of abortion on religious grounds also are opposed to birth control measures. Nevertheless, if someone can find it possible to accept murder under certain circumstances, they shouldn't be uncomfortable with abortion under certain circumstances. The only thing to debate is just exactly which circumstances justify abortion. Virtually all the opponents of abortion under all circumstances on the "sanctity of human life" argument are being inconsistent and hypocritical.
OK - let the debate begin.
Recent discourse on social media has brought to light what seems to be a telling argument against any abortion: that it's a form of murder and, therefore, is considered both illegal and immoral. I have no reason to dispute that abortion kills an unborn person. I prefer not to go down the path of debating the details of when "life" begins or what differences exist between a fertilized egg and a person. I'm happy to leave those arguments to others.
To me, the fact that abortion kills an unborn person is the critical issue, and most opponents of all abortion adhere to the notion that all life is sacred and we should never allow murder to be legal. I'll get back to that shortly, but I want to consider just what it might mean to assume that all life is sacred. For those of us that eat animal flesh, we kill animals (or, have them killed for us and prepared in neat packages at the grocery or served to us in restaurants) all the time in order to feed on their flesh. That bothers some people so much that they become vegans, eating only non-animal foods. But of course, that usually involves consumption of vegetables (and fruits, of course), typically "killing" the vegetation (or at least interrupting its growth) in the process. There literally is no way to avoid ending life in order to survive. In many cases, humans have interfered in the natural genetics of animals and plants to maximize our food production. Many so-called "primitive" peoples went out of their way to "thank" the food from which they derived sustenance in order to survive, through rituals comparable to saying "grace" before a meal. It's the way of nature that life feeds on life, killing the food in the process in order that we can steal its energy to keep us alive. So just how sacred is all life to us? Ever eaten lobster or shrimp or crayfish? How do we eat them? Often by plunging them alive into pots of boiling water! Guess we don't consider their lives to be all that sacred! Other examples abound, including such things as "trophy" hunting. All life is, quite evidently, not all that "sacred" to us if "sacred" is taken to mean that we should never take that life to serve our own purposes.
Can we somehow survive by some means other than killing other life? Unless we learn how to accomplish photosynthesis in our own bodies, this seems to be an unobtainable ideal. At best, we can try to be grateful for the contribution to our lives by our food products and seek to minimize any suffering associated with their domestication and sacrifice of their lives. That's another whole debate of its own and I'm not wanting to go there in this blog. OK, so whatever idealism might be behind the notion that all life is sacred, we must nevertheless kill to survive and the lives we destroy to sustain ourselves are testimony to the fact that such idealism is hopelessly ... well, idealized, and impossible to achieve on a comprehensive basis.
So, if all life isn't sacred, is all human life sacred to us? The fact of the matter is that if we examine our actual behavior and how we respond to our circumstances, all of us can find circumstances in which the taking of human life (murder) is considered acceptable. For example, most of us feel that if someone threatens us with bodily harm, then it's morally defensible to respond to that threat by killing the threatening person. Sometimes we refer to that as "self-defense" or sometimes as "justifiable homicide". I'm pretty confident that by far the majority of the proponents of ending all legal abortions (which won't end illegal abortions, naturally) would accept that murder in self-defense (or in defense of others) is quite acceptable. There might be some debate over what circumstances murder is justifiable, but it doesn't change the fact that murder is "legal" and morally acceptable to almost all human beings, under certain circumstances.
And of course, there's the vast apparatus we have developed to kill humans in large numbers - war. Although there are "rules of war" that can be applied to define circumstances in which killing is not permissible in war, there's the usual debate over just what those circumstances might be. Many people believe that murdering POWs or non-combatants is not acceptable - and yet it happens in all wars on all sides. For war fatalities (that is, the person(s) killed in the process), there's no essential difference. They were murdered, plain and simple. Losing your husband (or father or son, or their female counterparts) to an enemy's bullet has exactly the same impact as if it were done by some deranged criminal on a murder spree. So long as we fight wars for reasons (always of arguable merit), it's pretty obvious that this is yet another situation in which we don't let our notions of the sanctity of human life interfere with killing people "justifiably".
Another exception to the rule is when the death penalty is imposed for certain crimes. Just what crimes deserve the death penalty is always at issue, naturally. People vary considerably in their positions about the death penalty. There's always a sort of inconsistency about the state killing people for killing other people and that bothers many opponents to the death penalty. Some governments feel quite expansive about what constitutes a capital crime, a concept that hardly has remained constant over time. Most of us no longer feel that a pickpocket deserves to die, for instance. Being opposed to Communism or Islam might still get some people killed, however. Not all countries or states have the death penalty, of course, but whether your government(s) allow it or not, many people (some of whom would be numbered among the extreme opponents of all abortion) would find it morally acceptable to murder a child molester (or a cop-killer or a serial murderer or a serial rapist or an abortion doctor), for example, even though the laws of the state have no legalized death penalty.
So, finally we arrive at the issue of abortion. Are there no possible circumstances under which abortion might be acceptable? Not according to some people, virtually all of whom do feel that murdering humans can in fact be quite justifiable - under certain circumstances. Of all the arguments against abortion, I find the "slippery slope" argument among the weakest of them. It seems to me that abortion should not be considered the primary means for birth control, but many (not all, of course) opponents of abortion on religious grounds also are opposed to birth control measures. Nevertheless, if someone can find it possible to accept murder under certain circumstances, they shouldn't be uncomfortable with abortion under certain circumstances. The only thing to debate is just exactly which circumstances justify abortion. Virtually all the opponents of abortion under all circumstances on the "sanctity of human life" argument are being inconsistent and hypocritical.
OK - let the debate begin.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
For the record: Understanding what probability forecasts mean
For reasons mostly related to the failure of the National Weather Service to develop a pre-release information campaign, the public has been puzzled by the meaning of probability forecasts ever since the Probability of Precipitation (PoP) was introduced in the mid-1960s. That oversight can't be rectified easily but as we contemplate changing the content and wording of forecasts, that lesson looms large - or it should. The concept of uncertainty is best expressed as probability, but other ways (such as odds) might be more intuitive for most of the public.
Expressing a rain forecast in terms of probability (e.g., a "40 percent chance of rain" - which is equivalent to a 60 percent chance of no rain) always refers to a specific space-time volume. That is, the forecast is for a specific area during a particular time span. It might be for a particular metropolitan area during the next 12 hours, for instance. If you don't know the the forecast's space-time volume, you don't yet know enough to grasp the intended meaning. (There's a 100 percent chance that it will rain somewhere on the Earth in the next 10 years! There's a zero percent chance of rain within the next 5 seconds when the skies currently are a cloudless blue.)
Another factor to consider is the "lead time" of the forecast; this is the time between when the forecast is issued and the beginning of the valid time for the forecast's space-time "window". Today's forecast for today is much more likely to be accurate than today's forecast for tomorrow. In general terms, the limit of predictability for weather forecasts is somewhere around 7-10 days, depending on the weather situation. Some forecasts are more difficult (and, hence, more uncertain) than others. At the predictability limit, the forecasts become so uncertain, they are no more accurate than forecasting the climatology - the average of all weather events for that date. They are said to have zero "skill" (which is not the same as accuracy - skill is relative accuracy - compared to some simple forecast, such as persistence, climatology, or some objective forecasting system).
You also need to know what event to which the word "rain" applies. In most cases, this means enough rain to be "measurable" (typically, 0.01 inches). The event being forecast could be different from that, but most PoP forecasts are for measurable rain. In any case, it's another essential piece of the puzzle. The less frequent an event might be, the less confidence forecasters can have in predicting it. The probability of measurable rain is considerably higher than that of a rain event producing 10 inches (roughly 254 millimeters) of rainfall.
So, armed with knowledge of the space-time volume for which the forecast is valid and the nature of the forecast event, the probability value is a quantitative expression of the confidence that such a rain event will occur somewhere, sometime within that space-time volume. The level of certainty (or uncertainty) can be estimated objectively using any of a number of methods (spread of ensemble members, Model Output Statistics, etc.) or subjectively. Subjective probability estimates can be calibrated with experience, such that all calibrated forecasters looking at the same data would arrive at similar probability estimates - subjective probabilities need not be understood as mere "guessing"! Assuming they follow the laws of probability, subjective probability estimates are legitimate expressions of forecaster confidence. Although some forecasters might be more confident in their abilities than others, if the forecasters are calibrated properly, they will mostly agree about their probability estimates. Real forecasters can become reasonably well-calibrated in about a year, given proper feedback about their forecasting accuracy.
If the forecast is for a 40 percent probability (two chances out of five ... or four out of ten), then any one forecast can be neither wholly correct or wholly incorrect. The only times when a probability forecast is either right or wrong is for forecasts of zero and 100 percent. We measure how good the forecast is by its "reliability" - a perfectly reliable probability forecast of 40 percent means that on the average, it rains somewhere within the space-time value 40 percent of the time whenever that 40 percent probability forecast is issued. When it rains, of course, we should expect higher probability values, and lower values when it doesn't rain. Perfect forecasting would consist only of (a) 100 percent probabilities when it rains, and (b) zero percent probabilities when it doesn't rain, but that level of certainty is impossible (for many reasons, both theoretical and practical). Thus, it rains one time out of ten when the probability forecast is for 10 percent (assuming reliable forecasting). Rain on a 10 percent probability is not only not necessarily wrong; it is just what we expect to happen (10 percent of the time!) when we make such a forecast.
Note that if the forecaster knows nothing (i.e., has no confidence), then the best forecast to make is for the climatological probability in that space-time volume. This is usually a much lower value than 50 percent (a value that many people might incorrectly interpret as "pure guessing") - if the climatological value for the given space-time volume on that day of the year is 20 percent, that's the best possible "know nothing" forecast.
Expressing a rain forecast in terms of probability (e.g., a "40 percent chance of rain" - which is equivalent to a 60 percent chance of no rain) always refers to a specific space-time volume. That is, the forecast is for a specific area during a particular time span. It might be for a particular metropolitan area during the next 12 hours, for instance. If you don't know the the forecast's space-time volume, you don't yet know enough to grasp the intended meaning. (There's a 100 percent chance that it will rain somewhere on the Earth in the next 10 years! There's a zero percent chance of rain within the next 5 seconds when the skies currently are a cloudless blue.)
Another factor to consider is the "lead time" of the forecast; this is the time between when the forecast is issued and the beginning of the valid time for the forecast's space-time "window". Today's forecast for today is much more likely to be accurate than today's forecast for tomorrow. In general terms, the limit of predictability for weather forecasts is somewhere around 7-10 days, depending on the weather situation. Some forecasts are more difficult (and, hence, more uncertain) than others. At the predictability limit, the forecasts become so uncertain, they are no more accurate than forecasting the climatology - the average of all weather events for that date. They are said to have zero "skill" (which is not the same as accuracy - skill is relative accuracy - compared to some simple forecast, such as persistence, climatology, or some objective forecasting system).
You also need to know what event to which the word "rain" applies. In most cases, this means enough rain to be "measurable" (typically, 0.01 inches). The event being forecast could be different from that, but most PoP forecasts are for measurable rain. In any case, it's another essential piece of the puzzle. The less frequent an event might be, the less confidence forecasters can have in predicting it. The probability of measurable rain is considerably higher than that of a rain event producing 10 inches (roughly 254 millimeters) of rainfall.
So, armed with knowledge of the space-time volume for which the forecast is valid and the nature of the forecast event, the probability value is a quantitative expression of the confidence that such a rain event will occur somewhere, sometime within that space-time volume. The level of certainty (or uncertainty) can be estimated objectively using any of a number of methods (spread of ensemble members, Model Output Statistics, etc.) or subjectively. Subjective probability estimates can be calibrated with experience, such that all calibrated forecasters looking at the same data would arrive at similar probability estimates - subjective probabilities need not be understood as mere "guessing"! Assuming they follow the laws of probability, subjective probability estimates are legitimate expressions of forecaster confidence. Although some forecasters might be more confident in their abilities than others, if the forecasters are calibrated properly, they will mostly agree about their probability estimates. Real forecasters can become reasonably well-calibrated in about a year, given proper feedback about their forecasting accuracy.
If the forecast is for a 40 percent probability (two chances out of five ... or four out of ten), then any one forecast can be neither wholly correct or wholly incorrect. The only times when a probability forecast is either right or wrong is for forecasts of zero and 100 percent. We measure how good the forecast is by its "reliability" - a perfectly reliable probability forecast of 40 percent means that on the average, it rains somewhere within the space-time value 40 percent of the time whenever that 40 percent probability forecast is issued. When it rains, of course, we should expect higher probability values, and lower values when it doesn't rain. Perfect forecasting would consist only of (a) 100 percent probabilities when it rains, and (b) zero percent probabilities when it doesn't rain, but that level of certainty is impossible (for many reasons, both theoretical and practical). Thus, it rains one time out of ten when the probability forecast is for 10 percent (assuming reliable forecasting). Rain on a 10 percent probability is not only not necessarily wrong; it is just what we expect to happen (10 percent of the time!) when we make such a forecast.
Note that if the forecaster knows nothing (i.e., has no confidence), then the best forecast to make is for the climatological probability in that space-time volume. This is usually a much lower value than 50 percent (a value that many people might incorrectly interpret as "pure guessing") - if the climatological value for the given space-time volume on that day of the year is 20 percent, that's the best possible "know nothing" forecast.
Thursday, August 27, 2015
Economic systems and how they've changed us
Today, I just found out our dishwasher motor/pump (all one assembly that can't be repaired - only replaced) has failed. Since the price to replace it is a significant fraction of the cost of a new dishwasher, we would probably be better off buying a whole new one. A similar thing happened to our clothes washer a while back. Manufacturers now sell insurance on appliances: they call it an "extended warranty" where we customers are betting they didn't sell us a piece of junk that will fail prematurely. Their knowledge of their products' failure rates are built into the cost of the extended warranty, so they still make a profit on the average when their products (or services) fail. What's their incentive to make a quality
product? Pride in their product? Hah!! It's all about the almighty
profit motive. The bottom line is more important than quality, nowadays.
Things didn't used to be that way. Many manufacturers took some pride in the quality of their product (or service) and backed it up with support for the customer when problems arose. Things weren't manufactured to stifle maintenance back then. Rather, the products could be repaired for relatively low costs most of the time, until the product just plain wore out from long use. The clothes washer we replaced recently was bought when we lived in Kansas City, underwent a few reasonably-priced repairs, and eventually gave up the ghost after 37 years of use! Repair is becoming an obsolete concept. We buy some product, it craps out, we throw it away, and buy a new one. That's where corporate America has gone, and we're forced to ride along. Similar issues arise for service businesses. Who likes their choices in the Internet/phone/television provider business? Most people I know hate their service providers but have no real choice because none of them produce quality service!
The way the big corporations can sell us affordable products is to design them to fail in such a way that we can't afford to fix them. They've outsourced the actual manufacturing facilities in many cases, so they pay low wages to foreign workers who are so poor they have to accept low wages. Even "Communist" China has followed this path, not permitting workers to form trade unions and keeping wages artificially low. Workers have little incentive to do a good job, since they're often paid piece work wages, not by the hour. The shoddy products are shipped to the US, the corporations push extended warrantees on the customers, who feel the need to be protected from catastrophic premature product failure. It's become something of a scam. And the river of money flows up the corporate ladders.
As "free market" capitalism developed, it became clear that an unbridled profit motive puts a lot of pressure on companies having pride in their products and concern for their employees. Mega-corporations like Wal-Mart squeeze out the smaller businesses that try to make a decent product and stand behind it. Once they've crushed the small fry, then they're free to plunder their customers, and they wrap themselves in the flag in the process. Capitalism at work, right? Ignore their takeover of government by buying off the politicians, convincing us that the way to paradise is through the "free market" even as the corporations tap the government teat for tax breaks and subsidies to pad their profits. And they're huge, rich proponents of de-regulation. Guess where that has lead us! Remember that housing bubble that burst in 2007 and its subsequent fallout? It was the removal of most restraints on the "too big to fail" lending institutions that created it.
Teddy Roosevelt took on the corporations in what was called "trust busting" that established some regulatory control over big corporate "trusts" (monopolies), which had grown fat and rapacious. As it stands, we're in desperate need of some trust-busting in today's world. The big companies have created a "plunder economy" whereby the public is robbed for the benefit of corporate management. Not much trickles down to the workers in this kleptocracy, and virtually nothing for the customers.
Conservatives like to describe capitalism as a sacred part of the American way, a path that has inexorably leads to prosperity for all. Properly regulated capitalism has in fact been successful in building a reasonably high standard of living - but the US is no longer at the pinnacle of living standards. The profits we've created for the military-industrial complex through nearly constant warfare have left us bereft of surplus cash, even as corporate management salaries soar to incredible levels. It's capitalism that has exploited the public, even as conservatives scare the public with the bogeyman of socialism. Socialism has become a frightening word to many conservatives, laden with negative associations. Anything that might cause the corporate profits to decline is buried in an avalanche of cries of "socialism" and "interference in the free marketplace". This conveniently ignores that the marketplace is no longer "free" - but the big companies get most of the welfare, not the disadvantaged.
I'm no fan of unfettered socialism, either. Socialism has inherent disadvantages that inevitably show up over the long haul. The Chinese understood those disadvantages well enough to "relax" their form of socialism in a way that looks remarkably similar to the American kleptocracy. The only entity that has the clout to rein in the greed of the corporations is the government. Responsible regulation of any economic system can produce a workable environment for the majority of people - the only difference is that the regulations would need to be adjusted to fit the existing economic system. Socialism requires different interference that capitalism.
Several years ago, I read a great book called In Search of Excellence -its main thesis was that the most successful, long-lasting businesses were those that did two things: (1) treated all their employees well and included them in the profit-sharing when the company made a profit, and (2) treated their customers well by making a quality product (or service) and dealing fairly with the customers when something went wrong. This is very far from what I believe we're seeing in most big corporations today. Evidently, excellence is no longer felt to be an important corporate benchmark.
I'm no economist, but down here at the customer level, it sure seems as if we're being victimized by an old enemy: corporate greed at the expense of the public. When corporate profit and huge management salaries are the primary goals of business management, then anything goes, it seems. A plunder economy is not what made America great, but it can cause the whole thing to come crashing down. The recent stock market crash could be a harbinger of worse to come.
Things didn't used to be that way. Many manufacturers took some pride in the quality of their product (or service) and backed it up with support for the customer when problems arose. Things weren't manufactured to stifle maintenance back then. Rather, the products could be repaired for relatively low costs most of the time, until the product just plain wore out from long use. The clothes washer we replaced recently was bought when we lived in Kansas City, underwent a few reasonably-priced repairs, and eventually gave up the ghost after 37 years of use! Repair is becoming an obsolete concept. We buy some product, it craps out, we throw it away, and buy a new one. That's where corporate America has gone, and we're forced to ride along. Similar issues arise for service businesses. Who likes their choices in the Internet/phone/television provider business? Most people I know hate their service providers but have no real choice because none of them produce quality service!
The way the big corporations can sell us affordable products is to design them to fail in such a way that we can't afford to fix them. They've outsourced the actual manufacturing facilities in many cases, so they pay low wages to foreign workers who are so poor they have to accept low wages. Even "Communist" China has followed this path, not permitting workers to form trade unions and keeping wages artificially low. Workers have little incentive to do a good job, since they're often paid piece work wages, not by the hour. The shoddy products are shipped to the US, the corporations push extended warrantees on the customers, who feel the need to be protected from catastrophic premature product failure. It's become something of a scam. And the river of money flows up the corporate ladders.
As "free market" capitalism developed, it became clear that an unbridled profit motive puts a lot of pressure on companies having pride in their products and concern for their employees. Mega-corporations like Wal-Mart squeeze out the smaller businesses that try to make a decent product and stand behind it. Once they've crushed the small fry, then they're free to plunder their customers, and they wrap themselves in the flag in the process. Capitalism at work, right? Ignore their takeover of government by buying off the politicians, convincing us that the way to paradise is through the "free market" even as the corporations tap the government teat for tax breaks and subsidies to pad their profits. And they're huge, rich proponents of de-regulation. Guess where that has lead us! Remember that housing bubble that burst in 2007 and its subsequent fallout? It was the removal of most restraints on the "too big to fail" lending institutions that created it.
Teddy Roosevelt took on the corporations in what was called "trust busting" that established some regulatory control over big corporate "trusts" (monopolies), which had grown fat and rapacious. As it stands, we're in desperate need of some trust-busting in today's world. The big companies have created a "plunder economy" whereby the public is robbed for the benefit of corporate management. Not much trickles down to the workers in this kleptocracy, and virtually nothing for the customers.
Conservatives like to describe capitalism as a sacred part of the American way, a path that has inexorably leads to prosperity for all. Properly regulated capitalism has in fact been successful in building a reasonably high standard of living - but the US is no longer at the pinnacle of living standards. The profits we've created for the military-industrial complex through nearly constant warfare have left us bereft of surplus cash, even as corporate management salaries soar to incredible levels. It's capitalism that has exploited the public, even as conservatives scare the public with the bogeyman of socialism. Socialism has become a frightening word to many conservatives, laden with negative associations. Anything that might cause the corporate profits to decline is buried in an avalanche of cries of "socialism" and "interference in the free marketplace". This conveniently ignores that the marketplace is no longer "free" - but the big companies get most of the welfare, not the disadvantaged.
I'm no fan of unfettered socialism, either. Socialism has inherent disadvantages that inevitably show up over the long haul. The Chinese understood those disadvantages well enough to "relax" their form of socialism in a way that looks remarkably similar to the American kleptocracy. The only entity that has the clout to rein in the greed of the corporations is the government. Responsible regulation of any economic system can produce a workable environment for the majority of people - the only difference is that the regulations would need to be adjusted to fit the existing economic system. Socialism requires different interference that capitalism.
Several years ago, I read a great book called In Search of Excellence -its main thesis was that the most successful, long-lasting businesses were those that did two things: (1) treated all their employees well and included them in the profit-sharing when the company made a profit, and (2) treated their customers well by making a quality product (or service) and dealing fairly with the customers when something went wrong. This is very far from what I believe we're seeing in most big corporations today. Evidently, excellence is no longer felt to be an important corporate benchmark.
I'm no economist, but down here at the customer level, it sure seems as if we're being victimized by an old enemy: corporate greed at the expense of the public. When corporate profit and huge management salaries are the primary goals of business management, then anything goes, it seems. A plunder economy is not what made America great, but it can cause the whole thing to come crashing down. The recent stock market crash could be a harbinger of worse to come.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
El Niño - "Godzilla" or just another actor?
It seems this year is another in a lengthening string of occasions when El Nino (more properly, the El Nino-Southern Oscillation that includes La Nina) becomes a big media story, anticipating how it will affect the weather during this coming winter. The developing El Nino this year may be at record or near-record intensity, which could magnify its impacts on the weather, so even a respected oceanographer felt compelled to describe it with the adjective "Godzilla" during a media interview. Of course, the media grabbed onto this label with its typical overblown enthusiasm. Shades of "Snowmageddon" and "Frankenstorm"!!
The "Godzilla El Nino" has become the focus for some controversy in the scientific community, however. Many meteorologists dislike the use of such hyperbole, preferring that the public face of our science be more restrained, as scientists try to be when communicating with their colleagues. Others feel that the use of such language helps get the message of science across to the lay public. A well-written science story doesn't need bombastic language to get its message across - in fact, it can be argued that such excesses muddy the clarity of the message.
I've made no secret that I'm not among the supporters of wildly dramatic language. First of all, an unintended consequence could be the creation of unnecessary fear in some folks regarding what could become an impending disaster. Another unintended consequence is public pushback against the "hype" such terminology creates - some segments of the public are sick of all the "gloom and doom" the media convey about upcoming weather events. There's no hard evidence that the use of such hyperbolic terminology does anything to attract more attention to the message that scientists are trying to convey, nor is there evidence to suggest that the purely factual information content of that scientific message is conveyed more effectively to the consumers as a result of the inflated descriptions. If the claim is made that melodramatic terminology is actually an aid to effective communication, the burden of proof is on those who make such claims. Let there be a carefully-done survey that demonstrates this is indeed the effect of sensational verbiage. Absent that, count me among the skeptics!
Furthermore, and more importantly, it's pretty bad science to equate the strength of a given El Nino to specific weather events or seasonal weather trends at a specific location. ENSO is just one among a host of global and regional climate "oscillations" that are all operating concurrently. How this year's El Nino affects the global weather pattern is determined by the complex interaction among all the known oscillations that influence the weather pattern, to say nothing of factors affecting global weather about which we scientists know little or nothing. It's been shown, for instance, that snowfall in Washington DC can be at or near record levels during a strong El Nino, but can also be near zero during a strong El Nino. By itself, El Nino is not a good predictor of local, seasonal weather patterns. To create all this brouhaha about this year's El Nino is just bad meteorology and conveying a message that is not justified by the science.
A more rational approach would be to indicate that an intense El Nino, which is what this year's event is likely to be, could create serious impacts, for which some segments of our society would need to prepare in advance. It would be important to indicate that this is not a statement of absolute certainty, or even close to that level of confidence. Rather, it suggests one potentially important development among many possibilities, but the likelihood is high enough that it deserves to be mentioned as a possibility - it is not a forecast for a "Godzilla" creating widespread havoc and destruction, but something that might require some advance planning for that possibility. Do we really need to "hype" an event to get people to understand our message so that they take appropriate actions? If so, then we can blame the media, but we also might have to share the responsibility for failing to state our message in clear and understandable terms. The consumers of media (Aren't we all?) have been desensitized, perhaps, by all the sensationalism. But that's another topic ...
A more rational approach would be to indicate that an intense El Nino, which is what this year's event is likely to be, could create serious impacts, for which some segments of our society would need to prepare in advance. It would be important to indicate that this is not a statement of absolute certainty, or even close to that level of confidence. Rather, it suggests one potentially important development among many possibilities, but the likelihood is high enough that it deserves to be mentioned as a possibility - it is not a forecast for a "Godzilla" creating widespread havoc and destruction, but something that might require some advance planning for that possibility. Do we really need to "hype" an event to get people to understand our message so that they take appropriate actions? If so, then we can blame the media, but we also might have to share the responsibility for failing to state our message in clear and understandable terms. The consumers of media (Aren't we all?) have been desensitized, perhaps, by all the sensationalism. But that's another topic ...
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
A delayed tribute to Prof. Fred Sanders - friend and colleague
This tribute is not very timely. Fred Sanders died on 06 October 2006. This was a time before I was on Facebook and for some reason, I never wrote this. I came to know Fred as an MIT meteorology professor, but meeting the man was even more impressive than his professional résumé would indicate. Today it seems I must pay my respects to this great man by means of this medium. Anyone interested in the weather as a professional meteorologist should recognize their debt to Fred, who bequeathed us a huge legacy of his synoptic scale research and even more importantly, his students (most of whom have gone on to make their own important research contributions). That he was a great meteorologist cannot be doubted. But I want to share some anecdotes about Fred the man I knew as a friend. You can read his MIT obituary here for some of the details of his professional accomplishments.
To the best of my recollection, my first meetings with Fred took place when I was working at the National Severe Storms Forecast Center in Kansas City, MO (the home of what is now the Storm Prediction Center in Norman, OK). This was my first post-doctoral job, and the prospect of a visit by the great Fred Sanders would set the office abuzz with excitement. From the start, it was obvious Fred was not someone who would suffer BS readily or willingly, so I was very excited to get to know him. I don't recall the circumstances now, but sometime after we first met, he accepted my invitation to have dinner with me and my family in our home. He was a wonderful guest, who deliberately avoiding talking meteorology with me, but rather engaged Vickie (my wife) in extended conversations. I can still see him in my mind's eye in the dining room of our KC home.
To my surprise, Fred declined an opportunity to work alongside the Severe Local Storms (SELS) unit forecasters during a forecast shift, producing his own, independent forecast to be subjected to verification the next day. It seemed to me that this would have been a chance to gain insight into the SELS operation, but he chose not to. I never understood his reasons for that decision. It was the one time I felt he dropped the ball. The only reason I relate that anecdote is because it helps to make Fred a human being, not just a 1-dimensional, mythical icon in our profession.
Some years later, when I had moved to Boulder, CO to work with Bob Maddox at the Weather Research Program there, Fred visited us in our Longmont, CO home. Vickie and I had become friends with a couple who had lived next door to me when I first moved there (before my family left Kansas City to join me). They were wonderful people, and it turned out that the wife (Billie) showed up at our home after dinner while Fred was still there. Fred readily incorporated her in our conversations, naturally. Afterwards, I asked her if she had any clue as to how famous and honored a man Fred was, and she was amazed to find that out. Fred had charmed her (as he often did with people) without ever mentioning anything that would give her even a hint of his fame. He was not at all about self-promotion!
Some years later, after I had followed Bob Maddox to the National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, OK, my colleague Harold Brooks and I traveled to the Washington DC area to attend a conference. Harold and I chose to take a break from the conference in order to visit the Civil War battlefield at Mannassas, VA (known in the Union as the first Battle of Bull Run). When Fred heard us talking about it, he asked to go along, and we readily granted his request - we looked forward to spending that time with him. At the gate, the Park Service ranger was collecting our entrance fee, when she looked in the back seat of our car and saw Fred, recognizing him as a Senior Citizen - entitled to free entrance. She said, "If he, as a senior citizen, claims you as part of his family, you all can get in free." Fred quickly said we were, indeed, family members, so we (temporarily) became eligible for free entrance. [I'm pretty sure the ranger understood the reality of the situation.] I still enjoy telling that story by starting off with the claim that many people don't know I'm part of Fred Sanders' family!
Besides my admiration for Fred as a meteorologist, I valued his friendship even more. Time with him was always well-spent! His passing was a great shock to me, as it was to our whole scientific community. Despite the passage of time, I still miss him terribly. Having co-authored a scientific paper with Fred is still something in which I take a great deal of personal satisfaction.
My belated condolences to his family, close friends, and those students he mentored. Fred was a unique individual who understood the importance of a connection between research and operations as well as any of us, and better than most of us. I shared an interest in that connection and Fred no doubt was pleased to find any allies in fostering that interaction between operational and research meteorologists.
Fred Sanders on the occasion of the 10th Cyclone Workshop where he was an honoree for his lifetime achievements.
To the best of my recollection, my first meetings with Fred took place when I was working at the National Severe Storms Forecast Center in Kansas City, MO (the home of what is now the Storm Prediction Center in Norman, OK). This was my first post-doctoral job, and the prospect of a visit by the great Fred Sanders would set the office abuzz with excitement. From the start, it was obvious Fred was not someone who would suffer BS readily or willingly, so I was very excited to get to know him. I don't recall the circumstances now, but sometime after we first met, he accepted my invitation to have dinner with me and my family in our home. He was a wonderful guest, who deliberately avoiding talking meteorology with me, but rather engaged Vickie (my wife) in extended conversations. I can still see him in my mind's eye in the dining room of our KC home.
To my surprise, Fred declined an opportunity to work alongside the Severe Local Storms (SELS) unit forecasters during a forecast shift, producing his own, independent forecast to be subjected to verification the next day. It seemed to me that this would have been a chance to gain insight into the SELS operation, but he chose not to. I never understood his reasons for that decision. It was the one time I felt he dropped the ball. The only reason I relate that anecdote is because it helps to make Fred a human being, not just a 1-dimensional, mythical icon in our profession.
Some years later, when I had moved to Boulder, CO to work with Bob Maddox at the Weather Research Program there, Fred visited us in our Longmont, CO home. Vickie and I had become friends with a couple who had lived next door to me when I first moved there (before my family left Kansas City to join me). They were wonderful people, and it turned out that the wife (Billie) showed up at our home after dinner while Fred was still there. Fred readily incorporated her in our conversations, naturally. Afterwards, I asked her if she had any clue as to how famous and honored a man Fred was, and she was amazed to find that out. Fred had charmed her (as he often did with people) without ever mentioning anything that would give her even a hint of his fame. He was not at all about self-promotion!
Some years later, after I had followed Bob Maddox to the National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, OK, my colleague Harold Brooks and I traveled to the Washington DC area to attend a conference. Harold and I chose to take a break from the conference in order to visit the Civil War battlefield at Mannassas, VA (known in the Union as the first Battle of Bull Run). When Fred heard us talking about it, he asked to go along, and we readily granted his request - we looked forward to spending that time with him. At the gate, the Park Service ranger was collecting our entrance fee, when she looked in the back seat of our car and saw Fred, recognizing him as a Senior Citizen - entitled to free entrance. She said, "If he, as a senior citizen, claims you as part of his family, you all can get in free." Fred quickly said we were, indeed, family members, so we (temporarily) became eligible for free entrance. [I'm pretty sure the ranger understood the reality of the situation.] I still enjoy telling that story by starting off with the claim that many people don't know I'm part of Fred Sanders' family!
Besides my admiration for Fred as a meteorologist, I valued his friendship even more. Time with him was always well-spent! His passing was a great shock to me, as it was to our whole scientific community. Despite the passage of time, I still miss him terribly. Having co-authored a scientific paper with Fred is still something in which I take a great deal of personal satisfaction.
My belated condolences to his family, close friends, and those students he mentored. Fred was a unique individual who understood the importance of a connection between research and operations as well as any of us, and better than most of us. I shared an interest in that connection and Fred no doubt was pleased to find any allies in fostering that interaction between operational and research meteorologists.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
New Horizons - an End and a Beginning
The flyby of Pluto is now an accomplished fact. It marks the end of a process of putting a real face on the planets of our solar system. This process began in the first planetary expeditions back in the 1960s and has resulted in dazzling new images of what have historically been only lights in the sky. Speculation has given way to observation. And every new observation has led to dramatic new insights into the processes by which the solar system has developed. Every planet in the solar system has revealed things no one expected. How do you put a price on that new understanding? Can this not be inspirational? Does the technology of space exploration not represent the best of what we humans can do to gain new insights into our place in the universe?
It seems to me that the naysayers regarding space exploration have devalued the impact of inspiration on the human species. We can be inspired by what amounts to mythology - the mythology of religion for instance - that often results in visiting violence upon other humans who happen to believe in different myths. We can be inspired by the notion of our nation as an exceptional example of the freedom of the human spirit - and our preeminence on the world scene - resulting in a national arrogance that leads to violence against other nations. But the inspiration that comes from exploration of the cosmos leads us to the realization of our insignificance on the scale of the universe. Rather than arrogance, this is an inspiration that leads to humility in the face of the cosmic questions. We see writ large in the universe that we humans are little more than dust motes in the vastness of the universe.
Is this a negative thing? I think not. It reminds us of our place as bit players in a cosmic stage but it also says man is not apart from the universe, but rather is a part of it. Yes, our part is small and mostly insignificant. But we are part of something enormous! Personally, I don't find this to be belittling of our place in the universe. In the cosmic picture, we are necessarily trivial and our fate is of no significance to the cosmos. Nevertheless, we are here because of cosmic processes that foster life. In a very real way, we have learned that we are children of the universe and its processes. We are here because of cosmic processes - the universe come to life and contemplating itself by means of our consciousness. It's likely that life exists on many planets throughout the universe and that life is also a part of the universe. We may eventually learn of that life through the efforts of those inspired to support exploration of the universe. It will be a great day in our history when we learn of life not of this Earth!
Is not the exploration of our universe among the most inspirational of our human efforts? How can anyone believe that our human problems are a reason to not pursue this topic? An inadequate grasp of our place in the universe would lead to trivialization of the wonders being revealed to us by virtue of the space explorers! It's been my privilege to see the wonders of our solar system revealed by the efforts of those inspired to participate in this great adventure. I'm happy to have lived during a time when these majestic images have made the solar system much, much more than mere points of light! My thanks to all of those who have made this happen!
It seems to me that the naysayers regarding space exploration have devalued the impact of inspiration on the human species. We can be inspired by what amounts to mythology - the mythology of religion for instance - that often results in visiting violence upon other humans who happen to believe in different myths. We can be inspired by the notion of our nation as an exceptional example of the freedom of the human spirit - and our preeminence on the world scene - resulting in a national arrogance that leads to violence against other nations. But the inspiration that comes from exploration of the cosmos leads us to the realization of our insignificance on the scale of the universe. Rather than arrogance, this is an inspiration that leads to humility in the face of the cosmic questions. We see writ large in the universe that we humans are little more than dust motes in the vastness of the universe.
Is this a negative thing? I think not. It reminds us of our place as bit players in a cosmic stage but it also says man is not apart from the universe, but rather is a part of it. Yes, our part is small and mostly insignificant. But we are part of something enormous! Personally, I don't find this to be belittling of our place in the universe. In the cosmic picture, we are necessarily trivial and our fate is of no significance to the cosmos. Nevertheless, we are here because of cosmic processes that foster life. In a very real way, we have learned that we are children of the universe and its processes. We are here because of cosmic processes - the universe come to life and contemplating itself by means of our consciousness. It's likely that life exists on many planets throughout the universe and that life is also a part of the universe. We may eventually learn of that life through the efforts of those inspired to support exploration of the universe. It will be a great day in our history when we learn of life not of this Earth!
Is not the exploration of our universe among the most inspirational of our human efforts? How can anyone believe that our human problems are a reason to not pursue this topic? An inadequate grasp of our place in the universe would lead to trivialization of the wonders being revealed to us by virtue of the space explorers! It's been my privilege to see the wonders of our solar system revealed by the efforts of those inspired to participate in this great adventure. I'm happy to have lived during a time when these majestic images have made the solar system much, much more than mere points of light! My thanks to all of those who have made this happen!
More on "extreme" storm chasing, part 2
Recent events reveal that a prediction I made long ago apparently has been verified. I'm not happy about that, however. Sadly, a storm chaser has been charged with running a stop sign and killing two people in the resulting collision. Time will be needed to learn the details, and to determine whether or not he is guilty as charged. If this storm chaser was actually chasing at the time, and the fatalities are proven in court to be his responsibility, this will be a very sad time in the history of storm chasing. It's another predictable but terrible "milestone" in storm chase history, just as 31 May 2013 will live in infamy because of the unfortunate deaths of three storm chasers who were hit by the El Reno, OK tornado. Although Tim Samaras and the Twistex team were quite responsible storm chasers, their objectives required them to take extreme risks. Note: at this point, I have no idea if this chaser is routinely irresponsible in his chasing, but it only takes one incident of irresponsibility to ruin everything. Hence, although some of this blog may not apply to him, it's the incident that has caused me to reflect on extreme chasers, who engage freely in life-threatening acts.
Extreme (or "outlaw") storm chasing has become relatively widespread, likely in part because of what people routinely see in entertainment media. It's not reflective of the majority of chasers, but extreme chasers apparently like to think of themselves as "above" most other chasers. The whole notion of being an "extreme" chaser is considered in those circles as a badge of honor, worn with pride by those willing to do virtually anything to catch a sensational event, right up to the edges of death. Those of us advocating a responsible approach to chasing have been ignored openly. Further, we've even been bashed in social media by some of the extreme chasers, who enjoy flaunting their disrespect for advocates of responsible chasing. I certainly have been singled out by some as a target for their antipathy. It's precisely that sort of macho bravado that concerns me: I predicted that fatalities inevitably would result from extreme chasing and, in this case, being right is cold comfort.
This case is even worse than having chasers die in a tornado chase. Having one's actions result in the death of two innocent people simply going about their business is worse, as I see it, than a chaser dying as a result of doing dangerous things around a storm. I've said all along the greatest threat to chasers is being on the streets and highways, and that threat includes any non-chasers who happen to be in the path of a chaser doing extreme things.
Years ago, my wife and I were chasing - I think it was in Nebraska but I can't recall - and we came upon the scene of a collision in a small town (with brick streets). A chaser had T-boned some locals, although apparently without serious injuries. The chaser's vehicle wasn't one we recognized; it had some decals that indicated it was a chaser, however, and had CO license plates. Although we didn't see the collision, it seemed evident that the local driver had underestimated the speed of the approaching chaser (who likely was exceeding the in-town speed limit) and tried to cross the intersection before the chaser came through. I never heard anything afterward about this wreck, so evidently the media never picked up on it. With today's social media, we'd probably have heard more about what happened and who was responsible. This was a very sobering consideration - many extreme chasers are quite ready to admit they often exceed speed limits in their efforts to get a storm*. I've seen their own videos showing them speeding, driving on the wrong side of the road, running stop signs, etc.!
I'm unaware of any fatal collision initiated by a chaser before the current example. However, if any such wreck has happened in the past, we just may not know about it. Although not as well-known, it seems some inexperienced chasers were killed by the Tuscaloosa, AL tornado two years before the sad death of Tim Samaras and his team. The AL fatalities didn't receive a great deal of media attention, so there could be earlier incidents of chaser-responsible traffic fatalities about which we haven't heard. If extreme chasers continue to be irresponsible, my forecast is that there surely will be more examples!
The "outlaw" chaser, perhaps seeking to borrow from the romanticized image of the fictional anti-heroes so popular in the entertainment industry, is not a flattering image for storm chasers. I certainly have become quite tired of having to answer for the irresponsible deeds of "extreme" chasers. These are not just playful antics or about the courage of the chaser - they represent a real hazard to the extreme chasers and those who happen to be near them in the heat of a chase.
__________________
*I won't claim I never exceed the speed limits, but I certainly would not want to speed through a small town - not just to avoid getting a speeding ticket, but because it isn't a very responsible thing to do. If I occasionally speed in open country, it's not something I would choose to boast about with the media. It's behavior I prefer not to advertise as something of which to be proud!
Extreme (or "outlaw") storm chasing has become relatively widespread, likely in part because of what people routinely see in entertainment media. It's not reflective of the majority of chasers, but extreme chasers apparently like to think of themselves as "above" most other chasers. The whole notion of being an "extreme" chaser is considered in those circles as a badge of honor, worn with pride by those willing to do virtually anything to catch a sensational event, right up to the edges of death. Those of us advocating a responsible approach to chasing have been ignored openly. Further, we've even been bashed in social media by some of the extreme chasers, who enjoy flaunting their disrespect for advocates of responsible chasing. I certainly have been singled out by some as a target for their antipathy. It's precisely that sort of macho bravado that concerns me: I predicted that fatalities inevitably would result from extreme chasing and, in this case, being right is cold comfort.
This case is even worse than having chasers die in a tornado chase. Having one's actions result in the death of two innocent people simply going about their business is worse, as I see it, than a chaser dying as a result of doing dangerous things around a storm. I've said all along the greatest threat to chasers is being on the streets and highways, and that threat includes any non-chasers who happen to be in the path of a chaser doing extreme things.
Years ago, my wife and I were chasing - I think it was in Nebraska but I can't recall - and we came upon the scene of a collision in a small town (with brick streets). A chaser had T-boned some locals, although apparently without serious injuries. The chaser's vehicle wasn't one we recognized; it had some decals that indicated it was a chaser, however, and had CO license plates. Although we didn't see the collision, it seemed evident that the local driver had underestimated the speed of the approaching chaser (who likely was exceeding the in-town speed limit) and tried to cross the intersection before the chaser came through. I never heard anything afterward about this wreck, so evidently the media never picked up on it. With today's social media, we'd probably have heard more about what happened and who was responsible. This was a very sobering consideration - many extreme chasers are quite ready to admit they often exceed speed limits in their efforts to get a storm*. I've seen their own videos showing them speeding, driving on the wrong side of the road, running stop signs, etc.!
I'm unaware of any fatal collision initiated by a chaser before the current example. However, if any such wreck has happened in the past, we just may not know about it. Although not as well-known, it seems some inexperienced chasers were killed by the Tuscaloosa, AL tornado two years before the sad death of Tim Samaras and his team. The AL fatalities didn't receive a great deal of media attention, so there could be earlier incidents of chaser-responsible traffic fatalities about which we haven't heard. If extreme chasers continue to be irresponsible, my forecast is that there surely will be more examples!
The "outlaw" chaser, perhaps seeking to borrow from the romanticized image of the fictional anti-heroes so popular in the entertainment industry, is not a flattering image for storm chasers. I certainly have become quite tired of having to answer for the irresponsible deeds of "extreme" chasers. These are not just playful antics or about the courage of the chaser - they represent a real hazard to the extreme chasers and those who happen to be near them in the heat of a chase.
__________________
*I won't claim I never exceed the speed limits, but I certainly would not want to speed through a small town - not just to avoid getting a speeding ticket, but because it isn't a very responsible thing to do. If I occasionally speed in open country, it's not something I would choose to boast about with the media. It's behavior I prefer not to advertise as something of which to be proud!
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Is religious indoctrination of children abusive?
This blog is the result of seeing the headline question posted on an atheist FaceBook forum. The statement is made by some atheists to the effect that when parents indoctrinate their children with religion, it's a type of child abuse. I wanted to offer my thoughts on the topic here.
For the most part, in the USA, we're talking about christianity, although some of this might apply to other Abrahamic religions. I'm not so knowledgeable about them. I also acknowledge that your experiences and understanding may vary from mine. That is, there are around 40, 000 different versions of christianity, and they distinguish themselves in various ways based on their particular doctrines. My comments are keyed to the version of christianity that I was taught in an evangelical lutheran church because that's what I know best. Of course, my understanding of that is biased since I never really bought into the program, and left it as soon as I felt I could. Hence, I admit my comprehension could be flawed in detail, but probably not in basic doctrine.
So, disclaimers done, let's proceed: in the version of christianity I was taught, there's an all-powerful, all-knowing god who rules the universe he created from nothing. This god is acknowledged to be a jealous god (a curiously human sentiment for an all-powerful being), so he has no tolerance for belief in other gods. He demands humans worship him, and only him (sounds like deep insecurity to me). Somewhere in the universe, this god created two places where people would go after they lived out their days on the Earth: joyful heaven for the believers and horrifying hell for the heathen unbelievers. Evidently, this god also created an evil opponent (for no obvious reason), the devil (satan, or whatever) to seduce people away from the path leading to heaven, in order for them to land in hell where he tortures them forever. This is pretty much the prototypical "carrot and stick" for humans. If you swallow the story, you get the carrot; if you don't, you get the stick - hard and forever! Because a woman was convinced to eat some fruit by the devil (in the form of a talking snake), all of humanity is scarred by her free choice to disobey god (See the messages, here?) for all time. Now that's god's justice and love, right?
I think it's pretty safe to say that the vast majority of christians in the US were born into and raised within christian families. It's virtually certain that this, and this alone, is the primary explanation for the predominance of christianity in the US. Religions are perpetuated in this way - Richard Dawkins has referred to religions as "God Memes", where a meme is defined as "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture". The meme is, therefore, self-replicating. Not everyone exposed to a meme is brought under its influence, of course, so not unlike the way DNA operates, the replication is not always completely perfect. I'm an example of someone who didn't accept the this "god meme" - what I was taught never made any sense to me. But for many (most) believers, being raised in a family with a particular religious bent is sufficient to indoctrinate them with the meme and by this means, the meme is perpetuated.
From my viewpoint, I have no problem with someone accepting the tenets of christianity, although it's always puzzling to me when otherwise intelligent, rational people choose to accept what I see as a preposterous story with virtually no supporting evidence. There are many positive aspects of christianity (although they vary from one to another of the 40, 000 flavors), so inculcating the traits of kindness to others and love for all god's creations, for example, can't be a bad thing. Many christians find the notion of love for all god's creations (e.g., homosexuals or socialists) pretty challenging! The message may (or may not) be inherently abusive, but what I find to be obvious child abuse is the creation of fear and self-loathing.
In the version of christianity I was taught, all humans are scarred indelibly with the sin committed by the first two humans who were tricked into going against god's rules. Presumably, a (temporary) human sacrifice (by the "son" of god, via a "virgin birth") is the only way to redemption chosen by god for the original sin, provided one accepts the temporarily murdered son of god as their lord and savior. Frankly, I find this notion totally absurd, but everyone is free to believe whatever they choose. Just don't ask me to buy it!
In any case, many children born in christian families are told that fire and brimstone forever awaits them because even if they act only with kindness and love for their entire lives (which I think even children realize is pretty much an impossible standard of behavior), their damnation is assured by a sin committed by someone else long ago. They're made to feel shame and guilt for their "transgressions", notably including sins they themselves didn't actually commit. The only solution is to embrace the jesus meme even more, which breeds even more guilt for the inevitable human "failings" (like sexual lust, for instance). Fear, guilt and shame are powerful tools by which the meme controls its believers. And, by a bizarre twist, regardless of the massively heinous crimes someone may have committed, if at the end of their miserable lives they accept almighty jesus as their lord and savior, they go to heaven!! The only way to avoid hell and damnation is to believe. [Reminds me of the cowardly lion in The Wizard of Oz.]
The content of religion isn't necessarily abusive on its own. But the use of fear, guilt, and shame to force children down your parental "path of righteousness" is child abuse. If you're a christian, you almost certainly want your children to accept your version of the one "true" religious faith. Using abusive tactics to accomplish that goal clearly is an immoral thing to do, at least in my book.
If you're an atheist, the proper thing to do is to encourage your children to make up their own minds about religion. This necessarily involves letting them learn about religion, and to give them the self-confidence to resist the peer pressure they'll surely get from their indoctrinated peers in order to make an informed choice as they mature into adults. Most atheists don't seek to force atheism on believers - they want believers to (a) support separation of church and state, and (b) accept atheists without hate and contempt, thereby living up to the positive ideals of christianity.
For the most part, in the USA, we're talking about christianity, although some of this might apply to other Abrahamic religions. I'm not so knowledgeable about them. I also acknowledge that your experiences and understanding may vary from mine. That is, there are around 40, 000 different versions of christianity, and they distinguish themselves in various ways based on their particular doctrines. My comments are keyed to the version of christianity that I was taught in an evangelical lutheran church because that's what I know best. Of course, my understanding of that is biased since I never really bought into the program, and left it as soon as I felt I could. Hence, I admit my comprehension could be flawed in detail, but probably not in basic doctrine.
So, disclaimers done, let's proceed: in the version of christianity I was taught, there's an all-powerful, all-knowing god who rules the universe he created from nothing. This god is acknowledged to be a jealous god (a curiously human sentiment for an all-powerful being), so he has no tolerance for belief in other gods. He demands humans worship him, and only him (sounds like deep insecurity to me). Somewhere in the universe, this god created two places where people would go after they lived out their days on the Earth: joyful heaven for the believers and horrifying hell for the heathen unbelievers. Evidently, this god also created an evil opponent (for no obvious reason), the devil (satan, or whatever) to seduce people away from the path leading to heaven, in order for them to land in hell where he tortures them forever. This is pretty much the prototypical "carrot and stick" for humans. If you swallow the story, you get the carrot; if you don't, you get the stick - hard and forever! Because a woman was convinced to eat some fruit by the devil (in the form of a talking snake), all of humanity is scarred by her free choice to disobey god (See the messages, here?) for all time. Now that's god's justice and love, right?
I think it's pretty safe to say that the vast majority of christians in the US were born into and raised within christian families. It's virtually certain that this, and this alone, is the primary explanation for the predominance of christianity in the US. Religions are perpetuated in this way - Richard Dawkins has referred to religions as "God Memes", where a meme is defined as "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture". The meme is, therefore, self-replicating. Not everyone exposed to a meme is brought under its influence, of course, so not unlike the way DNA operates, the replication is not always completely perfect. I'm an example of someone who didn't accept the this "god meme" - what I was taught never made any sense to me. But for many (most) believers, being raised in a family with a particular religious bent is sufficient to indoctrinate them with the meme and by this means, the meme is perpetuated.
From my viewpoint, I have no problem with someone accepting the tenets of christianity, although it's always puzzling to me when otherwise intelligent, rational people choose to accept what I see as a preposterous story with virtually no supporting evidence. There are many positive aspects of christianity (although they vary from one to another of the 40, 000 flavors), so inculcating the traits of kindness to others and love for all god's creations, for example, can't be a bad thing. Many christians find the notion of love for all god's creations (e.g., homosexuals or socialists) pretty challenging! The message may (or may not) be inherently abusive, but what I find to be obvious child abuse is the creation of fear and self-loathing.
In the version of christianity I was taught, all humans are scarred indelibly with the sin committed by the first two humans who were tricked into going against god's rules. Presumably, a (temporary) human sacrifice (by the "son" of god, via a "virgin birth") is the only way to redemption chosen by god for the original sin, provided one accepts the temporarily murdered son of god as their lord and savior. Frankly, I find this notion totally absurd, but everyone is free to believe whatever they choose. Just don't ask me to buy it!
In any case, many children born in christian families are told that fire and brimstone forever awaits them because even if they act only with kindness and love for their entire lives (which I think even children realize is pretty much an impossible standard of behavior), their damnation is assured by a sin committed by someone else long ago. They're made to feel shame and guilt for their "transgressions", notably including sins they themselves didn't actually commit. The only solution is to embrace the jesus meme even more, which breeds even more guilt for the inevitable human "failings" (like sexual lust, for instance). Fear, guilt and shame are powerful tools by which the meme controls its believers. And, by a bizarre twist, regardless of the massively heinous crimes someone may have committed, if at the end of their miserable lives they accept almighty jesus as their lord and savior, they go to heaven!! The only way to avoid hell and damnation is to believe. [Reminds me of the cowardly lion in The Wizard of Oz.]
The content of religion isn't necessarily abusive on its own. But the use of fear, guilt, and shame to force children down your parental "path of righteousness" is child abuse. If you're a christian, you almost certainly want your children to accept your version of the one "true" religious faith. Using abusive tactics to accomplish that goal clearly is an immoral thing to do, at least in my book.
If you're an atheist, the proper thing to do is to encourage your children to make up their own minds about religion. This necessarily involves letting them learn about religion, and to give them the self-confidence to resist the peer pressure they'll surely get from their indoctrinated peers in order to make an informed choice as they mature into adults. Most atheists don't seek to force atheism on believers - they want believers to (a) support separation of church and state, and (b) accept atheists without hate and contempt, thereby living up to the positive ideals of christianity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
