Y Safle

Over on the MInTheGap blog, there is a post which links to this article about how global warming is nothing to worry about.

I wrote a couple of replies on the MInTheGap blog which you can take a look at, but to summarise, I noted that the article was largely an appeal to authority. The writer – one Timothy F Ball – claims:

I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition

I am not sure what evidence he has for being one of the first doctors in Climatology in Canada. I suspect there may be some hair splitting going on there, as there were many Canadians prior to this who researched climate.

As to his extensive background in climatology, I cannot find much evidence for this – but he is right to draw attention to the fact that reconstruction of past climates is his area of expertise. His thesis from the University of London was:

“Climate Change in Central Canada, A Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from the Hudson’s Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850.”

I couldn’t immediately find any published papers by him on climate, so a web search revealed these titles that someone else turned up after an exhaustive search of web of science and worldcat:

1. “Historical Evidence and Climatic Implications of a Shift in the Boreal Forest Tundra Transition in Central Canada” Climatic Change 1986

2. “Instrumental Temperature Records at two Sites in Central Canada, 1768 TO 1910″ Climatic Change 1984

3. “The migration of Geese as an indicator of climate change in the southern Hudson-Bay region between 1715 and 1851,” Climatic Change 5, 85-93 (1983).

4. “Climate of 2 locations of the southwestern corner of Hudson-Bay -AD 1720-1729.” International Journal of Climatology 14, 1151-1168 (1994).

So Dr Ball’s expertise lie in understanding how Canadian climate has changed between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This, of course, ties in with the little ice age which followed the medieval warm period, and is an interesting period because of the anomalous conditions in Europe (and the Hudson Bay area) at this time. But in his piece quoted above, Ball gives the impression that the little ice age was a world wide phenomenon. he wrote:

The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA)

Notice that all Dr Ball’s research is over 12 years old. Increasingly we have come to understand that the little ice age was a localised phenomenon. Some have suggested this was because of melt water from retreat of the Greenland ice sheet in the medieval warm period causing a failure of the North atlantic drift to warm Europe (because the melt water had lower salinity, causing the cold water to sink and drive the North Atlantic drift down).

Whatever the reason though, recent research is clear that the little ice age was not a global phenomenon, but a localised one. See for instance:

“Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis 2.3.3 Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm Period”?”. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2002)

Now this is the sum of Dr Ball’s research. Despite his great claims to be a leading climatologist, he has published just 4 peer reviewed papers on the subject – all on Canadian climate change prior to the industrial period.

To put that in context, a researcher in the UK who does not produce at least four peer reviewed papers over three years would not be even entered in the research assessment exercise as a current researcher.

He disagrees with a global consensus on climate change, but he does not carry out research on the subject. He has not published *any* research on the subject for well over a decade. We would do well not to be taken in by such people.

A straw man argument is an argument where someone characterises the position of another as being something slightly different (and weaker) than the actual position of the other person. Such arguments are often deceptive, making it look as if someone has proven their case – when in fact all they have done is demolish the straw man – the weaker argument that is not actually held by anyone!

An example. Richard Dawkins says:

“Faith means blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence.”

He then takes issue with this faith for not being based on evidence. To many his argument seems convincing, but Christians do not believe his definition. A A Hodge wrote:

“Faith must have adequate evidence, else it is mere superstition.”

And that is the faith of Christians everywhere. There is no blind trust. Christian faith is based on evidence, experience and the knowledge of God. Thus Dawkins demolishes a straw man.

In previous posts I have been reposting some correspondence I had with someone over issues of speeding. As we saw in the previous posts, the writer (MW) was relying on anecdotal evidence, rather than hard data to inform his views. For completeness, I recount below the remainder of my reply to MW, which dealt with speeding policy, sloganeering, some suggested solutions from me, and a bit about logic (MW claimed his logic was clear and sequential, which is why he numbered his propositions).

MW continued:
>4) Current thinking by the government is that lower speeds would reduce RTA mortality
> – why do you think they are conducting such extensive
> campaigns to get people to slow down, illustrating their argument with
> just this point?

My reply:

The government want to be seen to be doing something. They also do not
hold a consensus on “current thinking”. Indeed I note that current
thinking is very much divided on the role of speed limitation on reducing
mortality from road traffic accidents. There have clearly been benefits in
some locales from reducing speeds, but taken beyond what is sensible, the
results have been quite the opposite.

In 1995, Suffolk introduced 450 30mph limits on roads that were previously
60mph, since then the number of accidents has risen by an average of 51
per year, after falling by an average of 171 per year for the preceding
seven years.

You can see the statistics and the whole story at:

http://www.abd.org.uk/suffolk_accident_trends.htm

So no, there is no consensus of current thinking “that lower speeds would
reduce RTA mortality”. You are wrong on this too.

>>> 5) The
>>> current laws are not adequate to deal with the general attitude so
>>> clearly exemplified by some of the member of this group; that it is
>>> okay to speed because you’re such good drivers.

>> That argument is ad hominem. As far as I am aware, no such argument has
>> been proposed.

> There is nothing wrong with ad hominem argument, except in the rarefied
> world of Tractatus groupies. Most of political philosophy is ad hominem,
> just look at Hobbes, Locke, Marx et al, they reason through preference.

This is an irrelevant appeal to authority. It is as fallacious as the ad
hominem. It is also wrong. I have not read much Marx, but Hobbes and Locke
I have read and not noticed a strong tendency to ad hominem arguments from
either. There are certain assumptions in their work, but that is something
different. Locke sees property as something special, and the
non-propertied man somehow less than human (not his term of course). That
is a pragmatic assumption to make his philosophy work, and Locke is – of
course – one of the greatest philosophical pragmatists. However that does
not make his argument ad hominem unless he dismisses the logic of another
based on their lack of property (which to my knowledge he does not).

Now ad hominem arguments *are* fallacious, and if you do not agree with me
then all I can say is that your arguments are of no consequence to me
because your surname is Winters, and [anecdotally] everyone I ever met with that surname
was a simpleton! (:o)

And finally to your assertion that people who have disagreed with you over
speed humps and speed limiters think it is okay to speed: I think no such
thing. I have never said it is okay to speed and I don’t think it is. I
have never in my life had a speeding ticket, nor a single point on my
license, and I am a paid up member of the IAM. I agree with their policy
that speed limits are limits. I also have never had an accident.

But of course it is so much easier to cast aspersions at others rather
than deal with the issues. That is why the ad hominem argument is so
popular – because it is so much easier than actually thinking about the
issues under discussion.

> 6) Such culturally embedded attitudes require sterner measures to
> counter

You have not demonstrated a culturally embedded attitude. I also don’t
think that the law is the instrument of change for cultural attitudes –
it is education that is needed, which needs to treat people as though
they have the wherewithal to comprehend an issue beyond simplistic
sloganeering.

> In truth, we are approaching
> this from two differing philosophical standpoints. You seek empirical
> truth and logical reasoning. I’m offering deductive processes based upon
> witness testimony. A Posteriori if you like, given your fondness for
> archaic expressions.

Statistical data such as I have presented here *is* a posteriori. It is
based upon observation and is not deduced a priori. We may note that
scientists and statisticians are empiricists almost to a man. Thus it is a
posteriori propositions that are garnered to make sense of the world, and a
priori propositions are secondary, being analytic.

So no, our differences here do not come from some epistemological
distinction between rationalists and empiricists. The problem here is that
you are not thinking critically at all.

> 7) If you are prevented from speeding then the problem is partially
> solved

No, the problem is merely shifted. Treat the cause, not the symptoms.

> What were you saying about simplistic sloganeering? This is one of the
> best. Treat the cause, not the symptoms. Apply your logic to that. Where
> do you find cause?

In excessive use of the motor car, which leads to dependence on the same,
which makes it politically unacceptable to demand that motor vehicle use
might be limited to those who can consistently prove themselves competent
and safe to move said vehicles around.

We combat this by several measures:

1. Break dependence on motor vehicles by funding public transport,
changing planning laws to enable better designed communities with
amenities that do not require road trips, encourage alternative transport
means, discourage cars where they are problematic through road tolls and
orders etc.

2. Radically increase driver education, both for existing drivers and for
new drivers. Consider some level of testing that at least gets drivers
looking at the Highway Code! (How many drivers even know where their copy
is?!) A full driving retest at regular intervals would be good but
impractical all at once, so instead use driving schools for those who
commit traffic offences, and demand retesting for anyone who loses their
license. Life bans for driving should also be issued where drivers are
unwilling to improve their driving competence and attitudes.

I could go on, but you get the idea, I am sure.

> One of the problems with using semantically accurate deduction is the lack
> of any human quality. I know motorists, in general, drive too fast,
> because I have seen them. You would argue that because I have only seen
> black swans my logic is faulty in assuming that all swans are black.

I rather suspect you have only seen white swans, unless you live in Perth,
Western Australia.

If, based on your empirical observation that all swans you have seen are
white you then proceed to deduce that all swans are white, then yes – your
logic is faulty of course. However you may indeed *induce* the hypothesis
that all swans are white, which is an essential part of the scientific
method. I have no problem with that, but neither is it relevant here. On
discovery of the Black Swan River, you must abandon your hypothesis and
the faulty proposition. Likewise in the face of the evidence I have quoted
above, I invite you to abandon your faulty hypotheses in the message you
wrote previously.

> You
> don’t appear to understand that in some cases, deduction from observation
> is perfectly valid,

You are referring to induction. A hypothesis is an induction and its
validity is open to test. This is different from logical deduction and the
absolute validity or otherwise of a logical argument.

> Is there a better way to prevent
> speeding than to make the road unsuitable for fast driving?

Yes:

1. Better enforcement by the police. Use of Gatsos at accident
blackspots etc. and use of police traffic cars to keep a check on
driving standards.

2. Increase speed limits where they are clearly unsuitable, and then
rigorously enforce those limits (e.g. raise the motorway limit to 80).
This would be done alongside lowering limits in other areas.

3. More use of variable limits.

4. More rigorous road testing, including greater use of retesting and
training following traffic offences.

5. Greater education perhaps through positive encouragements to
undertake advanced driving courses.

6. A more well rounded debate in the media rather than repeated
sloganeering

> This is the voice of someone who does not understand marketing. At the
> risk of sounding patronising, you would only appeal to those of your
> intellectual standing and to be frank, you ain’t the problem.

Sloganeering panders to the myth that one is safe if, for instance, one is
not speeding. That is quite untrue and an example of why such sloganeering
is often counter productive. You will notice figures suggest that such
marketing campaigns have spectacularly failed to change attitudes.

I have been detailing a reply to a correspondent, MW, about speeding. He argued (against the evidence) that most people break the speed limits, and that those who do not break speed limits tend not to have accidents. On investigation, both claims were clearly false – but MW preferred anecdote and prejudice to colour his views. I am reposting MWs message now, to show how easily we can make errors in our decisions if we base those decisions on anecdote and hunches.

In thi sthird article, we look at another of MWs claims – this time based on second hand reporting and our tendency to misremember what surveys are saying to bolster our world views.

MW wrote:
> 3) The UK has the highest child mortality rate attributable to RTAs in
> Europe. [...]
> I heard it on the Beeb, in a discussion with one of the many Transport
> Ministers. I can’t be bothered to dig up a better source than that.

It was a pity that MW posted this without bothering to look it up, as he would have spared himself some embarrassement had he done so. MW is not alone in misremembering media reports. Frankly, I do so nearly every time – and I frequently find that when I go back and read the reports again, that I have the details wrong.

But MW could not be bothered to look up his sources, so I had to tell him he was wrong.

The UK road death rate is, of
course, one of the lowest (I think probably *the* lowest – but I do not have latest figures in front of me. It was *the* lowest when I replied to MW) in Europe per
head of population. We are about three or four times less likely to die
in our cars than the French (or Americans for that matter), but our
figures show that we have a *poor* record on pedestrian death, and
particularly child pedestrian death.

We are not the worst in Europe. According to Department of Transport Figures I see that
the UK child pedestrian death rate was .9 per 100,000 population. Which
compares unfavourably with Austria, Denmark, Finland, Italy (.5);
Netherlands, Germany (.6) and especially Sweden (.2). However we are
streets ahead of Portugal (2.8), and significantly lower than Ireland
(1.2), Luxembourg (1.3), and Spain (1.0). I also note that the comparison
is only with Western Europe – although I expect that Eastern Europe might
have lower figures, as there are generally fewer cars there.

So again your facts are wrong. Our child pedestrian death rate is poor,
but not the worst in Europe. It is however a significant blot on our
otherwise very good driving record.

> We do,
> however, have a lower overall mortality rate than most of the rest of
> Europe, so I have discovered, which is food for thought.

We also might note that children living in the most socially deprived
areas of the UK are up to three times as likely to be hit by a car than
those living in the most affluent parts of the country. ["Streets Ahead",
Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) and the Imperial College
Centre for Transport Studies (ICCTS)]

There are no doubt many factors for this, but it would perhaps be just as
productive in reducing the child death toll to lift such children out of
this social deprivation. This would also have long term benefits for the
children and society as a whole… but it would cost more and take longer
to implement than a speed hump and yet another speed limit, wouldn’t it.

In a previous article I wrote about a correspondent, MW, who argued (against the evidence) that most people break the speed limits – relying on anecdotal evidence.

He also wrote:
> 2) People who don’t break speed limits tend not have accidents

My answer:

Are you sure? I am sure I read an article somewhere that showed that
people who tend to drive well below the speed limit are much more likely
to have accidents than people who travel at around the speed limit
(whether a little below or a little above). This was, I think, in an old issue of Advanced Driving magazine, although unfortunately I have no reference to hand.

Munden (1967), reported some interesting results for drivers in the
United Kingdom who habitually drive at deviant speeds (speeds well
above or below the *average* speed for a road.) The speed of selected
drivers were observed and compared to the four preceding and four
following vehicles. For drivers observed more than once, those traveling
more than 1.8 standard deviations above or below the mean traffic speed
had significantly higher crash rates. This from:

J. M. Munden, “The Relation Between A Driver’s Speed and His Accident
Rate,” Report LR 88, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne,
England, 1967.

But that survey was one of a number that discovered an interesting U
shaped curve in accident rates against deviation from the mean speed by
drivers (when excluding changes of speed for purposes of maneuvering).
What is shown quite clearly is that both very slow moving vehicles and
very fast moving vehicles are much more likely to have accidents.
Strangely we do not see a move towards a simplistic “slowness kills”
message, because we understand that other factors are at play here.

What is very interesting was some follow up research [2] by David L. Harkey,
H. Douglas Robertson, and Scott E. Davis. “Assessment of Current Speed
Zoning Criteria.” Transportation Research Record, 1281 (1990), p. 51.

“Speed at which accident risk is minimized occurred at the 90th percentile
of the travel speeds observed.”

Thus those who exceed the speed limit a little are statistically (in that
survey) the least likely to have accidents, and in fact all the U curves
in all the studies show accident rates at their lowest at about 10% over
the mean speed, which is usually a little over the speed limit.

Of course there are other surveys that show those who seek compliance with
speeding laws are at less risk of having accidents, and that there is
often a direct correlation between excessive speed in a driving situation
and higher accident rates. I do not want to excuse habitual or excessive
speeding, nor suggest that speeding is really acceptable. What these data
do demonstrate, however, is that MW was wrong to say:

“People who don’t break speed limits tend not have accidents.”

Again the evidence shows otherwise. The statement is too simplistic and
ignores the real data.

What we *can* say is that those who habitually and/or excessively speed
are statistically *more likely* to have accidents.

Notes:

[1] The Relation Between a Driver’s Speed and His Accident Rate, Report LR 88
JM Munden – Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, England, 1967

[2] Assessment of Current Speed Zoning Criteria
DL Harkey, HD Robertson, SE Davis – Transportation Research Record, 1990

I wrote a piece to a correspondent in America with the following snippet:

> The west (U.S. *and* Europe) are
> systematically denying access to our markets from African nations, which
> is why we are causing the crushing poverty on that continet.
>
> How a protectionist can sleep at night eludes me. Do you believe American
> lives are worth more than African lives?

Rather astoundingly I received this response:

> Stephen….do I think American lives are worth more than African
> lives…HELL YES!!!!!

A prime example of what is known as infra-humanisation. The out-group is seen as less than human by members of the in group.

Here was my response:

I am intrigued. How much more is an American worth than an African? Twice
as much? Eight times as much? And why do you think so?
Certainly Americans *cost* much more. The average U.S. income must be in
the region of 50,000 dollars, whereas more than half of the inhabitants
of sub saharan Africa get by on less than a dollar a day. Thus the
American income is over 136 times that of most sub saharan Africans.

Why is this? Ultimately it is down to the insidious policies of the EU
and the USA – protectionist measures that lock third world countries out
of our markets and keep them poor.

So politically it certainly seems that we *do* value western lives more
highly than African ones (or domestic lives more highly than foreign
lives). However, I am surprised to hear you come out and openly admit
this fact, for surely it is a doctrine of the United States that man is
born free, with fundamental rights and freedoms.

It is interesting that ownership of property was dropped from the list,
which otherwise comes straight from Locke, but clearly US capitalism is
predicated on a concept of property ownership as conferring certain human
rights.

That is perhaps part of the problem here. With the concept that one is
almost not human if one owns no property comes justification for slave
ownership and such like. Further, as Europeans stole the land of Africa
and excluded others in the name of their new ownership, all predicated on
the empty land premise, it follows that many people will see the
disinherited of Africa as somehow less than human.

But as a philosophy this is both inconsistent and detestable.

That Locke is inconsistent is not surprising. His philosophy was first
pragmatic, and only occasionally consistent. That the philosophy and
attitudes of Locke and his age have so permeated western society that we
believe it a forgone conclusion that our system is best is perhaps much
more surprising. We call ourselves rational, intelligent and educated –
but we still can make statements (or at least secretly believe) that our
lives are worth more than the lives of those we persecute?

Education is perhaps part of the problem. We *think* we are educated in
the west, but in fact our critical reasoning capacity is impaired
severely. Thus American media spoon feeds the American people stories
about that nasty Sadam Hussein, and we believe every one of them – after
all, he has proven he is a bad guy, so surely all these other stories
*must* be true.

We are spoon fed political claptrap about how the world will be a better
place if only we kill a few more people, and we feel *safer* when in fact
this very thinking should make us tremble and lie awake in our beds.

But are we surprised that there is this uncritical acceptance? Is it
perhaps that schools have been encouraged to teach a curriculum that
goves us a *feeling* of being educated, whilst actually knowing nothing?
How many Americans can even find their own state on a map? let alone the
location of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or any
other of these respectable and sovereign nations that you would so
happily destroy for your own entertainment and sense of well being?

How many people in the US could tell Malaŵi from Botswana on a map? Or
know the new naime for Zaire?

Just so long as it does not affect local jobs, and these people stay well
out of our way, then we are happy. We murder them slowly through trade
restriction, or we do so quickly with bombs. What is the difference? What
does it matter? Apparently not very much, because after all, we can sleep
soundly tonight knowing that American lives are worth more than African
lives.

Snowball, all animals *are* born equal, but some are more equal
than others – or so I hear.

“For there is one law for rich and poor alike that prevents them equally
from sleeping under bridges and begging bread.”

In my last “Mistakes We Make When Thinking” article, I raised the issue of anecdotal evidence being given more credence than data. An example of this is usually raised in the contentious issue of speeding (and what we should do about it). Driving is an issue on which most people seem to have an opinion, but how often is that opinion well formed?

By way of example I offer this part of a conversation I had with someone (MW). He began:

> 1) Most people break the speed limit
> This is self evident.

This is neither self evident, nor necessarily right. MW used the term “most”
which I would understand to be approaching, but not quite attaining all. Now here are some figures:

“On non-urban roads, more than half the cars on motorways and dual
carriageways travelled faster than the speed limit; 18 per cent were
travelling in excess of 80 mph on motorways and 13 per cent on dual
carriageways.

“On urban roads with a 30 mph speed limit 65 per cent of cars exceeded
that limit, 32 per cent travelling faster than 35 mph. On 40 mph roads
25 per cent of cars exceeded the limit, with 8 per cent exceeding 45 mph.”

[Vehicle Speeds in Great Britain: 2001]

So only on urban roads with a 30mph limit will you find even a clear
majority of people breaking the speed limits, and even then it appears
that a clear majority only go over by a few miles per hour.

These figures were collected on clear unobstructed sections of road with
no road “furniture” or other impediments to progressive travel, so they
are indicative of real levels of speeding.

So it is neither self evident, nor even correct, to say most people break
the speed limit.

> I drive daily and in the past I have driven extensively – 60 to 80k pa. As
> someone who keeps to the speed limit or just under, I am aware of a
> considerable amount of traffic passing me.

Yes indeed, but consider how much traffic you pass also.

This is easiest to do on a motorway. Travel at the speed limit on the
motorway and count how many vehicles pass you and how many you pass. You
will probably be surprised to find the numbers are broadly similar. You
are more aware of vehicles moving faster than you than those moving more
slowly, but this is an illusion (the same illusion that makes you believe
you are always in the slowest moving queue when stuck in traffic on the
motorway).

So this anecdotal evidence is unreliable. The statistical surveys show a
different picture.

People are wired up to give greater credence to anecdotal evidence than actual statistics. But that does not make the anecdotal evidence right. careful analysis often tells a different story.

This did not satisfy MW, who protested (against the data):

> Yes, I know this kind of [visual anecdotal]
> evidence will not satisfy you, but frankly I don’t care. If you can’t
> accept the evidence of your own eyes, then fine, you believe what you want
> to.

I know I cannot accept the evidence of my own eyes quite often. My eyes
tell me that the sun falls into the sea each night. They tell me that I am
always stuck in the slowest moving traffic queue. They tell me that this
keyboard is solid and that the universe is full of things. My eyes and my
brain that processes the images coming from my eyes are easily fooled.
Evidence for a proposition can come from many sources, but we don’t accept
evidence from any source if it is uncorroborated by testimony from other
sources.

So it is not me who will “believe what [I] want to”, it is you. You are
choosing not to take into account the testimony of carefully crafted
statistical analysis yielding verifiable data in a scientific manner,
because you prefer to believe the limited and imperfect testimony of your
eyes. So it is you who will “believe what you want to”.

> Look around, stand on a street corner one day and watch the traffic.

Of course, I have never stood on a street corner and watched traffic in my
life!

There was more, which I’ll post in another thread. The point here is that we become quite attached to our anecdotal evidence, even when it is contradicted by hard data. But don’t point the finger at MW on this point. Instead, consider what *you* believe based on anecdotal evidence only, that might be contradicted by actual data? We all have our blind spots. Let’s search them out, and avoid this mistake in our thinking.

The Western Mail recently reported in slightly hysterical tone that wireless computer networks should be banned from the nation’s classrooms because of fears about their effects on health.

MP Urges Ban in WiFi Technology in Schools

Why should we ban WiFi in schools? The reasons we are being given are that parents are concerned; that we don’t know the effects of WiFi microwave radiation yet; that one teacher claimed to be getting ill whenever teaching in front of a transmitter; and that we should apply the precautionary principle.

The result? Ysgol Pantycelyn in Carmarthern switched off its WiFi network (despite the benefits these networks bring to teaching). A few other schools in England have similarly shut down their wireless networks.

Now all of the reasons above suffer from a failure to consider the scientific basis for the claims being made. They show our penchant for listening to anecdotal evidence and rating it much more highly than scientific evidence. This is a dangerous error in our thinking. We are geared up to accept personal testimony, even though such testimony is necessarily limited and often flawed.

Who can argue that there is a problem if a teacher is feeling ill when teaching in front of WiFi equipment?

Except it turns out that in a controlled experiment when the access point was sometimes off and sometimes on, but the teacher in question did not know when it was off, he continued to claim to be feeling ill when he believed (wrongly) that the access point was on.

But that spoiler won’t be widely reported. No studies have indicated that people can detect WiFi radiation.

Someone will reply that the wavelength of WiFi radiation is in the microwave band is it not? So much so that microwave ovens are one of the largest sources of interference to WiFi equipment. So aren’t we cooking people by emitting this radiation?

Look – there is a clue here in the word “interference” above. If Microwave ovens are causing interference then they have been emitting some microwave radiation (more than from access points) for many years. Have we banned microwave ovens yet?

No, because the levels of emissions are essentially harmless.

How do we know?

Because we are surrounded by microwave radiation wherever we go. I suppose we could go and live at the bottom of a deep shaft mine to avoid it. But then we would probably die of vitamin D deficiency instead.

For people living on the surface of the Earth, we are constantly bombarded by radiation at every wavelength (including plenty of microwave background radiation).

And here is the important point. In the UK at least, WiFi radiation is strictly limited to 100mw (the limit is higher in the US). That limit has a very specific purpose. It means that unless you pretty much swallow the WiFi antenna, you are not going to absorb any more radiation from the WiFi network than from the background radiation.

What is more, the signal itself is deliberately encoded to look just like background radiation. The signal is spread over several wavebands to keep the power down, and “chipped” so that it looks just like microwave “static” unless you know what to look for and how to decode it.

And the power is kept so low so that multiple users of the same wave bands can coexist. Unlike mobile phones, for instance, which use much higher powers because the cell network has exclusive use of the waveband, and does not want to put base stations every 100 metres!

So there is no scientific reason at all to suspect WiFi networks. This is the advice given by government agencies and many local authorities (although some wash their hands of the affair with useless “advice” that it is “up to the individual schools”). We don’t need to worry about the safety of WiFi networks.

But all people hear is the anecdotal story (without refutation), and the words “radiation” and “developing children”, and it won’t be long before we see a wrong headed national campaign by some newspaper to ban this dangerous hazard in our schools.

Radio 4 carried a story today which is also reported in the Daily Mail, that George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, got hold of some scrawled notes from Gordon Brown and presented them to a graphologist who proceeded to “analyse” them in an unflattering manner about Brown.

At the risk of sounding like I may be saying something in support of this Labour government (we wouldn’t want that!) I have to say that I am deeply troubled by Osborne’s lack of capacity for critical thinking, and how poorly this bodes should the Conservatives get into power.

In order that he may score some cheap political points against Borwn, one of the supposedly brightest minds of the conservative party has resorted to quackery on a par with fortune telling, homeopothy and ESP.

Osborne might as well have said that he had received a message from fairies at the bottom of his garden for all the credence we should give it.

The idea that we can tell anything about someone’s character from their handwriting has time and again been demonstrated to be arrant nonsense. Empirical studies repeatedly demonstrate that there is nothing in graphology – and yet supposedly intelligent people continue to use such analysis to make important judgements about people.

Shame on them, and shame on George Osborne for doing the same. If it were not for parliamentary privelege, Brown could probably sue him for libel.

Graphology tells you nothing about the character of someone whose writing is analysed.

But it speaks volumes about the person who commissioned the analysis.

Woolly minded. Lacking in critical thinking skills. A poor judge of character. Not given to consideration of the evidence.

If the Conservatives want to be taken seriously they should sack George Osborne.

When discussing mistakes we make when thinking, at some point or another someone will mention the list of logical fallacies that can be made, using their Latin names. Despite the fact that we use much less Latin these days then previous generations, we continue to use Latin names – perhaps because they make it sound like we know what we are talking about, or maybe in the hope that no-one else will know what we are talking about!

But one Latin term has been so common in disputations, that most people think they know what it means. This term is “ad hominem”, and if someone feels they are being unfairly and maliciously attacked in an argument, accusations of ad hominem arguments will fly.

But what does argumentum ad hominem actually mean? And do we use the term correctly? how do we avoid allowing ad hominem arguments from affecting our thinking?

Literally “argumentum ad hominem” is an argument [carried] to the man. An argument is ad hominem if, instead of arguing against the premises or logic being presented, it attacks the character or beliefs of the person who presented an argument or point of view.

A classic example of an ad hominem can be found in the comments on this blog. In my article on Capital Punishment, I wrote an article on a controversial subject taking a very specific line of argument. A commentator (David) took exception to what I had written, but rather than attempting to refute the line of thought, he instead objected that it was “unfair” that I should argue in that manner because I am a Christian.

Now David argued that his line was not ad hominem, but this is exactly what an ad hominem argument is.

A: I believe that Capital Punishment is wrong because inasmuch as we make a choice to kill for vengeful reasons and self interest, we are no better than the criminal who kills for vengeful reasons and self interest.

B: You are a Christian and it is unfair that you make that argument.

Now the problem with the ad hominem line is that it does not refute the original argument, but it distracts from it. Ad hominem argument is a fallacy of distraction. I could have argued that it is entirely appropriate that Christians take a world view that David saw as deterministic, based perhaps on the philosophy of Jonathan Edwards.

But then we would be discussing Christian approaches to determinism (and before you know it, Calvinism and predestination) rather than capital punishment. The argument would be unrefuted, but entirely forgotten.

So an ad hominem line is a dangerous fallacy – because it distracts.

Note however, that what many people mean by an ad hominem argument is more approprioately called an “abusive ad hominem”.

For instance, on another forum in the last month or so, I was in disputation with an individual over some point of Christian doctrine. I expressed my belief in the inerrancy of scripture, and the sufficiency of the Bible, and my faith In Jesus Christ but then challenged the view of the other party on separationism. His reply:

“You are a classic liberal”, and “You lie when the truth will not help your position!” (He later apologised for calling me a liar, but never managed to see me as anything but a theological liberal!)

This was the abusive ad hominem. An attack on the integrity and character of the other party in the argument. It is not only distracting and fallacious, but it also raises the temperature of debate and makes constructive progress almost impossible.

People spot an abusive ad hominem easily enough, and such lines can be rightly ignored. But spotting other ad hominem arguments is also important. If we start answering ad hominem lines, then our original arguments get forgotten.

Don’t let people distract you with ad hominem lines. Argue a case on its own merits, not on the merits of the person who holds the argument.