A matter of semantics

Just heard Evan Davis try to talk David Milliband into a corner on Radio 4. Davis’ point seemed to be that the UK government was saying one thing to the Libyans while saying something else (or trying to avoid saying anything) to the Americans. But much of the dispute seemed to be about a false dichotomy. The question under discussion was “Did the UK government want Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to die in prison?”. There are, to my mind, three possible cases here:

1. The UK government positively wanted him to die in prison.
2. The UK government had no view on the matter.
3. The UK government positively did not want him to die in prison.

Milliband seemed to be at great pains to say that the government’s position was not Case 1 (while leaving open the option to choose Case 2 or Case 3). Davis repeatedly demanded a straight answer to the question “Did the UK government want him to die in prison?” Milliband didn’t want to answer “No”, because that would be interpreted by many as Case 3.

Of course the UK government wants to distance itself from the Scottish government’s decision. If there is any truth to the conspiracy theory, the UK government almost certainly colluded in that decision, and I’m sure the US government was at least aware of it too. But that’s realpolitik, and the electorate wouldn’t understand.

It’s no time to gloat

I’ve had misgivings for a while now about Pharyngula. I think the issue of science versus religion is a kind of triage (in the original French sense): there are basically three groups of people in the world:

1. the ones who will believe in a god or gods regardless of evidence,
2. the ones who won’t,
3. and the ones who might be open to persuasion.

Ridiculing Group 1 is entertaining in the short term, but gets tedious after a while. Preaching to Group 2 is pointless. Telling Group 3 they’re stupid is counterproductive, and Pharyngula is all about ridiculing religion.

PZ Myers doesn’t explicitly impute any causal link between religion and the events that have recently come to light in Antioch, California. He simply juxtaposes a few facts and leaves readers to form their own conclusions. Sadly, most of the comments on his post are about as reasoned and evidence-based as those at Garrido’s disturbing blog.

Rational people, especially scientists, can do better than this. “Data” is not the plural of “anecdote”, and this incident doesn’t prove anything. We should not aspire to be as unscientific as the religious in our treatment of evidence.

Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi

This started off as a comment on Head of Legal’s post on the rumours leading up to today’s release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

A successful appeal would be embarrassing to the governments of several countries. Where there’s terrorism, the standard government reaction seems to be some form or other of the politician’s syllogism. The American approach is along the lines of “We must invade somewhere. The culprits were from Saudi Arabia, but we can’t invade there – Afghanistan will do.” The British approach seems to be to convict somebody – anybody will do.

That goes some way towards satisfying the immediate lust for revenge. If they convict the right people, so much the better – it stops them committing crimes and deters others. But it’s intensely embarrassing when it goes wrong. If an appeal succeeds, it’s apparent that the real culprits are still out there somewhere. Furthermore, potential terrorists can see no point in not committing crimes if they think they’ll be considered innocent until proved Irish/Muslim/whatever.

I think Lord Denning understood that, and he pointed out that the death penalty is an effective way of preventing such appeals. Of course, he also felt that the possibility of embarrassing police officers with evidence of their perjury constituted grounds for rejecting such appeals. (Many readers will know that that was the speech where he coined the term “appalling vista”, preempting Microsoft by a quarter of a century.)

If I was a real conspiracy theorist, I’d say that the Scottish government saw an opportunity to avoid an embarrassing defeat at the appeal, especially if the rumours turn out to be true.

London court strikes a blow in the war on photography

Somewhat belatedly, I’d like to draw your attention to the shocking story of Jamie Waylett. The use of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was a disgrace, and the fishing expedition to find something to pin on him was small-minded and vindictive. I’d love to contrast the entire episode with how grown-up police officers behave, but Sierra Charlie’s been deleted. I must lobby Sierra Charlie 2 to repost.

Realisation dawns on an idiot

The absurd Hazel Blears regrets her resignation. Of course she does! She was in the Cabinet, thanks to the lunatic Blair. Her resignation is the best thing that could have happened to Brown. The only mystery is why he didn’t get shot of her sooner.

BBC News does science right (Shock! Horror!)

I’ve often been critical of BBC News coverage (postings passim ad nauseam), so it’s only fair to report when they do something right. It’s even more surprising when it’s science. Kudos to Victoria Gill, Science Reporter.

BBC News continues downhill (6)

When I had occasion to chastise Stephen Fry about the silly modern habit of using “more than” to mean “as many as” (or, less charitably, using “three” to mean “two”), I was sure he wouldn’t be so stupid as to do the same thing with percentages. I had no such confidence in the new, dumber, BBC. Today they published this piece of innumerate drivel.

Checking out the actual numbers at Amazon, I see that the Kindle DX has a 9.7″ screen, compared with 6″ on earlier models. That’s a ratio of about 1.6 in linear dimensions or about 2.6 (let’s round it down to 2.5) in area. That makes it about 150% bigger, not 250%!

What is Gordon Brown’s guilty secret?

Obviously Tony Blair was an unprincipled spin-doctor. He decided that the only way he could win an election was by turning Labour into a clone of the Conservatives. The plan worked and the key Daily Mail demographic fell for the same “something for nothing” drivel the Tories had been feeding them for decades. When Gordon Brown came along, he appeared less smarmy, and therefore more honest. But what’s happened since? He brought Mandelson back from the dead, with a seat in the Lords to boot, and now sits idly by while his Home Secretary makes Blunkett look competent by comparison. It seems Jacqui and Mandy have something on him, to make him do their bidding.

BBC News continues downhill (5)

The BBC News Web site currently has a story headlined “Texting death crash peer jailed“. A careful reading of the article reveals that Lord Ahmed was jailed for dangerous driving. Not, as the BBC would like us to believe, for causing death by dangerous driving, because there is no evidence that he was driving dangerously at the time of the fatal accident. Rather, he was considered (indeed pleaded guilty to) driving dangerously some minutes before the accident. I think that makes the “Texting death” part of the headline a blatant lie.

Andrew Wakefield made it all up?

The Sunday Times has an unfortunate obsession with exclusive stories. It’s unfortunate because the desire to get the story published often takes priority over checking the facts.  The most notorious example was the Hitler’s diaries hoax of 1983. I’m sure they’ve fallen for the odd previously undiscovered Shakespeare work as well but, in characteristic Sunday Times fashion, I can’t be bothered checking.

These hoaxes cause the Sunday Times and its publishers much embarrassment, and the rest of us much schadenfreude. Unfortunately, the paper’s performance on health stories is less amusing. Its sympathetic treatment of Peter Duesberg’s eccentric views on the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS may be due to incompetence, but was prolonged over an estended period and may have had fatal consequences. Its editorial staff can sleep soundly in their beds in the knowledge that the deaths in the UK as a consequence of their publishing this rubbish have been far fewer than South Africa’s 330,000 from 2000 to 2005.

Against this background, it would be dangerous to assume that a medical story in the Sunday Times would be painstakingly researched and verified. So it is with some misgivings that I recommend reading today’s piece by Brian Deer. If this proves accurate, it will blow away the last vestige of evidence behind the whole preposterous MMR-autism nonsense. Not that the cranks are overly concerned about evidence. Brian Deer has done good work on this issue before; it’s just unfortunate that he chooses to publish in the Sunday Times.