Showing posts with label critical thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label critical thinking. Show all posts

Monday, March 11, 2024

Stupidity: The Epidemic

 

For those who are congenitally stupid, I have much sympathy. For those who are stupid yet think they are the smartest person in the room, I have only disdain. And it is the latter that this post seeks to address.

Although I have written on this topic before, stupidity's myriad manifestations continue to hold me in a perhaps unhealthy grip. But I know that I am not the only one who is both fascinated and repelled by this subject. Last week, on one of my regular walks with a few of my retired colleagues, all of whom actually read and are aware of the world around them, the topic of stupidity as it relates to Trump's followers arose. As is always the case when we gather, we had a spirited discussion as to possibly explanations of the cult for whom the Chief Grifter can do no wrong.

Later that day, one of them sent me an article by a neuroscientist named Bobby Azarian who offers this interesting definition of stupidity:

Although the term "stupidity" may seem derogatory or insulting, it is actually a scientific concept that refers to a specific type of cognitive failure. It is important to realize that stupidity is not simply a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but rather a failure to use one's cognitive abilities effectively. This means that you can be “smart” while having a low IQ, or no expertise in anything. It is often said that “you can’t fix stupid,” but that is not exactly true. By becoming aware of the limitations of our natural intelligence or our ignorance, we can adjust our reasoning, behavior, and decision-making to account for our intellectual shortcomings.

Indeed, to add to the above, I would say that having some humility about our own limitations is part and parcel of being critical thinkers.  Thus, for example, I accept the scientific consensus on Covid vaccines, a topic that so many with no expertise claim to oppose because they read something contrary on the internet or in a chat group. It is a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, whereby people think they are smarter than they are and know things that others don't. As Azarian says, they are ignorant of their own ignorance.

The problem is especially worrisome because such people tend to be attracted to confident, strong-man leaders.

For example, Donald Trump — despite not having any real understanding of what causes cancer — suggested that the noise from wind turbines is causing cancer (a claim that is not supported by any empirical studies). It is well documented that on topics ranging from pandemics to climate change, Trump routinely dismissed the opinions of the professionals who have dedicated their lives to understanding those phenomena, because he thought that he knew better. It’s bad enough that politicians like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene don’t recognize their own ignorance and fail to exercise the appropriate amount of caution when making claims that can affect public health and safety — but what is really disturbing is that they are being celebrated for their over-confidence (i.e., stupidity).

I hope you will find an opportunity to read the entire article, but I shall close with one more excerpt from it:

This new theory of stupidity I have proposed here — that stupidity is not a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but a lack of awareness of the limits of one’s intelligence or knowledge — is more important right now than ever before, and I’ll tell you why. The same study by Anson mentioned above showed that when cues were given to make the participants “engage in partisan thought,” the Dunning-Kruger effect became more pronounced. In other words, if someone is reminded of the Republican-Democrat divide, they become even more overconfident in their uninformed positions. This finding suggests that in today’s unprecedently divided political climate, we are all more likely to have an inflated sense of confidence in our unsupported beliefs. What’s more, those who actually have the greatest ignorance will assume they have the least!

And in this American election year, that is very, very worrisome. 

 



Tuesday, February 6, 2024

Stupidity Is The Real Threat

There is an article in today's Star about the threat to Canadian democracy posed by artificial intelligence. However, I can't help but wonder if the real threat is human stupidity.

Raisa Patel writes:

Whether it’s manipulated video, voices or text, Canada is at risk of seriously endangering its democratic institutions if it doesn’t get a grip on regulating artificial intelligence, one of the world’s foremost AI leaders warned Monday.

The use of such tactics — which are becoming increasingly common at a time when high-stakes elections are set to be held around the globe — “can fool a social media user and make them change their mind on political questions,” said Yoshua Bengio, scientific director of the Mila-Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute

“There's real concern about the use of AI in kind of politically oriented ways that go against the principles of our democracy.”

Bengio, who is also the co-chair of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s AI advisory council, was speaking to the House of Commons industry committee as it studies a bill seeking to reign in and regulate the rapidly developing technology. 

Given that fake videos and voices have now reached the point where they are virtually indistinguishable from the real thing, it is sad that there is no inoculation available against human credulity. 

On the other hand, however, is it really too much to expect people to inspect their sources? Surely it is one of the 21st century's greatest ironies that we live in a time when the world's information and knowledge is available literally at our fingertips, yet many people choose to use the internet simply to verify their own ignorance and prejudices. Instead of checking a reputable media source or even Snopes to see whether something is true, there are those that will rely only on their Telegram channels, Q-Anon, Facebook groups and other discredited sources, happy to label and dismiss mainstream media as lamestream media. 

That is capitulation, not critical thinking, and it appears to be endemic. I found myself thinking more about this last night as I watched the news about the latest Trump outrage. Apparently, even though a private citizen, he is giving direction to Congress to block a southern border deal because he wants to make it an election issue. While not a perfect bill, it becomes painfully obvious that a problem near and dear to so many Americans, and a clear Achilles Heel for Joe Biden, takes a back seat to the political machinations of Trump and the gutless Republicans who pay him complete obeisance.


In a normal world where people thought deeply about such things, all of this would be so obvious. Yet the MAGA crowd and others will undoubtedly let weak and corrupt politicians do their thinking for them. 

In Canada, things are not much different. Increasing numbers prefer PP's aphorisms ("Axe the tax", "Jail, not bail") to real policy discussion. Sadly, no legislation regulating artificial intelligence here can do a thing about a dearth of natural intelligence. As I have said many times before, we truly are a deeply flawed species.


Monday, May 1, 2023

Getting Things Done

                              

Those who prize quick decisions and action will no doubt applaud the likes of the Doug Ford government. As pointed out in my previous post, the premier and his coterie are not very often burdened by critical thinking. And that, as I tried to point out, has consequences.

Star letter-writers also share their misgivings over this kind of 'governance' in the following.

Someone should remove Premier Doug Ford’s supply of napkins and pens before he comes up with another plan to “save” taxpayers’ money, such as inviting 18 year olds to skip secondary education and join the police force right after graduation; knocking down the Ontario Science Centre and build housing on the ravine. So what if they get flooded every spring. Think of the view!

Let Therme Group build a spa on Ontario Place that 99 per cent of Ontarians won’t be able to afford, but won’t cost the taxpayers a dime, except for $200 million to clear the land and $450 million for underground parking. And those are only preliminary estimates.

Cut funding to hospitals so they can’t keep up with the need for cataract surgeries, but pay private clinics more per procedure than OHIP covers.

And those are only the most recent unplanned plans.

I can’t wait to read about his next great idea in tomorrow’s Star.

Carol Libman, Toronto 

Let us examine the Ford legacy 20 years down the road.

The Ontario Science Centre will be no more and Toronto will have lost a significant piece of architecture that could have been adjusted to continue its role in promoting science. In its place there will be a mass of grotty highrises with few if any subsidized units, much to the delight of developers.

On Ontario Place the wonderful spa which took twice as long to build and cost well-over budget failed as a business venture and was converted to a casino after structural additions. Both the spa and the casino were found to have guarantees from the province to cover revenue shortfalls.

Part of Ontario Place was converted to parking for the casino because water seepage made underground parking a non-starter.

RIP Ontario Place.

Peter Anastasiades, Markham

 The Toronto Star correctly points out that most of the Ontario Science Centre land is composed of hazardous and floodplain lands. Good luck to the Doug Ford government and a developer in trying to secure a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority permit for new housing development over these lands!

During Hurricane Hazel in 1954, many houses in the Don Valley were swept away by flooding and hence the conservation authority followed up by preparing floodplain mapping of the Don Valley to ensure that future housing would not be exposed to such destruction. There is also the concept of “setback” zones from floodplains.

Ministers within Ford’s government need to learn how to interpret floodplain mapping before suggesting new housing over hazardous and floodplain lands.

Jim McEwen, retired civil engineer, Bowmanville

In the annals of the oxymoron, known as Ontario Government intelligence, this could rank near the top.

The plan is to build the New Ontario Line subway running from Ontario Place to The Ontario Science Centre. But now, may also include moving the Ontario Science Centre to Ontario Place and building housing in its present location.

The Ontario Science Centre is a gem, nestled in a beautiful valley. By all means renovate it as needed to keep it relevant, but leave it where it is. Why not simply build high density housing above and around the new 2,700 space parking lot at Ontario Place, leaving the new residents closer to downtown.

Ian Alter, North York

Envelopes are best reserved for their original purpose, not as a medium for calculating public policy.  Expect no course corrections in the near- future from this obdurate regime, however.

 

Monday, March 27, 2023

It's All Connected


It isn't hard to come to the realization that one of the common denominators in almost all of the existential threats currently facing humanity is our flawed natures; human folly, shortsightedness and credulity have much to answer for. Climate change, resource depletion and pandemics readily come to mind as examples of what our collective folly has led to.

Were we apt students of life, we would realize that our refusal to think critically makes us our own worst enemy. Connecting the dots should not be the gargantuan task that it is for far too many people. 

Today's Star examines the inevitability of another pandemic and the things scientists are doing to prepare for it. One such scientist is Gerry Wright, a McMaster professor in biochemistry and biomedicine, who identifies a major impediment in meeting the next pandemic.

Gerry Wright feels confident that science will find the solutions to the next pandemic.

Perhaps not as quickly as we’d like. And not without obstacles. The race to fight COVID, which drew on decades of research, revealed how quickly scientists could rally.

But the flip side to these successes is the corresponding and deeply alarming rise in misinformation online.

 “The thing that terrifies me is that a person with an iPhone can think they’re an expert,” he says. “That people think their opinions matter just as much as those of people who’ve dedicated their lives to understanding science — and that this is now almost a widely accepted concept — is going to result in a super-dangerous future.”

The claims of false cures, promoted by people like Trump, served as a major stumbling block in attacking Covid.

Wright says he first became alarmed in 2020, when then U.S. president Donald Trump flouted the advice of top science agencies by touting the unproven benefits of the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID.

He says his worries deepened the following year when ivermectin, an antiparasitic medicine used to treat some human conditions and which is also a veterinary drug, was falsely hyped as a COVID miracle cure, even as effective vaccines were being rolled out.

“I just knew that we were in deep, deep trouble.”

While McMaster researchers worked flat out to find solutions for COVID, Wright says he knew it was equally pressing to combat misinformation.

He now heads the Global Nexus for Pandemics and Biologic Threats, a McMaster-led initiative that brings together scientists and medical researchers, along with experts in economics, political science and the social sciences. 
“I understand molecules. I don’t understand people,” says Wright, noting the hub will also provide interdisciplinary training for students, so they can think across typically siloed fields. 

One has to wonder if such efforts will be sufficient, given the new capacities for deception driven by A.I.-generated imagery and voice mimicking. And remember that there will always be those who will quite eagerly exploit such technology for their own diabolical ends.

As it has always been, the fate of humanity rests in our hands and in our minds. Not too much reason for optimism, is there?

 

 


Thursday, November 3, 2022

Mr. Musk Unmasked

Once more, Unlearn16 reveals something important, and her observations I could not disagree with. Yesterday, she pierced the facade perpetrated by the Ford government about the soon-to-be striking school support staff in Ontario. This time, she turns her laser-focus on Elon Musk and his purchase of Twitter. 

Well-worth the three-minute listen.

 



Friday, October 28, 2022

Cool And Rational

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, and I suggested to him that people like us (we who strive to be rational, critical thinkers) are an endangered species and becoming largely irrelevant in the world today.

It is good to know, however, that there are passionate and articulate people who refuse to go down without a magnificent fight. Politics Girl, an American voice of sanity, is one of those people. And, by the way, her observations are relevant to our country as well, especially given that many simple-minded people blame #justinflation for all of our economic woes.




Friday, July 29, 2022

The American Dream - A Trenchant Interpretation

I have likely posted this in the past, but a repeat viewing in these troubled times is surely warranted: George Carlin parsing the truth about the 'American Dream'. As always with Mr. Carlin, be aware that the following contains language that may be offensive to some.




Tuesday, June 29, 2021

About That Critical Thinking Thing

Now that the internet has made everybody experts on everything, just a small, sobering reminder: expertise and critical thinking are not things you readily acquire.


Tuesday, December 15, 2020

When You Think About It

... this makes perfect sense for the times we find ourselves in:

Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Pretty Basic Stuff

But how much better off everyone would be if they just followed these basics:



Thursday, April 9, 2020

On Covid-19 Fake News



I received a lovely note the other day from a reader named Rose. While I am pleased she finds my blog a useful resource, I am also happy that she included a very pertinent link as an aide in spotting fake news, especially that involving our current pandemic. I shall return to that link in a moment.

But first, how big a problem is disinformation during this time of fear and uncertainty?

The Guardian cites the growing problem of prominent people who apparently have more fame than brains:
The actor Woody Harrelson and the singer MIA have faced criticism after sharing baseless claims about the supposed connection of 5G to the pandemic, while comments by the likes of the Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, playing down the scale of the crisis in the face of scientific evidence have attracted criticism in recent days.
Such ravings have consequences.
The issue has gained extra prominence as Britons began vandalising mobile phone masts in recent days amid wildly sharing baseless claims linking the virus to 5G.

There is growing concern that online disinformation could be having real world health impacts. Research by Dr Daniel Allington, senior lecturer in social and cultural artificial intelligence at King’s College London, suggested there was a statistically notable link between people who believed false claims about the coronavirus and people who were willing to flout the government’s social distancing guidelines.

His findings, based on a experimental study conducted in coordination with the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, found that people who said they believed coronavirus was connected to 5G mobile phone masts are less likely to be staying indoors, washing their hands regularly or respecting physical distancing.
Even more unhinged is Roseanne Barr who, in a phone interview with Norm Macdonald, had this to say about the bug:
"You know what it is, Norm? I think they're just trying to get rid of all my generation...."The boomer ladies that, you know, that inherited their — you know, are widows. They inherited the money so they got to go wherever the money is and figure out a way to get it away from people."

Barr made a number of other unorthodox claims during the interview: She argued that people are "being forced to evolve," urged working women to learn how to make bean soup, claimed that Chinese people eat bats and rats (and that she saw one guy eat a baby), and insisted that "there exists an operative in each town that reports back to Central Intelligence false information to ruin my career."
If you want to read more about this supremely unbalanced lady, Venay Menon has a droll take on her escapades.

Misinformation can be deadly, especially as it pertains to Covid-19. Perennial huckster/televangelist Jim Bakker is facing legal consequences after peddling a snake oil called Liquid Silver Sol he claimed would protect people from the bug. One hopes that the convicted felon pays a heavy price for his dangerous advocacy.

Which brings us back to the question of how to best inoculate ourselves against the virus of hysterical untruths. Readers of this blog will know that I have long been an advocate of critical thinking as the best protective; as I have said many times, it is an ideal toward which I continually strive, well-aware that I often fall short.

Reading widely of legitimate sources is a vital nutrient in this quest, but happily there are some readily accessible sites that make it easier. Snopes, of course, is one of the best. Its recent effort to dispel the myth that eating alkaline foods will confer protection against Covid-19 is an apt illustration of its usefulness.

A search engine can be of great benefit as well. Try putting the term fake news covid-19 into one and look at the results.

There are many, many useful resources on the web which I am confident you can access with little difficulty, and so I leave you with the site suggested by my correspondent Rose. Called Website Planet, it offers some very useful guidance and tools in our collective quest for truth and accuracy.

The Covid-19 virus is naturally dominating all of our concerns today. However, working to flatten the curve on the pandemic of misinformation that existed before and will continue long after the bug is managed will surely serve us well in the bigger picture known as everyday life, life that we will, eventually, return to.

Friday, September 27, 2019

Campaign 2019 - Where Is The Truth To Be Found?

It is perhaps to state the obvious that political campaigns are a kind of Rorschach Test. We respond to candidates' claims, promises and outright lies to a large extent through the filter of our values, our biases, our philosophy and our experiences. That is us just being human. Sadly, however, whatever intellectual capacities we may possess often are cast aside as we make impassioned choices based upon the above.

Critical thinking is the main casualty here.

A case in point is the carbon tax. All of the disinformation about the levy, from Doug Ford claiming it will lead to recession to Andrew Scheer averring it will make everyone poorer, often finds a ready, even Pavlovian, audience. The following brief news item from Global News attempts to set the record straight.



Our democracy demands that each person has the right to vote. There is nothing within our system that can make that vote an intelligent, informed one.

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

Blessed Are The Benighted

My good friend Dave in Winnipeg often rails sardonically against the twin curses of intelligence and critical-thinking. If you start the following video at about the 50-second mark, you'll see that some have 'blessedly' been spared such affliction.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

A Marriage Made In Hell

Now this is really disturbing.

The Verge reports that Jordan Peele and Buzzfeed combined forces to make a fake Public Service Ad:
Using some of the latest AI techniques, Peele ventriloquizes Barack Obama, having him voice his opinion on Black Panther (“Killmonger was right”) and call President Donald Trump “a total and complete dipshit.”


The video was made by Peele’s production company using a combination of old and new technology: Adobe After Effects and the AI face-swapping tool FakeApp. The latter is the most prominent example of how AI can facilitate the creation of photorealistic fake videos.
Researchers have developed tools that let you perform face swaps like the one above in real time; Adobe is creating a “Photoshop for audio” that lets you edit dialogue as easily as a photo; and a Canadian startup named Lyrebird offers a service that lets you fake someone else’s voice with just a few minutes of audio. Technologist Aviv Ovadya summed up the fears created by this tech, asking BuzzFeed News, “What happens when anyone can make it appear as if anything has happened, regardless of whether or not it did?”
The implications of this technology are frightening. Consider, for example, that propagandists will now have a powerful new tool with which to virally undermine their targets with embarrassing or compromising 'videos'; moreover, those who are caught in all manner of malfeasance will, as the current president of the U.S. regularly does, be able to claim it is all "fake news."
Scientists are currently creating tools that can spot AI fakes, but at the moment, the best shield against this sort of misinformation is instilling everyone with a little more media savvy. If you see a provocative video, you should ask yourself: where does this come from? Have other outlets corroborated it? Does it even look real? In the case of AI-generated videos, you can usually see that they’re fake by telltale signs of distortion and blurring.
As always, critical thinking will be paramount. However, how many, no matter how fair and balanced they consider themselves to be, will be able to resist the natural urge to believe the worst about those whose views and practices are so diametrically opposed to their own?

Artificial Intelligence meets fake news: surely a marriage made in Hell.

Sunday, March 18, 2018

The Simpsons Have His Number

Those whose memories extend beyond last night's hockey scores may recall that in 2011, while he was a Toronto city councillor, Doug Ford proposed an 'exciting' vision for that city's waterfront: a monorail, a megamall, and a giant Ferris wheel,:
“What we’d like to do is have a monorail system that’s running right from the Pan Am Games (site) right along the lakefront and stops at Union Station and Ontario Place and right across the front of the lake,” Ford said.
To complement this 'vision,' the megamall
“... would be 1.6 million square feet of one of the most prestigious malls in Canada. We’d try to attract Nordstrom and Bloomingdales and Macy’s".
The above 'magnificence' would be topped off by this 'gem':
The councillor said he hopes to have looming over all of it the world’s biggest Ferris wheel, similar to England’s London Eye, but that would be “just a cash cow.”
If you see nothing wrong with this scheme, please read no further, as you will only be offended.

Several years ago, The Simpsons tapped into this curious zeitgeist:



Notice how the huckster even bears a more-than-passing resemblance to the conman who now leads the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party and will, according to the latest poll, be Ontario's next Premier.

Fortunately, some are able to see through the facade and understand that all of Ford's faux populism is something that needs to be soundly rejected if one cares anything about an inclusive and progressive society. The lead letter in yesterday's Star amply reflects the need, not to embrace empty rhetoric, but rather to engage in one of responsible citizenship's harder duties: critical thinking:
Doug Ford purports to denounce the “elites” and stand up for the “little guy.” I’m not sure who these groups are.

Are these elites the Liberals who have introduced progressive initiatives such as labour reform and increased minimum wages? And does the little guy refer to those who have been subsisting on precarious employment and low wages? As premier, Ford would cancel the next minimum-wage increase, surely a blow to the working poor.

Are these elites the Liberals who brought in the beginnings of a pharmacare program for those under 25 and is the little guy all of those who previously couldn’t afford necessary medicines but now have access?

Are the elites the Liberals (and the PCs under Patrick Brown) who have embraced carbon taxes for assuming some responsibility for our planet? The federally mandated carbon tax is not something Ford can ignore. Is he not being disingenuous in suggesting otherwise?

As a wealthy business owner, is Ford not an elite whose pro-business and anti-tax policies meet his needs and not necessarily those of the little guy?

It is truly disheartening to see polls predict a PC win in June’s election when there is no platform — only promises to scrap the sex-ed curriculum, revisit abortion policies, cancel a much-needed minimum-wage increase and cut taxes.

We can’t go back to the 20th century. Times have changed and continue to change rapidly. We desperately need a truly progressive government.

Norah Downey, Midland, Ont.
So will it be the monorail or responsible government? You will literally have to decide which future best reflects the quality of your character.

Saturday, January 20, 2018

What Trump Has Wrought

The divisiveness of the toddler-in-chief is never more evident than in this brief clip. As well, his supporters clearly will not tolerate a dissenting view as they react rather than reflect.

The following video might take a moment to load:


Friday, November 10, 2017

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Too High A Price To Pay



This year, The Star has been running an Atkinson Series entitled The New Newsroom, which looks at both the challenges and the possibilities facing journalism in this age of Internet freebies. It is an excellent series that I hope you get a chance to check out. Here is an excerpt from a recent installment and the theme of today's post:
When the news industry and its supporters seek government funding to give it time to find a new business model, it’s because of the role news plays in maintaining a strong society — protecting democracy, in the phrase often used. If we don’t know what our governments are doing, we don’t control them. If we don’t know that hospitals have long waiting lists, we can’t find a solution. If we don’t know a development is planned, we can’t fight to protect the green space instead. Without information, we can’t have knowledgeable conversations with each other. We don’t have a voice. Our communities then belong to the powerful.
It is one of the key reasons I subscribe to The Toronto Star, which has a remarkable record in effecting change at the local, provincial and federal levels thanks to its many investigative reports. Without those investigations, public awareness of problems and injustices would have been quite limited.

To read a daily newspaper is to facilitate something all citizens should have: critical thinking skills. Without those skills, and without the information needed to inform those skills, we really are at the mercy of forces that would prefer us to be in darkness so they can carry out their agendas, agendas that rarely coincide with the public good. A column today on increases to the provincial minimum wage by provincial affairs reporter Martin Regg Cohn amply illustrates this fact.
Despite the scare stories, a proposed $15 hourly wage in 2019 is proving wildly popular. By all accounts, it is a vote-winner.

The usual suspects are upset: TD Bank, Loblaws, Metro, the Chamber of Commerce and the small business lobby are warning higher wages will hit hard, and hurt the working poor by costing them jobs.

It’s a recurring tale of two competing victimhoods — businesses at risk and jobs in jeopardy — but people aren’t buying it. The old fable about the boy (or business) who cried wolf is a hard sell when few believe the wolf is at the door.
Were the business perspective our sole source on this issue, we would likely be inclined to believe the hike is going to wreck our economy. Having a countervailing view assists us in making a more measured judgement. And, as Cohn points out, there are other factors to consider here, such as societal consensus:
Perhaps people are waking up to the impact of poverty amidst plenty. And are prepared to pay more at their local Dollarama — rebrand it Toonierama if need be.

Canadians who were content to live alongside the working poor are increasingly sensitized to the argument for a living wage. Times change.
For the longest time, people put up with second-hand cigarette smoke, drove while drunk, forgot their seat belts, or sneered at nerds who wore helmets for motorcycling, cycling, hockey or skiing. Now, cigarettes are taboo, drunk driving is anathema, seat belts are the law, and helmets are de rigeur.
Add to that some hard facts that demonstrate the one-sidedness of the business argument that the sky will soon fall:
A previous column about the business lobby pointed to the flaws in outdated econometric modelling that vainly tries to foretell future job losses from doomsday scenarios. Their conclusions are contradicted by more advanced research that looks retrospectively at recent history, showing negligible or unmeasurable impacts from minimum wage hikes.

Yet major retailers keep warning that automation is the inevitable result of higher wages. Been to a Loblaws, Sobeys, or Canadian Tire recently? Seen those automated check-out counters, even at today’s minimal minimum wage?

Automation is inevitable. Lowering the minimum wage won’t bring back full-service gas station attendants, or persuade the banks to remove automated tellers from your local branch.

Economic disruptions are also unpredictable. Even if business scaremongering about a wage hike were remotely true (at the margins), the reality is that a rapid increase in interest rates would have far more impact, as would a collapse in the housing market.
We all have our biases and values. The fact that I subscribe to The Star attests to mine. However, I also am free to reading countervailing views from conservative and pro-business organs like the National Post and The Globe and Mail, and frequently I will not dismiss out-of-hand some of their perspectives. The point is, however, that the more information I acquire from a legitimate news source, as opposed to fringe Internet sites that feel no obligation to abide by the rules of evidence and reason, the more equipped I am to draw reasoned conclusions.

Journalists do the heavy lifting for all of us. To lose them would be to lose any chance to have a healthy and sustainable democracy. That is surely too high a price to pay.



Thursday, September 21, 2017

UPDATED: Not A Hopeful Sign



As much as I have long been an advocate for the development and honing of critical thinking skills (while readily admitting that I often fall short of the mark - for me, it is always a work in progress), I regret to report, via the CBC, that there is much, much work still to be done. In fact, many Canadians are having a great deal of difficulty distinguishing between facts and opinion, fake news and science fact. In our fraught times, that is surely a recipe for disaster.
Are scientific findings a matter of opinion? Forty-three per cent of Canadians agree that they are, suggests a new poll.
47 per cent (up from 40 per cent last year) agreed that "the science behind global warming is still unclear," despite what scientists have been calling for years "unequivocal" evidence.

19 per cent agree "there is a link between vaccinations and autism," even though the study that made the link was found years ago to be "an elaborate fraud."
The poll, commissioned by Ontario Science Centre, has results that should worry all of us. Maurice Bitran, chief executive officer of the Ontario Science Centre, had this to say:
"If you think that climate change is one of the main issues that we face as a society, and almost half of us think that the science is still unclear when there's a pretty broad scientific consensus about it, this affects the chances that we have to act in a unified way about it."
He is concerned about some of the findings that suggest a lack of trust in science and media coverage of scientific issues such as:
68 per cent agree that media coverage of scientific issues is "reported selectively to support news media objectives."

59 per cent agree that media coverage of scientific issues is "presented to support a political position."
Such conspiratorial views of the media when it comes to fact-based science should give us all pause to consider, among other things, the role media themselves play in this perception:
Kelly Bronson, a University of Ottawa professor who has studied and written about science communication, said people are confused about where to go for reliable information and how to tell facts from beliefs.

She thinks the media are partly to blame for focusing too much on telling both sides of the story: "It doesn't help the public learn how to distinguish true knowledge from mere opinion, if both are given equal weight in a news story."
An excellent illustration of this is to be found in a recent Hamilton Spectator letter to the editor:
RE: Republicans in denial (Sept. 13)

This article calls climate change skeptics "deniers", but is itself a denier. To accomplish this clever trick of contradicting itself, the Washington Post (WAPO) cunningly suppresses the huge hidden assumption behind their "denier" pejorative, which is that man-made climate change is settled science, which it isn't.

An example of the bad science behind "man-made climate change" is CO2, an essential component of all life including ours. In fact we likely need more of it. Reduce pollution, yes, but reduce CO2, no. We emphatically do not have a link between climate change and human-generated CO2.

Pedlars of bad science like Michael Mann are quoted supporting this unproven man-made climate change hypothesis. Natural phenomena like sea level rise are dragged in as proof of it, when actually the sea level is simply rising as it has been for thousands of years. Further, we should note that the climate change industry yields nice personal profits for its promoters, such as writers of columns like "Republicans in denial?"

It is difficult to connect these dots into a picture that warrants calling skeptics of man-made climate change "deniers", particularly when WAPO itself denies much.

Frank Gue, Burlington
Mr. Gue, and all others of his ilk, try to peddle the opinion that the science of climate change is not settled. The fact that it has been settled is but an inconvenience people like Gue circumvent by exploiting people's ignorance and prejudices. Are newspapers doing anyone a service by publishing such arrant nonsense?

Ignorance, sloppy thinking, mindless chatter and misdirection continue apace, but here is an incontrovertible fact: The time is growing very late, and the window to mitigation is rapidly closing.

UPDATE: Pursuant to the comments about online polls (one was used in the above Leger poll,) made by Jay and UU4077, it was not a poll in which just anyone could contribute. Here is an excerpt detailing its methodology:
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

A survey of 1,514 Canadians was completed online between August 15th to 16th, 2017 using Leger’s online panel, LegerWeb.

A probability sample of the same size would yield a margin of error of +/-2.5%, 19 times out of 20.

ABOUT LEGER’S ONLINE PANEL

Leger’s online panel has approximately 475,000 members nationally – with between 10,000 and 20,000 new members added each month, and has a retention rate of 90%.

QUALITY CONTROL

Stringent quality assurance measures allow Leger to achieve the high-quality standards set by the company. As a result, its methods of data collection and storage outperform the norms set by WAPOR (The World Association for Public Opinion Research). These measures are applied at every stage of the project: from data collection to processing, through to analysis. We aim to answer our clients’ needs with honesty, total confidentiality, and integrity.
My wife is part of a large online polling group. Originally responding to a telephone poll by EKOS, she was later contacted by the pollster asking her to become part of an online polling panel, as they needed someone in her demographic. My understanding is that such groups are meant to represent a large cross-section of Canadians, and therefore does not have the notorious self-selection and skewing that open online polls do.


Saturday, July 8, 2017

We All Have An 'Opinion'



In a democracy, it is hardly expected that we will all be of one accord on anything. Opinion and debate are the lifeblood of a healthy and free society. The problem arises, of course, when the debate is fueled, not by reason and facts, but by rancour and misinformation. Such perhaps is the price to be paid in the name of egalitarianism.

In her column today, Susan Delacourt discuses the flurry of opinion prompted by the Omar Kadhr settlement.
....the widely different views on Khadr were also an apt illustration of something not so constructive in 21st-century politics: polarization, and the increasing tendency of political partisans to divide the world into black-and-white, good-versus-evil teams.
The more that politics gets polarized, needless to say, the less we talk about finding middle ground or brokerage roles for political parties. We also don’t think much about changing minds or opinions.
This phenomenon of polarization and absolutism has, of course, been aided and abetted by the platform that social media provide for anyone with an opinion. Unfiltered and unrestrained by the conventions that sometimes make for balance in the MSM, one can snort and vent and pontificate on virtually any topic, secure in the knowledge that fellow travellers and purveyors of ignorance are but a mouse click away. Affirmation of even the most diseased views readily abound.
Polarized political people don’t debate to persuade the other side; they argue to prove who’s louder or more right.
Delacourt offers a better way, something well-worth consideration:
I was curious to see this week whether anyone did have a change of mind about Khadr after hearing the news of the potential $10-million payout. It seemed like a good case study for where journalism fits when political issues separate the public into sharply, passionately divided camps.

The good news, at least as I see it for my business, is that some journalism did make a difference this week amid the cacophony of opinion about Khadr.

I asked on my Facebook page whether anyone had changed his or her opinion about the settlement — for or against — because of something they’d read or seen in the media.

I got a lot of response: some of it privately, some of it posted on the Facebook page. Some people wanted to vent outrage; others told me that further information really had made a difference.

Generally, the extra information turned opponents of the Khadr settlement into supporters: maybe grudging supporters, but supporters nonetheless.

Some cited the work that’s been done by the Star’s own Michelle Shephard, author of the book on Khadr, Guantanamo’s Child, and part of the journalistic team behind the documentary of the same name.
The director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Aaron Wudrick, made this telling observation:
Wudrick told me that people’s views seemed to be influenced by which part of the story they were focused on: Khadr’s experience in Afghanistan or his life in prison and the courts afterward.
Delacourt draws a very interesting conclusion from this entire experience:
In all, this small glimpse into a highly polarized debate in Canada this week persuaded me that we political journalists may want to tell more stories about how and when people change their minds. Rather than seeing endless panels on TV, with people expressing their strong opinions on some political development or another, what about having people talking about how their opinions changed?
Yet another example of the vital role conventional media still play in the health of a democracy.