Thu Mar 16 12:00:00 EDT 2017

Philosophy cynicism

Links reflecting my cynicism about philosophy.

  • Five part series about What Is Philosophy's Point? by John Horgan in Scientific American:
    1. Part 1 (Hint: It's Not Discovering Truth)

      Philosophy can still serve many purposes, even if it can't compete with science as a method of accumulating knowledge

    2. Part 2--Maybe It's a Martial Art

      Philosophers sometimes seem more concerned with winning than wisdom

    3. Part 3--Maybe It Should Stick to Ethics

      Philosophers keep giving us moral advice in spite of their doubts about all ethical systems

    4. Part 4--Maybe It's Poetry with No Rhyme and Lots of Reason

      The line between philosophy and the arts can get awfully blurry

    5. Part 5--A Call for "Negative Philosophy"

      Philosophy's chief value is countering our terrible tendency toward certitude

    Followed by: Philosophers Push Back

    Philosophers react to a science journalist's critique of their calling

  • Philosophers' biased judgments persist despite training, expertise and reflection.

    We examined the effects of framing and order of presentation on professional philosophers' judgments about a moral puzzle case (the "trolley problem") and a version of the Tversky & Kahneman "Asian disease" scenario. Professional philosophers exhibited substantial framing effects and order effects, and were no less subject to such effects than was a comparison group of non-philosopher academic participants. Framing and order effects were not reduced by a forced delay during which participants were encouraged to consider "different variants of the scenario or different ways of describing the case". Nor were framing and order effects lower among participants reporting familiarity with the trolley problem or with loss-aversion framing effects, nor among those reporting having had a stable opinion on the issues before participating the experiment, nor among those reporting expertise on the very issues in question. Thus, for these scenario types, neither framing effects nor order effects appear to be reduced even by high levels of academic expertise.

    Full paper (pdf).

  • Cheeseburger Ethics

    Are professional ethicists good people? According to our research, not especially. So what is the point of learning ethics?

    Ethicists do not appear to behave better. Never once have we found ethicists as a whole behaving better than our comparison groups of other professors, by any of our main planned measures. But neither, overall, do they seem to behave worse. (There are some mixed results for secondary measures.) For the most part, ethicists behave no differently from professors of any other sort -- logicians, chemists, historians, foreign-language instructors.

    Nonetheless, ethicists do embrace more stringent moral norms on some issues, especially vegetarianism and charitable donation. Our results on vegetarianism were particularly striking. In a survey of professors from five US states, we found that 60 per cent of ethicist respondents rated 'regularly eating the meat of mammals, such as beef or pork' somewhere on the 'morally bad' side of a nine-point scale ranging from 'very morally bad' to 'very morally good'. By contrast, only 19 per cent of non-philosophy professors rated it as bad. That's a pretty big difference of opinion! Non-ethicist philosophers were intermediate, at 45 per cent. But when asked later in the survey whether they had eaten the meat of a mammal at their last evening meal, we found no statistically significant difference in the groups' responses -- about 38 per cent of professors from all groups reported having done so (including 37 per cent of ethicists).

    ... We aspire to be about as morally good as our peers. If others cheat and get away with it, we want to do the same. We don't want to suffer for goodness while others laughingly gather the benefits of vice. If the morally good life is uncomfortable and unpleasant, if it involves repeated painful sacrifices that are not compensated in some way, sacrifices that others are not also making, then we don't want it.

    Can one blame physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson for Dismissing Philosophy As 'Useless'.


Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Tue Feb 28 13:03:51 EST 2017

Items of Interest

Various web links I found to be of interest recently.

  • Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

    The vaunted human capacity for reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with thinking straight.

    Stripped of a lot of what might be called cognitive-science-ese, Mercier and Sperber's argument runs, more or less, as follows: Humans' biggest advantage over other species is our ability to cooperate. Cooperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.

  • The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life

    Human beings are primates, and primates are political animals. Our brains were designed not just to gather and hunt, but also to get ahead socially, often by devious means. The problem is that we like to pretend otherwise; we're afraid to acknowledge the extent of our own selfishness. And this makes it hard for us to think clearly about ourselves and our behavior.

    The Elephant in the Brain aims to fix this introspective blind spot by blasting floodlights into the dark corners of our minds. Only when everything is out in the open can we really begin to understand ourselves: Why do humans laugh? Why are artists sexy? Why do people brag about travel? Why do we so often prefer to speak rather than listen?

    Like all psychology books, The Elephant in the Brain examines many quirks of human cognition. But this book also ventures where others fear to tread: into social critique. The authors show how hidden selfish motives lie at the very heart of venerated institutions like Art, Education, Charity, Medicine, Politics, and Religion.

    Acknowledging these hidden motives has the potential to upend the usual political debates and cast fatal doubt on many polite fictions. You won't see yourself -- or the world -- the same after confronting the elephant in the brain.

  • Most scientists 'can't replicate studies by their peers'

    Science is facing a "reproducibility crisis" where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, research suggests.

    The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

    That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: "It's about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about."

    She says it's about the funding bodies that want to secure the biggest bang for their bucks, the peer review journals that vie to publish the most exciting breakthroughs, the institutes and universities that measure success in grants won and papers published and the ambition of the researchers themselves.

  • The Only Thing, Historically, That's Curbed Inequality: Catastrophe

    Plagues, revolutions, massive wars, collapsed states--these are what reliably reduce economic disparities.

    The pressures of total war became a uniquely powerful catalyst of equalizing reform, spurring unionization, extensions of voting rights, and the creation of the welfare state. During and after wartime, aggressive government intervention in the private sector and disruptions to capital holdings wiped out upper-class wealth and funneled resources to workers; even in countries that escaped physical devastation and crippling inflation, marginal tax rates surged upward. Concentrated for the most part between 1914 and 1945, this "Great Compression" (as economists call it) of inequality took several more decades to fully run its course across the developed world until the 1970s and 1980s, when it stalled and began to go into reverse.

  • Donald Trump Isn't Mentally Ill. He's Just Unpleasant, Psychiatrist Says

    "Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn't meet them," Frances wrote in a letter to the New York Times.

    Frances chaired the team that defined psychiatric disorders for the mental health profession -- the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (called DSM 4). The DSM V or 5 is the most recent edition.

    "He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn't make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder," Frances wrote.

    A personality disorder must lead to "clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning," the DSM IV says.

    "Mr. Trump causes severe distress rather than experiencing it and has been richly rewarded, rather than punished, for his grandiosity, self-absorption and lack of empathy," Frances wrote.

  • Things Every Hacker Once Knew

    Eric S. Raymond reminisces

    There are lots of references to Unix in here because I am mainly attempting to educate younger open-source hackers working on Unix-derived systems such as Linux and the BSDs. If those terms mean nothing to you, the rest of this document probably won't either.

  • Evaluating partisan gains from Congressional gerrymandering

    Using computer simulations to estimate the effect of gerrymandering in the U.S. House

    The analysis reveals that while Republican and Democratic gerrymandering affects the partisan outcomes of Congressional elections in some states, the net effect across the states is modest, creating no more than one new Republican seat in Congress. Therefore, the partisan composition of Congress can mostly be explained by non-partisan districting, suggesting that much of the electoral bias in Congressional elections is caused by factors other than partisan intent in the districting process.

  • The Motion Microscope

    'Motion microscope' reveals movements too small for the human eye

    By using an algorithm that magnifies minute changes in color and movement, researchers are able to extract basic vital signs like heart rate and breathing from any old video.
    You can even use these algorithms to listen in on someone's conversation by keeping an eye on the objects around them. MIT researchers recently published a study in which they extracted intelligible audio by analyzing the movements of a nearby bag of chips. By magnifying its movements, they were able to reconstruct the soundwaves that were causing it to flutter imperceptibly.

    Michael Rubinstein TED Talk
  • Psychiatrists Must Face Possibility That Medications Hurt More Than They Help

    Mental health has declined as prescriptions for antidepressants and other drugs keep surging

    It is time for mental-health practitioners in the U.S. and elsewhere to come to grips with the possibility that medications are doing more harm than good.

  • India's Secret to Low-Cost Health Care

    Harvard Business Review

    At a time when health care costs in the United States threaten to bankrupt the federal government, U.S. hospitals would do well to take a leaf or two from the book of Indian doctors and hospitals that are treating problems of the eye, heart, and kidney all the way to maternity care, orthopedics, and cancer for less than 5% to 10% of U.S. costs by using practices commonly associated with mass production and lean production.
    ...
    The nine Indian hospitals we studied are not cheap because their care is shoddy; in fact, most of them are accredited by the U.S.-based Joint Commission International or its Indian equivalent, the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals. Where available, data show that their medical outcomes are as good as or better than the average U.S. hospital.

  • Fasting diet 'regenerates diabetic pancreas'

    The pancreas can be triggered to regenerate itself through a type of fasting diet, say US researchers.

    Dr Valter Longo, from the University of Southern California, said: "Our conclusion is that by pushing the mice into an extreme state and then bringing them back - by starving them and then feeding them again - the cells in the pancreas are triggered to use some kind of developmental reprogramming that rebuilds the part of the organ that's no longer functioning."

    Rhonda Patrick related interview:
    Valter Longo, Ph.D. on Fasting-Mimicking Diet & Fasting for Longevity, Cancer & Multiple Sclerosis

Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Tue Jan 31 12:46:03 EST 2017

Items of Interest

Various web links I found to be of interest recently.

  • A new study shows American democracy is getting weaker. And not because of Trump.

    Every year, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the research arm of the company that publishes the Economist magazine, issues a report assessing the state of democracy in countries around the world. This year's report, released on Wednesday morning, has a striking finding: The United States has, for the first time, been rated as a "flawed" rather than "full" democracy.

    You'd think, given the timing, that the election of Donald Trump is the reason why. But that's not it. The report is based on a quantitative metric, linked to survey data and policy, that doesn't incorporate the election results.

    "The decline in the US democracy score reflects an erosion of confidence in government and public institutions over many years," the report states. '[Trump's] candidacy was not the cause of the deterioration in trust but rather a consequence of it."

  • Why Trump's Staff Is Lying

    By requiring subordinates to speak untruths, a leader can undercut their independent standing, including their standing with the public, with the media and with other members of the administration. That makes those individuals grow more dependent on the leader and less likely to mount independent rebellions against the structure of command. Promoting such chains of lies is a classic tactic when a leader distrusts his subordinates and expects to continue to distrust them in the future.

    Another reason for promoting lying is what economists sometimes call loyalty filters. If you want to ascertain if someone is truly loyal to you, ask them to do something outrageous or stupid. If they balk, then you know right away they aren't fully with you. That too is a sign of incipient mistrust within the ruling clique, and it is part of the same worldview that leads Trump to rely so heavily on family members.

  • The Heroism of Incremental Care

    We devote vast resources to intensive, one-off procedures, while starving the kind of steady, intimate care that often helps people more.

    Observing the care, I began to grasp how the commitment to seeing people over time leads primary-care clinicians to take an approach to problem-solving that is very different from that of doctors, like me, who provide mainly episodic care.
    ...
    Rose told me, "I think the hardest transition from residency, where we are essentially trained in inpatient medicine, to my practice as a primary-care physician was feeling comfortable with waiting. As an outpatient doctor, you don't have constant data or the security of in-house surveillance. But most of the time people will get better on their own, without intervention or extensive workup. And, if they don't get better, then usually more clues to the diagnosis will emerge, and the steps will be clearer. For me, as a relatively new primary-care physician, the biggest struggle is trusting that patients will call if they are getting worse." And they do, she said, because they know her and they know the clinic. "Being able to tolerate the anxiety that accompanies taking care of people who are sick but not dangerously ill is not a skill I was expecting to need when I decided to become a doctor, but it is one of the ones I have worked hardest to develop."

  • Fewer people are dying of cancer than ever before

    The number of deaths peaked in 1991.

    The number of Americans dying of cancer has dropped to a 25-year low, equaling an estimated 2,143,200 fewer deaths in that period, says the new annual report from the American Cancer Society. In that time, the racial and gender disparities that exist in cancer rates have also narrowed somewhat, but they remain wide in many places.
    ...
    The decline in deaths from cancer is attributed largely to the fact that fewer people smoke -- from about 42 percent in 1965 to 17 percent in 2013 -- as well as earlier detection for certain types of cancer.

  • Economic Crises and the Crisis of Economics

    Despite its aspiration to the certainty of the natural sciences, economics is, and will remain, a social science. Economists systematically study objects that are embedded in wider social and political structures. Their method is based on observations, from which they discern patterns and infer other patterns and behaviors; but they can never attain the predictive success of, say, chemistry or physics.

    Human beings respond to new information in different ways, and adjust their behavior accordingly. Thus, economics cannot provide -- nor should it claim to provide -- definite insights into future trends and patterns. Economists can glimpse the future only by looking backwards, so their predictive power is limited to deducing probabilities on the basis of past events, not timeless laws.

  • Derek Parfit Obituary

    Endearingly eccentric moral philosopher who was spoken of in the same breath as John Stuart Mill

    I don't know about his philosophy but a while ago I read this article about him Reason and romance: The world's most cerebral marriage and I could relate to the last three sentences:

    Here was obviously an extremely close and affectionate relationship between two people who were intellectually, morally and aesthetically compatible. Yet, at some level, Derek seemed strangely unaware that Janet was 60 miles away. "It matters to him that I exist," she says, "but it matters much less that I'm around."

    I also found the following excerpts to be pertinent:

    • Janet says she was initially "utterly baffled" by Derek. He lacks certain common traits and doesn't pick up on many normal social messages. In 2011, the night before they were due to get married in a register office, Derek and Janet were walking down Little Clarendon Street in Oxford on the way to a low-key celebration at an Indian restaurant. They had been together for 29 years, and had taken the decision to marry largely on pragmatic grounds. They felt they were getting old, and formalising their relationship made it easier to settle issues such as inheritance and next-of-kin. There were to be only four witnesses at the ceremony: Janet's sister and brother-in-law, her niece and her niece's partner.
    • "I may be somewhat unusual," he told the New Yorker, "in the fact that I never get tired or sated with what I love most, so that I don't need or want variety."
    • One of the reasons he dresses in the same outfit every day--black trousers, white shirt--is so he doesn't waste time selecting clothes.
    • Several of Derek's friends mention "Asperger's" when I ask them about him. What does he himself think? Might it explain the quality of some of his social interactions and his unusual lifestyle? "There may be something in this suggestion," he says, though he also attributes it to a boarding school education. The same friends also comment that his remarkable nature has required a huge amount of adjustment on Janet's part. She agrees. "But the adjustment was relatively straightforward once I had figured him out and stopped looking for what was not there. His way of life gives me enormous independence."


Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Thu Jan 19 14:01:18 EST 2017

Health Matters

  • The U.S. spends more on health care than any other country

    Here's what we're buying.

    A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reveals what patients and their insurers are spending that money on, breaking it down by 155 diseases, patient age and category -- such as pharmaceuticals or hospitalizations. Among its findings:

    • Chronic -- and often preventable -- diseases are a huge driver of personal health spending. The three most expensive diseases in 2013: diabetes ($101 billion), the most common form of heart disease ($88 billion) and back and neck pain ($88 billion).
    • Yearly spending increases aren't uniform: Over a nearly two-decade period, diabetes and low back and neck pain grew at more than 6 percent per year -- much faster than overall spending. Meanwhile, heart disease spending grew at 0.2 percent.
    • Medical spending increases with age -- with the exception of newborns. About 38 percent of personal health spending in 2013 was for people over age 65. Annual spending for girls between 1 and 4 years old averaged $2,000 per person; older women 70 to 74 years old averaged $16,000.

  • What's Pushing Down U.S. Life Expectancy?

    Drug overdoses and flu may have been key drivers behind the latest death toll numbers

    For the first time in a decade our death rate increased from the year before; 2015 saw roughly 86,000 more deaths than 2014, according to the new report. The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which released the numbers this week, found that in 2015 the death rate jumped 1.2 percent from 724.6 deaths per 100,000 people in 2014 to 733.1. The agency calculated that this spike pushed life expectancy down, too. Standard life expectancy at birth dropped to 78.8 years from 78.9 just a year earlier. Preliminary analysis suggests the increase in deaths may have been driven by drug overdoses and an unusually severe flu season in early 2015, which may have exacerbated potentially fatal conditions such as heart disease.
    ...
    Cancer mortality continued to decline, which is good.

  • Study Tied to Food Industry Tries to Discredit Sugar Guidelines

    The review was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, a scientific group that is based in Washington, D.C., and is funded by multinational food and agrochemical companies including Coca-Cola, General Mills, Hershey's, Kellogg's, Kraft Foods and Monsanto. One of the authors is a member of the scientific advisory board of Tate & Lyle, one of the world's largest suppliers of high-fructose corn syrup.
    ...
    Dr. Johnston said he recognized that his paper would be criticized because of its ties to industry funding. But he said he hoped people would not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by dismissing the conclusion that sugar guidelines should be developed with greater rigor. He also emphasized that he was not suggesting that people eat more sugar. The review article, he said, questions specific recommendations about sugar but "should not be used to justify higher intake of sugary foods and beverages."
    ...
    But Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said he was stunned that the paper was even published at all because its authors "ignored the hundreds of randomized controlled trials" that have documented the harms of sugar.

  • Gestational vitamin D deficiency and autism-related traits: the Generation R Study

    There is a growing body of evidence linking gestational vitamin D deficiency with neurodevelopmental disorders such as schizophrenia and ASD (Autism-spectrum disorder). Birth cohort studies have provided evidence that gestational vitamin D deficiency (based on prenatal maternal sera) is associated with impairment on a range of cognitive outcomes related to language, motor development and general intelligence.

  • Chickenizing Farms and Food

    C-Span Video Interview After Words with Ellen Silbergeld

    Professor Ellen Silbergeld talked about her book Chickenizing Farms and Food: How Industrial Meat Production Endangers Workers, Animals, and Consumers, in which she looks at new farming methods and technology and their impact on consumers, the environment, and workers.

    Seems to me to be a fairly balanced overview of the good and bad of current farming methods.


Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Fri Dec 30 17:46:58 EST 2016

Politics

Various web links I found to be of interest recently.

  • Trump's Economic Team of Rivals

    The incoming president's advisers are all over the ideological map.

    It will be hard, and indeed structurally impossible, to reconcile the views on this team. The equivalent in foreign policy would be appointing a group comprised of isolationists, interventionists, realists and moralists. Something's got to give. How to square deregulation with abiding by environmental standards, as Cohn favors? How to square tariffs on imports designed to boost domestic production (Navarro and Ross) with the free flow of capital (Kudlow)? How to balance deconstructing Obamacare without price gouging and chaos in the health-care system that will surely hurt the working class that supported Trump? How to balance punitive tariffs with affordable goods? How to start mini-trade wars without the costs falling on, say, Walmart shoppers? How to juxtapose tax cuts that will benefit the 1% with the need to boost wages and employment for millions of disgruntled workers and unemployed who see Trump as a best last chance to turn things around?

    The answer is that you can't. If Trump's goal is to create tension and conflict and see who emerges bloodied but victorious from the fighting, he's setting up one hell of a battle.

  • Why Did Planned Parenthood Supporters Vote Trump?

    It's far from certain that these people, or others like them, will turn on Trump when and if he goes after reproductive rights. If the reality of his plans didn't penetrate during the campaign, there's no reason to think the reality of his policies will penetrate afterward, at least for those who aren't directly and immediately impacted. If support for Planned Parenthood was a serious priority for these voters, they wouldn't have voted for Trump in the first place. Nevertheless, there is a lesson here. If Democrats ever want to regain power, they don't need to wedge Trump away from the Republican Party. They need to yoke him to it. These voters might be OK with Trump talking about grabbing women by the pussies. What they didn't know is that they were voting for the federal government to do it.

  • Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives

    TED Talk -- video and transcript.
    Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most."

    But also read Chris Hedges critical review The Righteous Road to Ruin of Haidt's book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

  • Yes, people really are turning away from democracy

    Public attitudes toward democracy, we show, have soured over time. Citizens, especially millennials, have less faith in the democratic system. They are more likely to express hostile views of democracy. And they vote for anti-establishment parties and candidates that disregard long-standing democratic norms in ever greater numbers.

    1. It's not just that one graph
    2. Young citizens are more critical of democracy than they used to be
    3. Citizens have grown more disenchanted with democracy over time
  • The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere

    While the days of its worst behavior are long behind it, the United States does have a well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere. It has occupied and intervened militarily in a whole swath of countries in the Caribbean and Latin America and fomented coups against democratically elected populists.

    I wonder what's the evidence that the United States has stopped. Although not an instance of interfering with an election, given the recent stuxnet computer worm I kind of doubt it.

  • Scott Adams: The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science

    Victor Venema, scientist studying variability, responds to Scott Adams.

    • Scott Adams assertion: 1 It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like:
      1. A theory has been "adjusted" in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, "Global warming" evolved to "climate change" because the models didn't show universal warming.

      The terms Global Warming and Climate Change are both used for decades

    • Scott Adams assertion: 2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.

      Climate models are not essential for basic understanding

    • Scott Adams assertion: 3. The models require human judgment to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to "tune" the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models.

      Model tuning not important for basic understanding

    • Scott Adams assertion: 4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the "wrong" opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career.

      The consensus is a result of the evidence

    • Scott Adams assertion: 5. There are so many variables that can be measured -- and so many that can be ignored -- that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest.

      Scientists consider and weigh all the evidence

    • Scott Adams assertion: 6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

      Arguments from the other side only look credible


Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Wed Nov 30 22:11:14 EST 2016

Items of Interest

Various web links I found to be of interest recently.

  • Two not so horrible assessments of Donald Trump's victory from the left:
    • Barney Frank Looks for the Bright Side of Trump's Win

      But the election of Donald Trump has not shattered his confidence about the nation's political future. "This was not a wipeout. People will tend to overinterpret it. Remember, we got more votes than they did," he said, in an interview this week. "And there is one silver living for us. They have succeeded in blaming us for everything that goes wrong in the world. From now on, anything bad that happens is on them.

    • UpFront special: Noam Chomsky on the new Trump era

      I wouldn't compare it with Wedemark Germany. Hitler was a sincere dedicated ideologue. Trump isn't. He has no known ideology other than ME.

      ... But on the other he's also talked about reducing tensions with Russia which is probably the most dangerous flashpoint in the world on the Russian border. So it's hard to predict. In fact the most predictable aspect of Trump is unpredictability. I think it's dangerous.

      ... There's been real gains in the protection of freedom of speech and I think they're pretty deeply embedded and my suspicion is that though there will be attacks on freedom of speech, my own feeling is they are not likely to get very far.

  • Reelection Rates Over the Years

    If US citizens are really unhappy with their government, why are reelection rates for U.S. House of Representatives and Senators reliably above 90% and 80% respectively?
    See the bar charts at the above link.

  • How Steve Bannon and Breitbart News Can Be Pro-Israel -- and Anti-Semitic at the Same Time

    Some on the alt-right, the emerging group of racist activists who support Trump, oppose the close U.S.-Israel relationship as part of a broader critique of U.S. interventionism abroad. Yet they admire Israel as a "model for white nationalism and/or Christianism," according to the right-wing online encyclopedia Conservapedia. Some also see Jewish immigration to Israel as helping their cause of a Jew-free white America.

  • Why Steve Bannon Hates Paul Ryan

    Perhaps, the most critical disparity between the two men's worldviews is the way they conceptualize the relationship between working people and America's economic elites. While Paul Ryan champions our nation's corporate titans as "job creators" -- whose prosperity is inextricably linked with that of the middle class -- Bannon paints them as rootless, godless elites whose wealth is harvested from the exploitation of ordinary people.

  • Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake

    Here using global carbon budget estimates, ground, atmospheric and satellite observations, and multiple global vegetation models, we report a recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2, and a decline in the fraction of anthropogenic emissions that remain in the atmosphere, despite increasing anthropogenic emissions. We attribute the observed decline to increases in the terrestrial sink during the past decade, associated with the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 on vegetation and the slowdown in the rate of warming on global respiration.

  • Why America Is Rich, at Least for Now

    The U.S., along with a handful of European nations, has had solid, fairly consistent economic growth for more than two centuries (with, of course, some notable dark times), and for most of that period economic growth has benefitted poor and rich alike. That growth is best understood by pulling the focus far back from the narrow lens of one election. What matters most are those things that endure for decades and centuries: democracy, rule of law, a civilian-led military, political stability, and freedom of speech and movement. America is a rich country not because of what the Democrats or the Republicans did separately. It is successful because of those things that the parties share, national values and institutions.

  • US dementia rates drop 24%

    A new study finds that the prevalence of dementia has fallen sharply in recent years, most likely as a result of Americans' rising educational levels and better heart health, which are both closely related to brain health.

    Dementia rates in people over age 65 fell from 11.6 percent in 2000 to 8.8 percent in 2012, a decline of 24 percent, according to a study of more than 21,000 people across the country published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine.

  • The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud

    The next episode in the saga was a short retraction of the interpretation of the original data by 10 of the 12 co-authors of the paper. According to the retraction, "no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient". This was accompanied by an admission by the Lancet that Wakefield et al. had failed to disclose financial interests (e.g., Wakefield had been funded by lawyers who had been engaged by parents in lawsuits against vaccine-producing companies). However, the Lancet exonerated Wakefield and his colleagues from charges of ethical violations and scientific misconduct.
    ...
    The final episode in the saga is the revelation that Wakefield et al. were guilty of deliberate fraud (they picked and chose data that suited their case; they falsified facts). The British Medical Journal has published a series of articles on the exposure of the fraud, which appears to have taken place for financial gain. It is a matter of concern that the exposé was a result of journalistic investigation, rather than academic vigilance followed by the institution of corrective measures. Readers may be interested to learn that the journalist on the Wakefield case, Brian Deer, had earlier reported on the false implication of thiomersal (in vaccines) in the etiology of autism. However, Deer had not played an investigative role in that report.

  • New Measles Study Shows Why Anti-Vaccination Thinking Is Deadly

    Since the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine isn't recommended for children under 12 months, the only effective way of preventing it and fatal post-measles disorders like SSPE is through "herd immunity" --vaccinating enough people to prevent the spread of the disease even among those too young to receive the vaccine.


Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Mon Oct 31 13:00:24 EDT 2016

Items of Interest

Various web links I found to be of interest recently.

  • Interview with Professor Rebecca Goldstein

    -Novelist, Philosopher, and Public Intellectual-

    I've known mathematical geniuses who are dunces when it comes to the kind of imaginative intelligence that goes into interpreting works of art--or, for that matter, interpreting people. I've met brilliant novelists whose deductive talents aren't sufficient to get them through an elementary course in symbolic logic. I have an appreciation for sundry forms of smartness, though there are characteristics other than smartness that I value far more in people. Too many people who are celebrated for their intellectual or artistic talents think that their gifts license them to be jerks. What I call "talentism," the conviction that those with extraordinary abilities matter more than other people, is as faulty a normative proposition as any other that regards some people as mattering more than others--such as sexism, racism, classism, ableism, lookism, ageism, nationalism, imperialism, and hetero-normativity.

  • A science journalist takes a skeptical look at capital-S Skepticism

    Dear "Skeptics," Bash Homeopathy and Bigfoot Less, Mammograms and War More
    John Horgan (Scientific American blog) on May 16, 2016

    I'm a science journalist. I don't celebrate science, I criticize it, because science needs critics more than cheerleaders. I point out gaps between scientific hype and reality. That keeps me busy, because, as you know, most peer-reviewed scientific claims are wrong.
    ...
    Meanwhile, you neglect what I call hard targets. These are dubious and even harmful claims promoted by major scientists and institutions. In the rest of this talk, I'll give you examples of hard targets from physics, medicine and biology. I'll wrap up with a rant about war, the hardest target of all.

  • Economists Are Blind to How Little They Know

    Jeffrey Snider - October 21, 2016

    It changes none of this emotion that central banks have already admitted implicitly that it was all a lie. If QE had been such a success establishing how all these warnings are misconstruing what are really good times, then why are central banks everywhere quietly but very seriously evaluating only other options? The answer is, for once, refreshingly simple: faith in central banks among market participants is at a low, while faith in central banks in the media and mainstream remains largely (but not totally) undaunted. Central bankers in their vanity care much about the latter, but for their survival are finally forced to deal with the former.
    ...
    What all these have in common is more than just interest rates or TED spreads, even global depression; it is the entire idea of technocracy itself. Since before Plato, people have dreamed of a utopia where enlightened, dispassionate philosophers would govern and guide messy, often awful human existence toward and into "optimum" outcomes. It took until "economics" in the latter half of the 20th century for such hubris to take literal hold; there is an entire branch of the "science" dedicated through statistics just so to determining both "optimal outcomes" as well as the duty to "nudge" people toward them using the power of government if need be.

  • Truth and myth about the effects of openness to trade

    The Economist - Oct 1st 2016

    But China's accession to the WTO caused a big shock. The country's size, and the speed at which it conquered rich-world markets for low-cost manufacturing, makes it unique. By 2013 it had captured one-fifth of all manufacturing exports worldwide, compared with a share of only 2% in 1991.
    ...
    Still, when David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), David Dorn of the University of Zurich and Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego, looked into the job losses more closely, they found something worrying. At least one-fifth of the drop in factory jobs during that period was the direct result of competition from China.
    ...
    Still, some rich countries, such as Germany, Britain and Canada, have done rather better than America at keeping prime-age men in work, though others, including France, Italy and Spain, have done even worse. That is partly a matter of policy. Members of the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries, set aside an average of 0.6% of GDP a year for "active labour-market policies"--job centres, retraining schemes and employment subsidies--to ease the transition to new types of work. America spends just 0.1% of GDP. By neglecting those whose jobs have been swallowed by technology or imports, America's policymakers have fuelled some of the anger about freer trade.
    ...
    A study by Pablo Fajgelbaum of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Amit Khandelwal, of Columbia University, suggests that in an average country, people on high incomes would lose 28% of their purchasing power if borders were closed to trade. But the poorest 10% of consumers would lose 63% of their spending power, because they buy relatively more imported goods. The authors find a bias of trade in favour of poorer people in all 40 countries in their study, which included 13 developing countries.

  • Calcium supplements may not be heart healthy

    New research suggests that dietary calcium in the form of supplements, but not calcium-rich foods, might have a harmful impact on the heart.
    ...
    "But our study adds to the body of evidence that excess calcium in the form of supplements may harm the heart and vascular system," Michos said in a news release from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

  • Big cities healthier? How some cities make life better, study says

    Big cities healthier? Having sidewalks to walk on and access to parks and good public transport makes for happier city residents, a new survey says.

    With more opportunities to exercise, walk and stay outdoors, the report finds, residents also tend to smoke less and find the housing "ideal" for individuals and families alike. It's a trend that can be observed in a number of cities, such as Seattle and Minneapolis, where young families are choosing to forego suburbs for downtown housing despite having less space.

  • How This Year's Nobel Laureates In Physics Changed The Game

    The fundamental reason why Haldane, Kosterlitz and Thouless needed to do what they did is that they're working in a subfield where the simple and straightforwardly reductionist approach that characterizes physics seems to run into trouble.
    ...
    One of the biggest of these is the subfield of "condensed matter," which tries to study the properties of vast assemblages of atoms making up solid or liquid systems. In condensed-matter systems you're worried about the collective behavior of many more particles than you have any hope of counting. As Phillip Anderson pointed out in a famous paper from 1972, these collective behaviors aren't necessarily obvious, even when the underlying rules governing the interactions between particles are simple and well-understood. More is different, in Anderson's phrase, but more importantly, more is difficult.


Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Thu Oct 20 12:03:28 EDT 2016

Health Care policy

  • Obamacare: What we didn't see coming
    Jonathan Gruber, 07/21/16

    An architect of the law reflects on its surprises and its future.

    Insurance premiums on the exchanges have also surprised me -- but not in the way that most readers would think. Most press coverage recently has focused on the high premium increases in exchange plans, and the exits of some insurers losing money on the exchanges, notably United Healthcare. But what those articles tend to ignore is that exchange premiums in 2014 came in much lower than expectations -- about 15 percent below what CBO projected. So even with recent increases, premiums are probably still lower than what would have been expected before the exchanges began. That gets overlooked.
    ...
    Employer-sponsored insurance was slowly declining before the ACA, and I expect that it will continue to slowly decline. But there is no evidence that the ACA is leading to its collapse. We see no large shift in the preferred mode of health care coverage for employees.
    ...
    The recent rise simply reflects a "catching up" after insurers initially set prices too low. After a few years of large premium increases, premium growth rates should settle back down to keep pace with the growth in health care spending.
    ...
    The fact is that exchanges in every state are well above the minimum scale required to function effectively. And the fear of "death spirals" from rapidly rising premiums is greatly exaggerated when the vast majority of exchange enrollees are subsidized, meaning they don't pay those higher premiums. This provides a stable base of enrollees, even as premiums rise.

  • Single Payer Trouble

    Paul Krugman, January 28, 2016

    To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich -- and single-payer really does save money, whereas there's no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it's not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.

  • Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others

    July 2006

    Life expectancy and infant mortality are wholly inadequate comparative measures for health care systems. Life expectancy is influenced by a host of factors other than a health care system, while infant mortality is measured inconsistently across nations. Neither of these measures provides the United States with conclusive guidance on health care policy, let alone serve as reliable evidence that a system of universal health care "should be implemented in the United States."

  • Health Care's Continental Divide
    Jan 22, 2016

    Online print debate between Bloomberg view columnists Megan McArdle & Leonid Bershidsky about single-payer health care in the U.S.

    MM: We might like an American government that was better at technocracy (or we might not), but we don't have one. We have instead a messy, fractious democracy that offers interest groups almost unlimited veto points against legislation they don't like. Love it or hate it, these forces make our government extremely bad at controlling costs, which shows up not just in our health-care and education systems, but also in the price of building our infrastructure or providing various social services.

  • A Single-Payer System Won't Make Health Care Cheap

    Megan McArdle, April 30, 2014

    The financing is impossible, in part because the politics is impossible. And the politics is impossible in part because the financial hit would be too big. Single-payer would have to be paid for at the extremely high prices that Americans pay, not the lower European prices that we'd rather have. And when you look at the taxes needed to finance a government takeover, you quickly realize that most people just aren't willing to pay the price


Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Fri Sep 30 19:16:47 EDT 2016

Items of Interest

Various web links I found to be of interest recently.

  • The natural selection of bad science

    Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding. The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favour them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. This dynamic requires no conscious strategizing—no deliberate cheating nor loafing—by scientists, only that publication is a principal factor for career advancement. Some normative methods of analysis have almost certainly been selected to further publication instead of discovery. In order to improve the culture of science, a shift must be made away from correcting misunderstandings and towards rewarding understanding.

  • Why is the scientific replication crisis centered on psychology?

    The strengths and weaknesses of the field of research psychology seemed to have combined to (a) encourage the publication and dissemination of lots of low-quality, unreplicable research, while (b) creating the conditions for this problem to be recognized, exposed, and discussed openly.
    ...
    It makes sense for psychology researchers to be embarrassed that those papers on power pose, ESP, himmicanes, etc. were published in their top journals and promoted by leaders in their field. Just to be clear: I'm not saying there's anything embarrassing or illegitimate about studying and publishing papers on power pose, ESP, or himmicanes. Speculation and data exploration are fine with me; indeed, they're a necessary part of science. My problem with those papers is that they presented speculation as mature theory, that they presented data exploration as confirmatory evidence, and that they were not part of research programmes that could accommodate criticism. That's bad news for psychology or any other field.

    Also see: What has happened down here is the winds have changed.
  • Dear "Skeptics," Bash Homeopathy and Bigfoot Less, Mammograms and War More

    A science journalist (John Horgan) takes a skeptical look at capital-S Skepticism.

    I'm a science journalist. I don't celebrate science, I criticize it, because science needs critics more than cheerleaders. I point out gaps between scientific hype and reality. That keeps me busy, because, as you know, most peer-reviewed scientific claims are wrong.

    So I'm a skeptic, but with a small S, not capital S. I don't belong to skeptical societies. I don't hang out with people who self-identify as capital-S Skeptics. Or Atheists. Or Rationalists.

  • How Big Sugar Enlisted Harvard Scientists to Influence How We Eat-in 1965

    Industry-funded research sought to discredit links between sugar and heart disease -- more than half a century ago.

    An article by University of California-San Francisco researchers, published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, shows how far back such efforts go: In 1965, the Sugar Research Foundation, the precursor to today's Sugar Association, paid Harvard scientists to discredit a link now widely accepted among scientists --that consuming sugar can raise the risk of cardiovascular disease. Instead, the industry and the Harvard scientists pinned the blame squarely, and only, on saturated fat.
    ...
    In a commentary accompanying the JAMA Internal Medicine article, Marion Nestle, a nutrition and public health professor at New York University and the author of Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health, called the findings a "smoking gun" showing how those who fund research can heavily influence its findings.

  • Statins or not? New study aims to help doctors and patients decide

    A new study reviews harms and benefits of statins treating patients with elevated LDL cholesterol

    But one concern among some experts, and opponents, is the eventual use of statins to treat people who have high cholesterol, but have not had previous cardiovascular issues and do not have diabetes of hypertension, meaning more people take them than needed. Fewer studies have shown that statins reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases in healthy people with high cholesterol.
    ...
    Among the 10,000 patients, the researchers found the drug would cause five cases of myopathy, as well as five to 10 hemorrhagic strokes -- caused by weak blood vessels bursting -- 50 to 100 new cases of diabetes, and up to 100 cases of symptomatic adverse events, such as muscle pain.

  • High US health care spending is quite well explained by its high material standard of living

    These plots and the arguments that usually go with them give the strong impression that US spends about twice as much as it should. However, these are misleading for several reasons, namely:

    1. GDP is a substantially weaker proxy for "wealth" and a substantially weaker predictor of health care expenditures than other available measures.
    2. The US is much wealthier than other countries in these plots in reality.
    3. The arbitrary selection of a handful of countries tends to hide the problems with GDP in this context and, oddly enough, simultaneously downplay the strength of the relationship between wealth and health care spending
    4. Comparing these two quantities with a linear scale tends to substantially overstate the apparent magnitude of the residuals from trend amongst the richer economies when what we're implicitly concerned with is the percentage spent on healthcare.

  • All Prostate Cancer Treatments About Equally Effective, Study Finds

    The first controlled study comparing three different approaches to prostate cancer -- radiation versus surgery versus "watchful waiting" -- shows there is no truly bad choice for most men, experts said Wednesday.

  • Myths and realities about America's infrastructure spending

    America needs an infrastructure renaissance, but we won't get it by the federal government simply writing big checks. A far better model would be for infrastructure to be managed by independent but focused local public and private entities and funded primarily by user fees, not federal tax dollars.
    ...
    Infrastructure spending is a form of investment: just as building a new factory can boost productivity, laying down a new highway or opening a new airport runway can, at least in principle, generate future economic returns. But the relevant question is: How do those future returns compare with the costs? Just because infrastructure is a form of capital doesn't mean that spending a lot on it is always smart.

  • Why the gender wage gap explodes when women hit their 30s

    In other words: The wage gap is largest during the years when men and women start families and raise children. And it shrinks about 18 years later -- right around when adult children are likely moving out of their parents' house.
    ...
    As I've written about previously, there is ample evidence that women are still responsible for the majority of child rearing and housework, even in households where both parents hold full-time jobs. That additional burden can become a significant obstacle to career advancement and higher salaries.

  • The International Association for Computing and Philosophy (IACAP)

    The International Association for Computing and Philosophy exists to promote scholarly dialogue and research on all aspects of the computational and informational turn, and on the use of information and communication technologies in the service of philosophy.

    Also see a view from Don Berkich:
    Should computer scientists and philosophers bother with one another?

  • Unpatent

    On a quest against patent trolls.
    Unpatent is a crowdfunding platform to invalidate bad patents.

    Unpatent was born with the mission of fixing the innovation framework.

    Under the premise that the patent system is utterly outdated and is not serving the people who push humankind forward, we are building tools to empower them again.

    The first glich in the system that we are fixing are patent trolls - who are usually law firms that extort people and companies over totally stupid, obvious patents.

  • Can Money Buy You Happiness?

    It's True to Some Extent. But Chances Are You're not Getting the Most Bang for Your Buck.

    In short, this latest research suggests, wealth alone doesn't provide any guarantee of a good life. What matters a lot more than a big income is how people spend it. For instance, giving money away makes people a lot happier than lavishing it on themselves. And when they do spend money on themselves, people are a lot happier when they use it for experiences like travel than for material goods.


Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments

Wed Sep 21 23:29:51 EDT 2016

Health Matters

Various web links related to health issues.

  • A Medical Mystery of the Best Kind: Major Diseases Are in Decline
    Gina Kolata in The New York Times The Upshot

    Something strange is going on in medicine. Major diseases, like colon cancer, dementia and heart disease, are waning in wealthy countries, and improved diagnosis and treatment cannot fully explain it.
    ...
    Perhaps, he said, all these degenerative diseases share something in common, something inside aging cells themselves. The cellular process of aging may be changing, in humans' favor. For too long, he said, researchers have looked under the lamppost at things they can measure. Perhaps, he said, all these degenerative diseases share something in common, something inside aging cells themselves. The cellular process of aging may be changing, in humans' favor. For too long, he said, researchers have looked under the lamppost at things they can measure.

  • You Can't Trust What You Read About Nutrition
    by Christie Aschwanden in fivethirtyeight.com

    Spurious Correlation: We found a link between cabbage and innie bellybuttons, but that doesn't mean it's real.

    When it comes to nutrition, everyone has an opinion. What no one has is an airtight case.
    ...
    Our foray into nutrition science demonstrated that studies examining how foods influence health are inherently fraught. To show you why, we're going to take you behind the scenes to see how these studies are done. The first thing you need to know is that nutrition researchers are studying an incredibly difficult problem, because, short of locking people in a room and carefully measuring out all their meals, it's hard to know exactly what people eat. So nearly all nutrition studies rely on measures of food consumption that require people to remember and report what they ate.
    ...
    Nearly every nutrient you can think of has been linked to some health outcome in the peer-reviewed scientific literature using tools like the FFQ, said John Ioannidis, an expert on the reliability of research findings at the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford. In a 2013 analysis published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Ioannidis and a colleague selected 50 common ingredients at random from a cookbook and looked for studies evaluating each food's association to cancer risk. It turned out that studies had found a link between 80 percent of the ingredients -- including salt, eggs, butter, lemon, bread and carrots -- and cancer. Some of those studies pointed to an increased risk of cancer, others suggested a decreased risk, but the size of the reported effects were "implausibly large," Ioannidis said, while the evidence was weak.

  • How exercise is "rebranded" as complementary and alternative medicine
    Respectful Insolence in ScienceBlogs

    "Complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM), now more frequently referred to as "integrative medicine" by its proponents, consists of a hodge-podge of largely unrelated treatments that range from seemingly reasonable (e.g., diet and exercise) to pure quackery (e.g., acupuncture, reiki and other "energy medicine") that CAM proponents are trying furiously to "integrate" as coequals into science-based medicine. They do this because they have fallen under the sway of an ideology that posits a false dichotomy: To practice true "holistic" and "preventative" medicine, physicians and other health care professionals must embrace the pre-scientific, pseudoscientific, or anti-scientific ideas about medicine that underlie much of the "alternative medicine" being "integrated."

  • Medical errors may be third leading cause of death in the U.S.

    In fact, the study, from doctors at Johns Hopkins, suggests medical errors may kill more people than lower respiratory diseases like emphysema and bronchitis do. That would make these medical mistakes the third leading cause of death in the United States. That would place medical errors right behind heart disease and cancer.
    ...
    One reason there's such a wide range of numbers is because accurate data on these kinds of deaths is surprisingly sparse. That's in part because death certificates don't ask for enough data, Makary said. Currently the cause of death listed on the certificate has to line up with an insurance billing code. Those codes do not adequately capture human error or system factors.

  • A Cavity-Fighting Liquid Lets Kids Avoid Dentists' Drills

    The Food and Drug Administration cleared silver diamine fluoride for use as a tooth desensitizer for adults 21 and older. But studies show it can halt the progression of cavities and prevent them, and dentists are increasingly using it off-label for those purposes.
    ...
    The main downside is aesthetic: Silver diamine fluoride blackens the brownish decay on a tooth.

  • Seriously, stop with the irresponsible reporting on cellphones and cancer

    This is just one study (we shouldn't dismiss it, but it's possible the results were simply due to chance). The effects were only found in rats (and may not translate at all to humans). And this needs to be weighed against other evidence that cellphones aren't a big risk for people (we've been using phones for decades now with no uptick in brain cancer). This is an important bit of research and deserves careful scrutiny and follow-up. But it's not an occasion for fear-mongering.


Posted by mjm | Permanent link | Comments