From: Lucian Mogosanu Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:12:37 +0000 (+0300) Subject: posts: 044, 045 X-Git-Tag: v0.5~5 X-Git-Url: https://git.mogosanu.ro/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=d406908a769655780a566aaa1d9d2dd74e94e728;p=thetarpit.git posts: 044, 045 --- diff --git a/posts/y02/044-law-harm-good.markdown b/posts/y02/044-law-harm-good.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ae45b16 --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/y02/044-law-harm-good.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ +--- +postid: 044 +title: When the law does more harm than good, or an exercise in independent thought +date: March 12, 2016 +author: Lucian Mogoșanu +tags: asphalt +--- + +Society, or rather agents of society who get paid in order to ensure the +continued existence of abstract entities such as "the society", "the +state" and so on and so forth, have taught us individuals that laws have +been put in place by our forefathers for morals, ethics, or in other +words, for normative reasons. This, of all things, ensures that within +the pale of "society", "state" (and so on and so forth) activities ocur +deterministically, and thus the continued existence of said entities. + +In modern democratic society, a heavy counterbalance to those otherwise +contemptible pieces of propaganda[^1] is the mechanism of vote. At least +theoretically, people meet, discuss, debate, and decide based on hard +numbers whether a given law is worth applying or not. Also +theoretically, such decisions are taken based primarily on the common +sense and the common good. + +However, given that both common-sense and common-good are vaguely +defined terms[^2], in practice laws get validated based on group +interests. When democracy inevitably fails, group interests become the +norm and are introduced systematically either directly through +"lobbying", or using plain old doublespeak à la "pro-life/pro-choice", +"pro/anti global climate change", "animal rights", etc. Thus in the +rather harsh times our dear old Western civilization is going through, +it is safe to assume that laws are not only not based on common-sense +and common-good, but that they may encompass completely opposite +principles. + +Thus, for our exercise in independent thought, let us take two disparate +and completely non-interesting examples. + +**First example**: Parlamentul a stabilit la cati caini au dreptul + ciobanii. Legea "3, 2, 1 dulai", criticata de ministrul + Agriculturii[^3]: + +> O lege adoptata de parlamentari schimba regulile de la stana. In +> functie de regiune, ciobanii au voie sa tina la turma unul, doi sau +> trei caini. Daca au mai multi, amenzile ajung pana la 1500 de lei. +> +> Crescatorii de animale sunt revoltati pentru ca, spun ei, nu au cum +> sa-si apere oile de lupi. +> +> [...] +> +> Ioan Moga, crescator de oi: "Cine a mai pomenit asa ceva. Eu de 50 de +> ani cresc oi si mereu am avut cate 6, 7 chiar 8 caini la turma. Sa +> raman cu 2? Ce fac? Au veni lupii chiar aici si mi-au atacat oile. O +> sa vina sa ne dea si amenzi din alea mari." + +Or, in plain English. [Romanian] Parliament regulates the number of dogs +to which shepherds are entitled. The law "3, 2, 1 hounds", criticized by +the minister of Agriculture: + +> A law passed by congressmen changes sheepfold rules. Depending on the +> region, shepherds may keep one, two or three dogs to guard their +> flock. Those who keep more will receive fines up to 1500 lei. +> +> Animal breeders are revolted because they claim that they are now +> unable to defend their sheep from wolves. +> +> [...] +> +> Ioan Moga, dog breeder: "This is unheard of. For 50 years I've been +> raising sheep and I always had 6, 7 or even 8 dogs near the herd. To +> be left with 2? What am I going to do? Wolves came right here and they +> attacked my sheep. They're going to come and give us those big fines." + +In short, the example above is a case of not one, but two mistakes that +no lawmaker should ever commit[^4]. + +The first mistake is the choice of "three, two, one, depending on the +region". This number looks, and most probably is completely +arbitrary. Why three dogs and not four? Why not two big ones and a +smaller one? Why not twenty chihuahuas, for that matter? Educated +persons know that universal constants are mere exceptions, and even +those are baffling to the extreme. + +The second mistake is that the law fails to address the root causes of +the whole scandal, i.e. that dogs are aggressive, that they kill wild +animals and attack tourists. Up next, women won't be allowed to have +more than two babies in a period of ten years, due to the pollution +caused by baby feces; citizens will not be allowed to breathe more than +three liters of air per day, to lower the quantity of CO2 emitted by +humans. There's more but I'm gonna stop here, I'm probably giving these +nutters ideas. + +**Second example**: + [La gare de Renens évacuée à cause d'un colis suspect][renens]: + +> La gare de Renens (VD) a été évacuée jeudi à 19 heures après la +> découverte d'une valise abandonnée. A Genève, un sac de sport a été +> neutralisé vers 20 heures à Rive. +> +> [...] +> +> A Renens, une autre intervention a eu lieu. Celle du Groupe de +> spécialistes en dépiégeage (GSD). Elle a pris fin à 21 heures. Aucun +> objet dangereux n'a finalement été découvert dans la valise. Celle-ci +> ne contenait que des effets personnels, selon un communiqué de la +> police. + +Or, in short[^5], people in the small municipality of Renens, Vaud, +Switzerland, get all fussy over a luggage left in the train station[^6], +by someone who has most probably forgotten it there, the poor fool. + +Now, the way things go in civilized countries such as Switzerland, +someone needs to pay for all this fuss[^7]. Given the incident, both +executive and judiciary organs will have to establish how the incident +took place, why it took place, and why did citizen Y leave his luggage +in the train station in the first place? + +On the other hand, if the average educated person were to look at the +whole thing from a sane, pre-9/11 perspective, they would be completely +confused, firstly by the authorities' reaction, and secondly by everyone +else's complete fear and submission to this whole situation. What do you +mean, we have to look at the context? Have the laws changed so awfully +radically because of [Charlie Hebdo][charlie-hebdo]? Are today's more +"civilized people" more quick to "pray for Paris" than to take a moment +to think about the whole situation[^8]? + +So, now that a few idiots finally learned how to make bombs out of +household items, people can lose their jobs for spitting, and they can +get fined over leaving a bag in the train station. Up next, policemen +will arrest another poor fool, unable to determine exactly why. I +wonder, what would have Kafka thought about this? + +It seems that laws don't work anymore. Well. At least +marketing still does... [or does it][marketing-failure]? + +[^1]: Propaganda, education, not much of a difference there. They're +both for the feeble-minded, both serving the purpose of training +monkeys, with the notable distinction that the former strives to keep +adults in their sorry state, while the latter enforces norms in order to +open up horizons towards humanity. Regardless, they're both useful tools +for whomever wields them. + +[^2]: The problem with applying "common good" on the other is that you +don't do what the other *wants*, but what *is good for them*. So despite +what the strangely cognitively dissonant "generation X" would have you +believe (they're seriously insane anyway, really!), this may or may not +include beating the hell out of the other. In fact, one of the few +things in life that can never ever, ever, ever be avoided is pain of all +kinds. + + The problem with "common sense" is that it's subject to cultural + relativism -- see the cognitive dissonance of the previously + mentioned "generation X". Remember that back in the day some + cultures held in high regards the belief that eating people is + ok. Sure, you might think that this can never ever happen in your + culture, because your culture is superior. Well, no, it's not; in + fact "pop culture" is in our times the standard example of an + inferior culture. First and foremost in the light of the fact that + it will not stand the test of time. + +[^3]: The original story can be found on the +[ProTV news site][first-example] (warning, it's very JavaScript and +Flash-heavy). + +[^4]: And for which those Romanian guys should be beaten with a short, +sharp stick, just like in the old times. Yes, it's uncivilized. Yes, the +guys deserve it. They essentially ate their taxpayers' money with this +shit, and now-democratic Romanians [stand this][balkans] the way they've +stood it during communism, [Ottoman rule][aferim], and probably during +the Dacian times too, since they're so very +[proud of it][nationalism]. The way things look, they're going to accept +this state of affairs for the foreseeable future, and the Western world +will end up finding a model in that, or something. + +[^5]: For plain English translations, hire someone. Or, y'know, get a +book, learn some French, it's not a dead language yet. + +[^6]: It's amusing how the original article fails to give any useful +information about the somewhat similar event in Geneva, probably because +they weren't given any hints by the authorities, and probably because +that one was a serious incident. In this case, presspeople just apply +the classic trick of misdirection, despite the fact that the event in +Geneva was most likely more serious and the public is worried and all +that. Journalism, Iknowrite? + +[^7]: They had to evacuate a whole train station, mobilize bomb +specialists, all that mumbo-jumbo. That stuff costs, and yes, someone +oughta be held responsible and pay for it. I mean, it's not that "it +just happened", right? + +[^8]: Masses' traditional lack of rationality is exactly why people +"voted for" Lenin, Hitler and Le Pen a while after choosing those other +guys. You know the ones that history scarcely remembers. + +[first-example]: http://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/social/parlamentul-a-stabilit-la-cati-caini-au-dreptul-ciobanii-legea-3-2-1-dulai-criticata-de-ministrul-agriculturii.html + +[balkans]: /posts/y02/03d-never-mind-the-balkans-heres-romania.html +[aferim]: /posts/y01/039-aferim.html +[nationalism]: /posts/y00/00b-romania-s-dumb-nationalism.html +[renens]: http://www.lematin.ch/suisse/suisse-romande/gare-renens-evacuee-cause-colis-suspect/story/31660962 +[charlie-hebdo]: /posts/y01/037-charlie-hebdo.html +[marketing-failure]: /posts/y02/043-on-the-failure-of-marketing.html diff --git a/posts/y02/045-academic-hogwash.markdown b/posts/y02/045-academic-hogwash.markdown new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f39fcec --- /dev/null +++ b/posts/y02/045-academic-hogwash.markdown @@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ +--- +postid: 045 +title: Academic hogwash: an empirical study thereof +excerpt: In which we analyze the circular motivations behind academic publishing. Probably a rehash of some other essay, but it's ok to do it nowadays. +date: April 9, 2016 +author: Lucian Mogoșanu +tags: asphalt +--- + +Scientia[^1] is brain-wreckingly difficult. What with it being a field +where people work their asses off to push the boundaries of what we +know and discover what we don't know and other tar pits. + +Since the intellectual demands of said jobs are so high, it's not enough +to push and discover and so on and so forth. New conceptual horizons are +muddy, so at least half of the job, if not ninety-nine percent of it, +involves making them clear, preferably in a language that "the +scientific community" will easily comprehend[^2]. If you've any doubts +about that, you may study the historical examples of Einstein, Bohr, +Pauli and others[^3]. + +Traditionally, the average "man of knowledge"[^4] does this by sitting +on his ass somewhere, taking a piece of paper and jotting some ideas +off, then re-writing them two or ten or a hundred times, in any case, +until they are refined enough to be presented in front of said +"scientific community". Once that is done, other "men of knowledge"[^5] +will spend some of their precious time reviewing the work and deciding +whether it is worth presenting to the world at large as a fact. Simple, +right? + +The reader will have to excuse me, for I am only a budding youngster on +this matter, so I don't know the specific historical events that led to +the current state of affairs, but I can make a pretty good guess that +the point where everything turned upside down was when someone started +talking about some nonsense or other, which they decided to call +"academic standards"[^6]. + +So, to better illustrate the main point, back in the day getting a PhD +would involve coming up with a model of relativity, or discovering DNA, +or reasoning about abstract shit such as computation. In contrast, +getting a PhD nowadays involves "publishing X papers to Y journals and Z +conferences rated by Alpha company"[^7]. Because if everything else +becomes an industry, then so must science. Quite convenient, isn't it? + +And thusly nowadays the end goal of youngsters fiddling with Scientia +isn't to push the boundaries of knowledge anymore. Since "objective +evaluation"[^8] is now a thing, it's enough for them to attempt to meet +that criteria. That is all, and everyone's happy, right? + +Not really. Now Alpha company will label journal Y and conference Z as +more-or-less "prestigious", so dumbsters[^9] will pay to get more stuff +published. Y and Z will only struggle to attract even more materials +through the so-called "CFPs", in order to keep rejection rates up and +thus be themselves rated "objectively" by Alpha as +"prestigious". Meanwhile, dumbsters will jump with joy that one of their +papers containing this or that -- at this point it's not like anyone +cares about the actual content anymore -- has been published to +"prestigious Y"[^10] and they're one more step toward graduation, +tenure, or whatever else is fashionable in the academia +nowadays[^11]. Lo and behold, intellectual production has exceeded 200% +this quinquennium[^12], all praise multilaterally-developed science! + +So, [what shall we do now][pink-floyd]? Well, one good idea would be to +punch an academic in the face[^13]. + +Oh, you meant, doing that in a +[politically correct][political-correctness] way? No, I'm afraid there +isn't much to be done, welcome to the new, glorious age of +[post-religion][post-religion]. + +[^1]: That is, the female personification of knowledge, whom everyone +seems to want to rape nowadays. + + So, you've just started reading this and there I go, not even + bothering to leave the reader to get acquainted with the article's + tone and such. What, you really thought this was going to be an + academic essay? Go read your abstracts somewhere else, this isn't an + awful FSM-damned "prestigious journal". + +[^2]: Where "language" doesn't necessarily mean English. Oh, I mean, +sure, everyone speaks it nowadays, but make the simple exercise of +looking at the frequency of most terms in the average academic paper +nowadays. In circles where Scientia actually matters, language is much +more subtle a thing than just taking a basic grammar along with some +[marketspeak][marketing] and shuffling them around; it most of all +involves being precise, and this precision cannot be achieved merely by +speaking "English". + +[^3]: Ever wonder why most of them are from mathematics and/or physics? +One could argue that they're actually from philosophy, but the fact is, +if I'm not mistaken social sciences and humanities have yet to rock the +world in this fashion. And I doubt they ever will, I doubt it very much. + +[^4]: As opposed to just "man of science". + +[^5]: Women of knowledge too, we're not trying to be sexist here. + +[^6]: Sciences are not the only fields affected by this. Just look at +[the media][media]; and look at all these sites claiming to have "unique +visitors", "apps" claiming to have "millions of downloads", companies +claiming to be valued at billions of dollars. Oh, and they do, they +have, they are, but only insane people would believe that these +so-called "metrics" would have any meaningful +interpretation. Unfortunately some people are way beyond insane +nowadays. + +[^7]: Seriously now, who the fuck are Thomson Reuters to decide on +scientific relevance? Since when is the Australian Research Council more +important than, say, common sense? Or has appeal to authority subtly but +suddenly stopped being a logical fallacy in the last few decades? What +do you mean, "we need institutions to"? Who says we do? I for one most +certainly don't want my brain replaced by any "institution", thank you. + +[^8]: "Evaluating performance" of human knowledge is pretty much one of +the hardest problems of humanity. That is, in case you're wondering why +[the educational system has failed miserably][grade-inflation]. Also, if +you're wondering which piece on the Internet this essay is rehashing, +it's probably TLP's. + +[^9]: In the age of Internet and self-publishing and whatnot, how many +scientists do you know who actually promote sane publishing in favour of +feeding the machine? The only example in my mind is +[Bernstein's IEEE boycott][ieee], otherwise everyone's sucking it +up. Because "we need institutions to", right? Well, joke's on you for +getting involved with the mafiosos. + +[^10]: Fine, we can give names. Take for example an article published in + Nature, + "[The significant association of Taq1A genotypes in DRD2/ANKK1 with smoking cessation in a large-scale meta-analysis of Caucasian populations][nature]", + subsequently pop-scientized (by Nature themselves!) in various + journalistic venues under sensationalistic titles. The paper is bad + or at most completely irrelevant by sane scientific standards, yet + it was published in a so-called prestigious journal, therefore it + must be good! + +[^11]: In case you're wondering: yes, I am in the academia at the moment +of writing, and yes, I'm as guilty as all the other people taking, or +worse, promoting this. If you're "one of my peers" and you're dismissing +this with a hand wave, then again, joke's on you, don't say I didn't +tell you. On the other hand, if you're offended, then good, you should +be. Now read this again, and again and again and again until the offense +rubs off on you and *maybe* you'll start thinking, like the intellectual +you are. + +[^12]: Harder to get if you didn't live through communism. + +[^13]: What do you mean, how to do that, are you a grown up or what? +Fine, here's a decent example from [Rogaway][rogaway]. + +[marketing]: /posts/y02/043-on-the-failure-of-marketing.html +[media]: /posts/y01/02a-online-media-is-feeding-on-your-tears.html +[grade-inflation]: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/08/grade_inflation.html +[ieee]: http://cr.yp.to/writing/ieee.html +[pink-floyd]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS_FCbQ-okM +[rogaway]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1162 +[political-correctness]: /posts/y01/02e-on-the-inherent-harmfulness-of-political-correctness.html +[post-religion]: /posts/y00/018-on-post-religion.html +[nature]: http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v5/n12/full/tp2015176a.html?WT.mc_id=FBK_TP_1511_TAQ1ASMOKING_OA