Lies the Harper Haters Tell, Part 1

Considering the raw hatred frequently being expressed for Stephen Harper over social networking sites like Twitter this election season, it shouldn't be shocking to see a website like ShitHarperDid.ca attract such a quick following.

What is remarkable is the steady stream of half-truths, innuendo, and outright lies that the website offers up.

Frankly, the ShitHarperDid website has proven to be so dishonest that one could fact-check its claims for days. Here at the Nexus, we'll be doing precisely that.

We start off with a familiar fib:

The CBC story in question about the "evolution scandal" (it wasn't a scandal) does a splendid job of telling about half of the story.

The other half of the story is that Goodyear later affirmed his belief in evolution, explaining that evolution is on ongoing process. Thinking themselves clever, the far-left responded by trying to excise the function of adaptation from the theory of natural selection.

In other words, they actually attempted to butcher scientific theory in order to pose as the defenders of it. Amazing.

As for the cuts the website complains of, the Harper government did, indeed, cut $148 million in 2009... from three specific agencies. While increasing bulk spending on science (including establishing 40 new Canada Research Chairs, and investing extensively in scientific infrastructure) by $3.5 billion.

In other words, Canadian science gave up $148 million in funding to receive $3.5 billion in new funding. But who's counting? Not the people behind ShitHarperDid.

As for the Environment Canada scientists, no organization in the world allows its employees to speak as if acting as official spokespersons without first obtaining the proper authorization. Moreover, plenty of climate alarmists have tried to muzzle any scientists who don't agree with them, but again: who's counting? Really?

Keep the Arms Industry Away From District 9

Warning: the following post contains significant spoilers about the movie District 9. Those still interested in seeing this film should consider themselves forewarned.


Sci-fi film presents terrifying view of Arms Industry

Films as deep and uniquely thoughtful as District 9 come along very rarely.

District 9 is such a deep film that it's difficult to decide where, precisely, to begin with it. The film, essentially a Harry Turtledove-esque alternate history of South African Apartheid in which an alien spacecraft appeared in the sky over Johannesburg in approximately 1981 -- at the height of the international controversy over Apartheid.

The aliens, referred to by the derogatory epithet "prawns", were eventually segregated into a slum outside of the city. The government is now planning to forcibly move the aliens -- who seem listless and purposeless in the wake of the apparent death of their leadership -- to a refugee camp 200 miles away from the city.

Multi-National United (MNU) is the corporation that eventually wins a contract from the South African government to manage alien affairs. MNU employee Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is put in charge of the operation, and immediately puts his pencil-pushing skills to work, much to the infuriating chagrin of the mercenaries MNU employs to forcibly move the aliens.

But an opportunity quickly presents itself to MNU -- one of the world's foremost weapons manufacturers -- in the form of the bumbling Wikus.

When Wikus manages to expose himself to a chemical that begins to alter his DNA -- replacing it with alien DNA -- he suddenly becomes the missing link in the company's efforts to unlock the secret of the alien weaponry. The alien weapons, it turns out, can only be fired by the aliens. They feature a sort of DNA trigger lock.

When it's discovered that the transformation Wikus is undergoing has enabled him to fire these weapons, the MNU science division -- which has been undertaking some rather horrific experiments on the aliens -- quickly decides to remove Wikus' organs while he's still alive in order to find out how human and alien DNA can be combined.

Wikus' father in law himself hands down the decision without so much as the first hint of moral difficulty.

Sadly, history is full of examples that show us how quickly scientific ethics can break down once scientists commit themselves to developing new methods of destroying life.

The shocking history of medical experimentation in Nazi Germany shows how quickly science's ethical rules can be discarded -- especially if one has subjects that are deemed to be not human or less than fully human to experiment on.

The sheer power of the alien weaponry in District 9 only adds to the terrifying dilemmas that emerge once science is committed to creating weapons.

Greed and ruthlessness have rarely combined well in human history, especially not when the arms industry is involved. The black market trade in weapons has enabled many civil and ethnic conflicts to continue unabated. In many cases, arms manufacturers have used black market dealers to keep these activities at an arm's length.

If MNU successfully unlocked the secret of using the alien weaponry in District 9, one would imagine they wouldn't hesitate to sell those secrets to the Nigerian gangs hiding out in the alien slum -- some of whom have resorted to eating alien body parts in an effort to gain their powers and use their weapons.

District 9 reminds us of why the arms industry has to be monitored and regulated very closely. Even those who favour minimal levels of government regulation of anything must admit that giving this industry a free hand to develop and sell arms is a terrible, terrible idea.

The Science of a Religion

Some portray Buddhism less as a religion and more like a science -- namely, modern psychology and, in particular, psychotherapy.

Yet there is no question that Buddhism has come to command the devotion, imagination, and faith of its observants as any other mainstream religion.

Interestingly, Buddhism has reemerged since the British colonization of India. Prior to the British arrival in India Buddhism had been wiped out by Hindus and Muslims. British anthropologists discovered and recovered evidence that solidly roots Guatama Buddha in historical fact.

Throughout history, the general trend has been for external invaders to destroy indigenous religions, not help resurrect them.

The Life of Buddha is as much a movie about archaeology's ability to help restore lost religions as it is a movie about Buddhism itself.

Interestingly, this particular episode poses a real challenge to fundamentalist atheists -- those who have canonized science in the service of atheism, which they are building into a religion -- as the pursuit of a science has led to the reemergence of a major world religion, even if it is a non-theistic religion.

The fact that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion also presents something of a dilemma for those who insist that atheism cannot itself be a religion because it doesn't believe in a central or all-powerful god.

Intriguingly, atheists believe that science, via secularism, will ultimately destroy religion. Yet, historically, it has yet to be the case. Even as many great scientists have held their religious faith close to them, sciences such as archeology and anthropology continue to preserve and recover religious materiel, with it religious history, and with that the religions themselves.

If there are greater ironies at work in the world today there couldn't be many of them.

Continuing the Assault on the Enemies of Reason

In part one of Richard Dawkins' documentary mini-series Enemies of Reason, Dawkins uses things such as astrology and water dousing to show how such superstitions lead people into irrational beliefs -- something that he seems to hope will cast a shadow over theistic religion.

In part two, Dawkins takes aim at alternative medicine and attempts to demonstrate that the medical field has become a "battleground between reason and superstition".

Dawkins notes that up to one third of British citizens subscribe to some sort of alternative medicine -- ranging from faith healers to homeopathic medicines. Apparently, the threat to reason posed by its enemies are very grave, indeed.

Dawkins equates rising rates of people using alternative medicine as a challenge to scientific medicine.

In some cases, the alleged attacks on science are coming from within the scientific community by way of poorly-conducted studies. Dawkins notes a 1998 study that incorrectly linked MMR vaccine with autism. After this study was released, 100s of thousands of parents refused to inoculate their children leading to new outbreaks of childhood diseases such as measles and the mumps.

Dawkins insists that this episode demonstrates that evidence has been devalued. But he is wrong.

What this evidence shows is that "facts" forwarded under the guise of science are all too often accepted without any vestige of critical thinking. The conclusions of bad science are all too often accepted right alongside the conclusions offered by good science.

It isn't that evidence has been de-valued. It's that poor evidence is being granted greater credence than it's due.

Dawkins complains that media coverage of alternative medicines aren't subjected to the same scrutiny that other news topics, such as politics, are subjected to. And he may well be right about this.

But one would wonder if the MMR autism study would have had the effect it did if the news media had asked those who conducted that particular study -- a survey of only 12 children -- hard questions about its methodology, or had corroborated the results of that study against the findings of other scientists.

Basically, the study was accepted by the news media according to a faith-based credulity granted to those who conducted the study. They are, after all, scientists.

What Dawkins eventually concludes is that the Placebo Effect must explain the seeming successes of homeopathic medicines.

The Skeptic's Dictionary defines the Placebo Effect as "the measurable, observable, or felt improvement in health or behavior not attributable to a medication or invasive treatment that has been administered".

Certainly, the scientific evidence, as recorded through scientific study, that alternative medicines can accomplish what they purport to accomplish is rather meager. Homeopathy is almost certainly clear example of this.

For its own part, the Utah Behavioral Healthcare Network would object to this statement. "To claim that homeopathic remedies are simply a creation brought on by the placebo effect is closed minded at best," it writes on its website.

Even the UBHN cannot define what it is they believe makes homeopathic medicines work:

"Homeopathic remedies work. It has been seen in many people all over the world that homeopathic remedies work. The placebo effect is the brain taking control of the body and helping it to heal itself. Isn't that what homeopathic remedies try to do? So, it would be obvious that the results would look similar to the placebo effect.

The AMA and allopathic doctors have been trying to prove homeopathic remedies to be the placebo effect for 200 years. However, people still use and swear by homeopathic remedies. Some homeopathic remedies work simply. They replace what the body needs. They take the symptoms that are meant to heal the body and enhance their effects. The placebo effect may be real in some cases but it isn't true for the entirety of homeopathic remedies."

Certainly people "swearing by" homeopathic medicines doesn't amount to evidence that they work. People who swear by homeopathic medicines clearly believe resolutely that they will work -- it's this resolute belief that is necessary for the Placebo Effect to take place.

In a double-blind scientific study, as Richard Dawkins calls for, many participants would likely not have that belief. This is what makes the placebo effect so hard to scientifically test for, and what makes it so difficult to prove that homeopathic medicines work.

Considering that many homeopaths admit that all they sell is pure, undiluted water -- or at least as close to pure, undiluted water as one can find -- there are few explanations for homeopathic medicine's successes (as they are) but the placebo effect.

Michael Baum, a professor of surgery at London's University College, offers a different explanation: the successes of homeopathic medicines may simply be due to the effect of human care. Baum and Dawkins both note that homeopathic practitioners -- as well as practicioners of other alternative medicines -- spend much more time with their patients than conventional general practicioners.

Baum suggests that homeopaths would make fantastic GPs -- although he wonders who would then help -- via the placebo effect -- those who believe in homeopathy.

To grant alternative medicines such as homeopathy more credence than they are due would certainly be irrational. But to overlook the potential for homeopathic medicine to use the placebo effect to complement conventional medicine is no more rational.

In the end, Dawkins may show more of himself than he shows of homeopathic medicine. In the end, Dawkins tells a homeopath that if he wanted to exploit the placebo effect he would dress it up in the appearance of respectability, just as homeopaths do.

According to the principle of charity, one attributes what their own intentions would be in any given situation to their subject.

If Dawkins would happily exploit homeopathy by dressing it up in the appearance of respectability, one may wonder if perhaps Dawkins isn't exploiting atheism by stirring up notions of being an oppressed minority.

It's far from a reasonable thing to believe. But, then again, Dawkins has so often proven to be less than entirely reasonable that it certainly isn't outside the realm of feasibility.

Paul Zachary Myers: Cultural Warrior

PZ Myers decries "anti-science, anti-intellectual" culture

Speaking regarding a reported shortage of American post-graduate science students, University of Minnesota biologist accuses a rather vague culprit for the problem.

"The problem is we have a strong sub-cultural thread that is simply anti-intellectual, anti-science," says Myers.

"...In Germany, that kind of debate is considered trivial," Myers compared. "In the U.S., anti-intellectualism is not a trivial problem. We have a culture war that isn't happening in Europe."

Of course, it's extremely convenient for PZ Myers to note the existence of an alleged culture war. He, after all, is a dedicated cultural warrior.

Myers, as anyone knows, is a fierce advocate of atheism, and is among an extreme cabal of fundamentalist atheists who often attempts to argue that religion and science are incompatible.

He seems to overlook the fact that scientists as distinquished as sir Isaac Newton and sir Francis Bacon -- among many others -- considered their religious faith to be perfectly compatible with science.

(Although, to be fair, the Catholic Church didn't seem to consider science to be compatible with the religious faith of Copernicus.)

The United States, meanwhile, remains one of the countries in the western world with the highest per capita rates of religious observation -- although this has been shifted in recent years.

One would wonder what Mr Myers would have to say about this alleged "anti-science, anti-intellectual sub-cultural thread" if one were to ask him how he thought his attempts to decisively separate religion and intellectualism were questioned to his face.

That is, if he bothered to answer such a question. All too often he tends not to.

But the logical answer to this question is obvious: if tension between religion and science has really led to this alleged anti-science trend that Myers alludes to, one would have to consider Myers' efforts to stir up tension between religion and science to be at least partially responsible.

If there really is such a trend at all.

But PZ Myers would know full well if there's a cultural war happening in the United States. He's busy enough instigating and then fighting it that we can take his word for it.

The Missing Link of Canadian Research & Development

Private sector oddly missing from Canadian R&D

Writing in an op/ed column in the Globe and Mail, Preston Manning makes some very interesting points about research and development funding in Canada.

Manning wisely portrays the decision over how the federal government's $13 billion will be distributed as a fusion of science and economic policy, and equally-wisely notes that how the government spends this money will have important impacts on the health, economic prospects, and life quality of Canadians.

Interestingly enough, Canada's total expenditure on research and development is dwarfed by the total expenditure of other OECD countries. Yet Canada's public research and development sector -- taking place in universities and hospitals -- is among the best financed in the world.

Instead, the questionable state of Canadian R&D seems to actually be the result of lax financial commitments by the Canadian private sector.

Too many private sector companies, it seems, lack innovation strategies that will lead to the development of new products and technologies that overall improve the value of the Canadian economy, making Canada more competitive in the global economy.

This is actually quite a different tale from the one told by many who insist that the Conservative government actually cut science funding in the 2009 budget -- whereas, in fact, the government merely shifted money between funding agencies.

Manning also noted that there seems to be confusion between the government and researchers regarding how the government will distribute science funding -- an issue that Manning recently addressed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"When [researchers] don't understand the process and the structure, I think there's suspicion," Manning noted. "Was somebody else lobbying better than I was lobbying, or do they like this more than that? I think when you don't know the process or the structure, you can misinterpret motives and why things happen the way they do."

Another obstacle to collaboration between government and private research, however, seems to be a notion that the private sector has no obligation to invest in R&D because the government will do it for them.

Those companies that have embraced this idea certainly aren't doing themselves any favours. A company that declines to develop new technologies and new products are companies that will instead be chasing new developments by their competitors -- far from an ideal situation for any profit-seeking company.

It's troubling to think that a surplus of Canadian companies don't seem to understand the importance of investing in R&D, even through public/private partnerships.

Without involvement by private companies it becomes difficult to transfer new technological developments from the laboratory to the market, as Manning alludes.

Not only do companies that don't invest in R&D not do themselves any favours, but they don't do the market any favours either.

There is a public solution to Canada's research and development dilemma, and interestingly enough it doesn't lay with government. It lays with individual Canadians and Canadian investment funds to invest in Canadian R&D companies, and favour investment with companies that conduct R&D in Canada.

Although investors may not be as powerful at this specific point in time as they once were -- the stark decline in investor confidence has clearly taken some of the punch out of the clout of various investment funds -- Canadians can still look to the future and future opportunities to speak with their investment dollars, and use those dollars to vote in favour of Canadian R&D.

Warning: Witchhunt in Progress

Evolutionary theory being bastardized in the name of manufactured scandal

A controversy was recently sparked when federal Science Minister of State Gary Goodyear recently refused to answer a question about whether or not he believed in evolution.

"I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate," Goodyear explained.

"I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. I think we need to recognize that we don't know," Goodyear later added -- a comment that some individuals have jumped upon as apparent proof that Goodyear believes in creationism.

Yet in a later interview, Goodyear further explained his refusal to answer the question.

"I didn't answer the question because it's not relevant to the portfolio, it's not relevant to what we have to do, [to] what Canadians are worried about," Goodyear explained on CTV. "It's unfortunate a reporter has chosen to take this as something of interest when in fact the focus should be on ...creating jobs and securing our economic future."

"The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong," Goodyear added.

When asked in that interview whether or not he believes in evolution, Goodyear confirmed his belief.

"Of course, I do," he said. "We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it's to the intensity of the sun ...or to the effects of walking on concrete. Of course, we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant."

Many of the most intellectually dishonest among those who are out for Goodyear's head are insisting that Goodyear's latter comments reflect an understanding of adaptation, not evolution.

The fact that they're ignoring is that, as a fundamental principle of the theory of natural selection, adaptation is also a fundamental principle of the theory of evolution.

It's very interesting that PZ Myers, a blogging biologist who has helped spread this controversy, has yet to acknowledge Goodyear's comments or correct any of his followers who are twisting evolutionary theory in order to preserve the controversy.

Unshockingly, the usual suspects think they have a real winner on their hands.

As usual, they'll ignore facts -- and apparently even bastardize the theory of evolution -- in order to enjoy a hollow triumph.

Canadians who aren't indulging themselves in willful ignorance will recognize Goodyear's comments for precisely what they are: affirmation of his belief in evolution.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Larry Moran - "Gary Goodyear 'Clarifies' His Stance on Evolution"

Pearce Richards - "Gary Goodyear - National Embarrassment"

Ian Bushfield - "I'm Not Buying It Gary"

Death By Technology?

Patlabor reflects potential benefit, perils of technology

Sometimes the predictions about the future featured in TV and movies can be comically inaccurate.

But even when inaccurate, they sometimes contain traces of prophetic warning.

Patlabor is the tale of the chaos wrought by a monomaniacal computer programmer with a God complex. Disgusted with the hubris of the Babel project -- a large-scale land reclaimation project in 1999 Tokyo -- master programmer Eeichi Hoba programs an inentional flaw into an operating system for labors, futuristic mecha used for defence and industry in a fictional late 90s Japan.

When wind blowing against buildings produces the proper sound frequency, labors equipped with the faulty Hyper Operating Systems go berserk, unstoppably destroying everything in their path.

Patlabor seems to be yet another comically remiss prediction about the future. The robotics technology necessary to produce labors is now far more developed than in the late 1980s when the film was produced, but remains far out of reach.

Yet Patlabor seems to have predicted another technical blunder that it was believed would devestate global civilization: the infamous Y2K bug that had computer programmers working overtime for the latter portion of the 1990s in order to avert the impending disaster.

The belief was that computer programs with only two digits to record the year would crash at midnight on New Year's Eve as their programs forced them to record the year as 00.

Efforts to update the computers of government, business and the vast majority of home computers with software providing four digits to record the year were successful and it remains unknown whether or not the disaster would have actually taken place.

Patlabor provokes an intriguing question: what kind of devestation could someone with malicious intent inflict if they were able to design key defects into an important piece of technological work.

The potential ticking time bomb of such an act could even provide yet another venue for terrorism. Scientists aligned with or sympathetic to terrorists could accomplish more for a terrorist cause in one calculated act than a hundred 9/11s.

It's a frightening prospect, but it begs the question of what is actually the bigger problem: the potential to design catastrophic flaws within technologies, or developed civilization's clear over reliance on technology?

On a yearly basis, decision making power is taken out of human hands more and more often and bureaucratic decrees are enforced through computer. On a yearly basis, more and more basic tasks are taken out of human hands and performed through a machine.

The argument is that these things are making developed civilization more efficient. But as part of a wider trend, this is making developed civilization more and more vulnerable to such malicious acts.

There are, of course, solutions to these problems. Background checks on those involved in high-profile research and development programs have been part of the standard operating procedure of cutting edge R & D projects for years. This isn't likely to change any time soon.

But vigilance as a watchward is nearly always a wise idea.

Considering the stakes global civilization has invested in high technology, such vigilance remains as important as ever.

Space: The Final Frontier...

Just don't tell that to Jim Prentice

In the future (theoretically) mankind will travel amongst the stars as easily as they travel around the planet today.

Unless, if a controversial plan to sell a publicly-funded cutting-edge space technology company to a US arms maker goes ahead, you're Canadian. Then you'll probably have to hire yourself an intergalactic taxi cab.

In the face of escalating public pressure, federal Industry Minister Jim Prentice has called for further review of a plan to sell MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates to Alliant Techsystems, a US-based arms firm.

MDA builds equipment such as the Canadarm and satellites such as the Radarsat-2, which will be crucial in maintaining Canada's arctic sovereingty -- a key issue being persued by Prime Minster Stephen Harper.

Although some of the outrage over selling MDA to a firm that builds and exports weapons is overblown -- Alliant also produces peaceful space technology -- this sale should simply not be allowed to go through.

First off, the price tag on the deal is insulting. $1.325 billion for a company that produces the quality technology that MDA produces is, frankly, ridiculous.

But the bigger issues underlying the sale deal with Canada's research and development sector, which are crucial to building a competitive 21st century economy.

Fortunately, some within Prentice's own party have recognized the critical importance of the issue and have spoken out against the plan.

"It is a waste of your money and a betrayal of the public interest," said Conservative MP Art Hanger. "It's about time Canada stop playing the nice guy at the expense of our own security and sovereignty -- not to mention our own research and development capacity."

"Why do we so rarely stand firm and fight for what's Canadian? Isn't it time we started protecting our own interests in this country?"

Hanger is 100% right. The sale of MDA would transform Canada from a leading nation in development of spacebound technology into just another straggler playing catchup -- and after we've worked so hard to put ourselves amongst the front of the pack.

The MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates sale must not go through.