McPherson and the End of Life “Debate”

The Inconsistency of Our Views

If we genuinely care about alleviating suffering, making people’s lives better, decreasing suffering or perhaps maintaining moral duties, it is inconsistent for us to deny the voluntary right to die. Many people and, more importantly, States oppose voluntary suicide (VS) because of some hang up or slither of of sanctity, even if it’s never explicitly laid out as such. “Sanctity”, or sanctity of life, says there is something almost supernaturally “special” about human life, that it must not be destroyed or diminished to any significant degree. Indeed, it states, human life or living should be promoted, whether on an individual or species-wide capacity.

I find this idea inconsistent with our views in other areas. If it was true that States care about promoting the length of citizen’s lives then all matter of restrictions should be in place: we should not be driving, smoking, drinking alcohol, etc. Why do we allow for these things, which are proven to cause suffering and hasten death, whereas we deny people the means to avoid suffering but bring on a quick death? It is inconsistent and arbitrary. There is no good reason to oppose someone wanting to take his life.

David Hume on Obfuscatory Philosophy

I came across a wonderful quotation by the great David Hume. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1777) Hume unpacks his targets and what he hopes to avoid. In the very first section, “On the Different Species of Philosophy”, he considers the cases of some “metaphysical” philosophy which is obscure because it is not “science”. This is not to say that because it is not science it is worthless, but that a good red flag is something that revels in not being science, bathing itself in obscurity and obfuscation. (Which today identifies such things as obscure New Age nonsense, astrology, and homeopathy.)

To Hume, because “man is a reasonable being”, “science [is] his proper food and nourishment”. This is the famous paragraph, where he dissects the contradictory nature of “man” and ends off with (personified) nature telling us: “Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man.”

Of course, here there was little differentiating between the kind of philosophy and science we ought to do. Both should be focused on remaining “human”. “Indulge your passion for science, says she [nature], but let your science be human, and as such have a direct reference to action and society.” (Emphasis added.)

I take such words to heart, considering the applicability of my thoughts, research and philosophical focus. I do not want to indulge in irrelevant navel-gazing on publicly meaningless topics. A danger, I think, in many disciplines.

And this is the paragraph I want to quote; where Hume admonishes all who would indulge in obscurity, superstition and meaningless drivel (I’m looking at you literary theory). Every academic should have this paragraph on their door; or above their keyboard or quill or whatever academics write with these days. Says Hume:

But this obscurity in the profound and abstract philosophy, is objected to, not only as painful and fatiguing, but as the inevitable source of uncertainty and error. Here indeed lies the justest and most plausible objection against a considerable part of metaphysics, that they are not properly a science; but arise either from the fruitless efforts of human vanity, which would penetrate into subjects utterly inaccessible to the understanding, or from the craft of popular superstitions, which, being unable to defend themselves on fair ground, raise these intangling brambles to cover and protect their weakness. Chaced from the open country, these robbers fly into the forest, and lie in wait to break in upon every unguarded avenue of the mind, and overwhelm it with religious fears and prejudices. The stoutest antagonist, if he remit his watch a moment, is oppressed. And many, through cowardice and folly, open the gates to the enemies, and willingly receive them with reverence and submission, as their legal sovereigns. (Enquiry, I: Par. 11)

Hume teaches everyone, not just philosophers. Indeed, anyone can benefit from this man’s powerful and beautiful writing, thought and grace. His sobriety and clarity is second to none.

“Marry a Muslim or You Die!” and other tales of woe

I’m getting tired of reading reports about thuggish Muslim idiots who, by virtue of having specific chromosomes and genitalia, thrust said properties into their conduct. No doubt some of you remember the Italian Muslim mother and daughter assaulted by their male side of their own family. What was the reason the men attacked their own family?

Surfing the Slippery Slope of the Abortion Debate

UPDATE: The irritatingly sober Blaize Kaye, mentor and mitrailleur of all fuzzy thinking has written a brilliant post, which raises points I did not. Look there before. You probably won’t need to read mine anyway.

When people strap on boots of “moralising” and start raging through the territory of ethical debate, many things get crushed in the process. Spurned by emotion, people often overlook arguments that have refuted their own ones or, more importantly, improved on them. I’m an advocate of clarity and openness in the academic world, especially in philosophy; this is not an attempt to tell “laypeople” – for I am also a laypeople – to shut their traps about moral philosophy. Indeed, in many instances it is philosophers making boring noises about moral philosophy that should quiet down. Nevertheless, with that disclaimer out the way, I want to point to an instance where muddled-thinking, combined with the tightly worn boots of moralising, are seen in full display. Columnist Khaya Dlanga, at News24.com, has made some silly noises regarding abortion that deserves scrutiny.

In Reply to Power Balance’s Statement that They’re Not Actually Frauds

Power Balance has released a statement, concerning their wristbands. Please read it in full here.

I will now proceed to tear it apart, piece by piece.

Nonsense on Wrists

• Power Balance stands by our products

Wouldn’t be much of a business if they didn’t.

• Millions of people around the globe are wearing Power Balance products and are thrilled with the results.

Argumentum ad populum – the fallacy appealing to numbers to justify itself. “Millions of people can’t be wrong!” seems to be the implication. But a mistake or lie doesn’t become true the more times you say it or believe it. Many believed the earth was flat. Belief does not alter the planet’s shape.

Truth is not yelled into existence, reality is not made on the hot air of stridency. All that Power Balance indicates here is the amount of people it’s duped into believing its unfounded claims.

• Dozens of high profile professional athletes swear by the results they’ve experienced from wearing our products.

Another version of the argumentum ad populum. The Fallacy Navigator, linked above, calls this “Snob Appeal” which is “the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.” Sportspeople are not (necessarily) scientists. So what if they “swear” by it? Power Balance’s claims remain unfounded.

If “dozens of high profile professional athletes” said they could fly, had wings made of rainbows and were all from planet Zog, would we believe them?

We may be justified if they were, say, physicians or biologists who found these results after testing the wristbands. But these “high profile professional athletes” are simply the higher-paid, more famous victims duped by Power Balance.

• CNBC recently named Power Balance as the “Sports Product of the Year for 2010.” Our bracelet was also one of Amazon’s “Top 5 Best Sellers” during the recent holiday shopping season.

Based probably on sales, since most of us sceptical of Power Balance have been seeking evidence for their claims. It is unlikely CNBC and Amazon gave it for scientific credibility and biological breakthrough – in fact, considering Power Balance’s claims, if Power Balance were serious, they would be announcing their winning the Nobel Prize for Physics not Amazon’s Top 5 best-sellers.

They’re also not saying much when Amazon also had Dan Brown and Twilight in their top products, too.

• We are the clear leader in the market for performance technology accessories and we owe it all to our customers who wear and believe in the product.

“Technology”? No, no. This sentence is incorrect. It should say: “We are the clear leader in the market for performance placebos and we owe it all to our customers who wear and believe in the product”.

Also, either the tech works or it doesn’t. A lightbulb doesn’t work based on your or your friends’ belief. It doesn’t work even if Shaquille O’Neal told you he believes your broken, shattered lightbulb will work.

To get an understanding, imagine getting a lightbulb box that says: “Believe in our product”. Imagine “believe in our product” under any other piece of technology: iPads, computers, televisions, microwaves, etc. If you claim it’s a piece of technology, why do you need belief?

• However, there has been some negative press about our products coming out of Australia recently. In addition, we have recently been subject to several class action lawsuits in the United States. That said, we wanted to set the record straight.

They say “negative press”, we say “asking for evidence like anything else”. Instead of writing about belief and making fallacious claims, why not give us some evidence that it works. And, no, testimony doesn’t work since anecdotal evidence is not good scientific evidence.

• Contrary to recent assertions in the Australian press, Power Balance has not made a statement that our product is ineffective. This is simply untrue. The truth is that, apparently, some of our previous marketing claims in Australia were not up to ACCC standards – changes were made and approved, and the issues were believed to have been resolved.

“Ineffective” is not the same as “scientifically credible”, which they admitted themselves of not being. As they said “We admit that there is no credible scientific evidence that supports our claims”.

“Ineffective” implies it does not have an effect. There is an effect; after all, people “swear by” them. The effect in this case is the placebo effect, not being energised like a Power Ranger to perform impressive physical feats.

The problem is the mistaken connection consumers make. They, firstly, assume they are improving in their performance. They might feel they are, but objectively they might not be. And we can be our own worst assessors, as Kaye and Gruneberg highlight in their brilliant assessment of PB’s claims.

Secondly, if their performance is improving, it is because of expectation and, therefore, as the statement indicates: belief. Remember technology does not depend on belief but efficacy and scientific credibility. A psychic’s readings are effective, as we notice with their clients’ tears; creationists’ claims might be so effective they get evolution textbooks banned. But none of these effects are good or true.

PB is confusing effect with scientific credibility, when they are two different things. Though naturally there are effects tested by science. But we don’t need to get into that discussion for now.

• We remain committed to bringing our products to every athlete in the world, from professional to amateur to recreational.

Once again, we expect no less from a business.

• We are also confident that the future will be even brighter for Power Balance. A preliminary study, conducted by an independent third-party, was recently commissioned to determine the different performance variables of the product and the findings have determined that wearing the product does in fact provide a “statistically significant” result on the wearer’s performance.

There is no link to this study. Consumer advocate group, CHOICE, said in October: “The band was tested at CHOICE under controlled lab conditions which showed it did little else than empty purchasers’ wallets.”

As I say, I am genuinely interested in the scientific findings. Indeed, I imagine most scientists would be. Why then are they not freely showing us these so-called findings? Naturally, we would find it doesn’t work better than a placebo, that people are paying for self-assurance and confidence – which can be obtained elsewhere like good friends, good coaching and deep-breathing.

Also, “statistically significant” doesn’t remove the placebo effect. And one test does not cut it (there are other tests from Australia that found the same).

• We are committed to further evaluating the performance parameters of wearing the product so that we can continue to provide products that enhance the wearer’s lifestyle.

Good. Let us know when you have continued your evaluation and provide us with the results, methodology and research.

• Power Balance will do whatever it takes to make our products available to every consumer around the world appropriately, and with honor and integrity.

And reasonable people will continue to call you out as unscientific frauds, your products as gimmicky ho-hum, based on sciency-sounding terms like energy and vibrations, and a hip-sounding Eastern mystical nonsense.

Run along now but don’t fall over.

UPDATE: This comic is just brilliant.