Private Mars Rocket II

One of the many irritations of Arguments on the Internet is the tendency to take a slogan to 11, then argue that. (More formally, a strawman argument.) Two examples.

In Atlanta recently, the police intervened and stopped a carjacking. The victim was an Atlanta councilman who had voted to "defund the police." The argument was that the councilman was a hypocrite. Here's the thing - people voting to "defund the police" aren't actually for abolishing police. They're for taking some of the money we give to police and using it in other programs to reduce crime. (Like, getting homeless people off of the street or treating drug addicts.)

The other example is the current argument over whether the COVID-19 virus came from a Chinese lab. First, saying it came from a lab does not mean it was man-made. It could have been a natural virus being studied in a lab. Second, there is simply no evidence that the virus escaped from a lab. Now, "no evidence" does NOT mean "it didn't happen." It just means, "no evidence that it did." Looking for evidence is reasonable - jumping to the conclusion that "China did it!" is not.

We are at the moment engaged in yet another round of debate on gun control, American-style. Without getting too deep into the argument, I would like to point out a very irritating debate point. Call it the Woo Bum-kon.

This post, by a person against gun control, points to the case of Woo Bum-kon, South Korean policeman who killed 56 people. In my previous post, somebody else pointed to Anders Breivik in Norway. Both were being cited as cases of "gun control didn't work."

Here's the thing: the arguments are bullshit. Woo did his thing in 1982. How many mass shootings have there been in South Korea from then until now? (Answer - not very many if any.) Breivik did his thing in 2011. How many mass shootings have there been in Norway since then? (Answer - zero.) Before these two men did their thing, how common were mass shootings in their countries? (Answer - really rare.)

The problem is, in the United States, we have had 273 mass shootings this year. There's only been 275 days this year. Yep - almost as many mass shootings as days. (source.)

Nobody thinks we can get to zero mass shootings, no more than we can get to zero plane crashes. But we can surely reduce the number of shootings and deaths.

From baron_waste I get this article which claims that solar panels could destroy US utilities. Basically, the argument is:

1) Solar panels will eliminate peak load requirements - the most expensive electrical power.
2) People will convert to battery systems, providing 24/7 off-grid power, much like they ditched land telephone lines.
3) This reduction in demand will result in higher prices for the non-converting customer, forcing us to convert or demand that regulated utilities reduce prices.

To which I say, most politely, bullshit. Here's why:

First, unlike telephone lines, solar power requires construction and will always be a capital project for the average homeowner. Second, the battery technology needed to go off-grid remains way too pricey for all but the way-out-in-the-wilderness crowd, and there's no indication that will change soon. But even if it does, re-engineering the average US house will take time and money, resulting in a long and slow adoption curve. Also, somebody's got to maintain those systems, so there's a market for service contracts.

But there's another fallacy here - the idea that peak power is the most profitable form of electrical power. It's not - which is why Com Ed will pay you for the right to shut your AC off. Peak power is actually the least profitable form of power, because it requires building expensive plants designed to start up quickly. These plants have to be staffed 24/7, but don't run all the time. The most profitable power is base-load power.

Lastly, not every building can generate enough solar power to meet their needs. There's only so much roof area a building has, and many buildings (most commercial buildings, high-rises) consume more power than they could generate. Not only that, but as more Americans drive battery-powered cars like the Chevy Volt, electrical power demand will go up, especially at night, as those cars are recharged.

In short, utilities will have plenty of time to adapt and plenty of customers to serve.

Over at Simberg's Flying Circus, there's an article up arguing (in part) why one needs a high-capacity magazine in your gun. Now, I am absolutely not opposed to high-capacity magazines, and have said so before. But as a simple exercise in making a logical argument, Rand's article fails.

Rand cites an interview of Ryan Moore, a man who used a gun to save his life. Moore was attacked at knife-point by two men. Moore, carrying a 5-shot .357 magnum revolver, fired three shots, killing one of the two attackers. The second one fled, and Moore re-holstered his weapon. This example actually "proves" (or at least supports) the idea that one doesn't need a high-capacity weapon for self-defense.

Here’s the thing – Ryan Moore was attacked by two people armed with knives. Once he started shooting, one of them fled. Even if the attacker hadn't fled, Moore still had two shots. Does anybody think somebody shot twice with a .357 magnum is going to be in any shape to be a threat to anybody?

In addition, what makes anybody think that if it had been three or four people attacking him that things would have been different? Criminals are not noted for loyalty, teamwork and bravery- all things that would be required in order for them to stand and fight an armed man.

Crooks are out for themselves, and like all predators they only attack victims that are perceived as weak. Once the victim demonstrates that they aren't weak, there is a very strong instinct on the (in this case surviving) crook’s part to break off the engagement, which is exactly what happened in this case.

Again, as a point of basic debating skills, if you want to argue for high-capacity magazines, find a case in which the extra rounds were actually needed.

So, apparently New York City is experiencing a wave of bed bugs. Various sources, including Glen Reynolds, think that bringing back DDT will fix the problem.

Wrong.

See, as this person says, bed bugs developed a resistance to DDT way back in the 1950s. Not only that, but now we learn that bed bugs are still nearly 100% resistant to DDT. A researcher exposed bed bugs to DDT continuously for five days and the bugs didn't die. In fact, the second link points out a case in Malaysia where DDT helped the bed bugs - it killed a natural predator to the bug, allowing bed bug populations to soar.

This is a failure of logical thinking. Anybody with five minutes and access to Google could have found this information out. Now, how do you run a country when leading opinion makers don't do basic homework?

So, over on Making Light, much to-do is being made about the DC Park Police hassling people. For the record, the cops certainly appear to be out of line. John Scalzi links to a guy who advises never give your car keys to a monkey. It's a reflection on various conspiracy theorists, 9/11 "Truthers" and other wack-jobs.

What do these two things have in common? At first glance, nothing. They are not unique or noteworthy. The case with the DC Park Police is not the first nor will it be the last time that some cop having a bad day or with too much time on his hands abuses his authority. Nor are the conspiracy theorists particularly unique. People have been seeing grand conspiracies in public life for hundreds of years.

But thanks to the magic of the Internet, thousands of people, five or six of whom read my blog, are aware of these incidents. Also thanks to the magic of the Internet, I can easily point you to these articles. And that's what the two events have in common. Prior to the Internet, one would find out about the Park Police incident by being personally acquainted with the arrested. One might get accosted in a bar by a conspiracy nut, but in general finding them was hard.

This is neither a good nor a bad phenomenon. If the story of the Park Police incident is correct, it's good, in that the first step to fixing a problem is identifying it. It's bad in that conspiracy theorists can find each other and reinforce themselves.

Welcome to the future. We've got shiny new tools, but sometimes all they do is dig up old dirt.

Two days ago, I bitched about how this "economic stimulus" package was a crock, and getting serious about alternative energy would be a better use of money.

One Mr. JLawson of www.rustedsky.net posted a reply, the gist of which was that "the Democrats had blocked action" on this and would continue to do so. My immediate reply was that I was confused - didn't the Republicans control the Congress and the White House for six years? During that time, what exactly did they do with regards to alternative energy? Also, didn't they control Congress for six years of Clinton's administration? In other words, at what point in time do problems become the fault of the party actually in power?

Then I recalled that I'd discussed this phenomenon before, in my analysis of logical thinking. Mr. Lawson, to use the analogy of the post, loves peas. Therefore, any solution that suggests a diet of peas might be detrimental to health must be wrong. It's a article of faith, not a matter of reason.

I’ve been in a few controversial online debates recently, and something became apparent to me. For any debate topic, there are really three sides, or three groups of people, in the debate. Failure to recognize this fact results in a dysfunctional debate. I think the best way to explain this is to use an example.

Some people love peas. They could happily eat peas morning noon and night. They think peas are good. Others hate peas. They find the vegetable slimy, smelly and disgusting. When they go to the supermarket, they have to avert their eyes from the canned peas in the vegetable aisle. As unlikely as it sounds, these two groups have two points in common.

First, they have both made up their minds. Show a pea-lover a blue-ribbon scientific study proving that eating peas causes bad breath, acne and shortens one’s lifespan and they’ll either ignore it or try to poke holes in the study. If you show a study to a pea-hater proving that eating peas in any form once a week will add ten years to their life and a date with the attractive celebrity of their choice, it will be equally unpersuasive.

Second, both groups tend to distrust the motives of the other. If a pea-lover comes up to a pea-hater and says, “you should eat peas – they’re good for you” the pea-hater assumes that the pea–lover is an idiot and/or a stooge for the Pea Growers’ Association. The reverse is also true.

However, neither pea-lovers nor pea-haters consist of an absolute majority of the general population. There is a third group of people whose minds aren’t set on the issue. Call them “swingers.”(edit "swingers" is an attempt at humor.) These folks may lean one way or the other, from “peas are OK if you bury them in a stew” (my personal position) to “peas are good, just not every day.” Since we live in a democracy, getting public policy passed requires building a majority. That means convincing some of the swingers to move one way or the other.

Here’s where the dysfunction comes up. Statements that one side finds self-evident (“Peas are good”) are unpersuasive to the swingers, and viewed as violently wrong by the other side. Even worse, if the opposite side responds as they want to (by shouting, “you’re a dupe for the Pea Grower’s Association”) the swingers automatically leave the debate. Either that or get some popcorn and settle in to watch the show. But they don’t get persuaded to change their minds.

If you want to change the minds of somebody who’s on the fence, you need to use the tools of rational debate, facts and figures. Equally important is the need to understand that, once you go over to the emotional side, those facts and figures become automatically suspect.

I understand some issues are emotional. It feels good to yell, “you’re an idiot!” to people who disagree with you. But giving into that emotion is self-destructive. If your opponent has already made up their mind, nothing you can say will help. Nobody likes being called an idiot, even if (especially if) they are one. Those with an open mind won’t think that the name-caller is particularly bright either.