I Support Occupy Wall Street Because…..

• I don’t want wealthy, well-connected individuals, corporations and lobbies buying politicians;
• A large and secure middle class is vital to a democracy; vast wealth inequality creates vast political inequality and exploitation;
• By reducing the role of corrupting private influences in politics (e.g., big banks, insurance, pharmaceuticals, defense, private prisons), America could possibly lower its taxes while also improving its financial stability, healthcare, education and social security systems, domestic and international security and international reputation.
• Crony Capitalism is not Capitalism.
• I want America to be this:

and not this:

- Signed, a Canadian in solidarity with OWS.

To Bloggers: Support Occupy Wall Street via Blog-Bombing.

Support Occupy Wall Street Through Blog-Bombing

What is Blog-Bombing?

The term is inspired by the concept of Tweet-Bombing, in which many Tweeters engage en masse in tweeting a particular message in order to fill the Tweetosphere with the message. In the case of Blog-Bombing, the idea is for bloggers to make regular (e.g., daily, every few days) quick blog posts in support of Occupy Wall Street so that such posts continually appearing on community blog feed programs such as those run by the major blog platforms – e.g., WordPress. These posts can contain short messages, pictures, videos, links, etc.

My first OWS Blog-Bomb contribution (Note: Posts need not be this long or detailed; the point is to get the word out – JUST POST):

I Support Occupy Wall Street Because…

• I don’t want wealthy, well-connected individuals, corporations and lobbies buying politicians;

• I believe that having a large and secure middle class is vital to a democracy, and that massive gaps between haves and have-nots creates vast political inequality and exploitation;

• I believe that America could simultaneously lower its taxes while also improving its financial stability, healthcare, education and social security systems, domestic and international security and international reputation by countering the costly influence of corporate/industry lobbies (e.g., insurance, pharmaceuticals, defense, private prisons).

• Crony Capitalism is not Capitalism.

• I want America to be this:

and not this:

- Signed, a Canadian in solidarity with OWS.

Moneyball Versus Short Hops

I recently had the privilege of reading the book and watching the movie, Moneyball. As a stat-headed baseball nerd, I thoroughly enjoyed both. For those unfamiliar with Moneyball, it is a book-turned-movie which also energized a new approach to baseball analytics under the same name. This new approach is presented in the book and movie as a sort of scientific, rationalist enlightenment in the world of baseball. Prior to the enlightenment, baseball managers, general managers and scouts were said to over-rely on statistics that were not particularly predictive of player value (e.g., batting average, RBIs, saves) while under-relying on more predictive stats (e.g., on-base percentage, slugging percentage, walks, WHIP), and paying too much attention to peripherals like body-type – including jawline… The Moneyball movement was about using rigorous data collection and analysis and the testing of scientific hypotheses about the role of certain baseball variables in terms of such big picture issues as game strategy and player value.  As with other scientific revolutions, Moneyball led to challenging the authority of old ways of thinking, playing, trading, signing and drafting; many sacred cows were slaughtered. By my estimation, the Moneyball/Sabermetrics (i.e., advanced baseball statistics) movement has produced valuable advances in baseball playing and team building information and strategy.

This is not to discount traditional scouting. I think that the ideal path is the combination of advanced scientific and statistical analysis with expert experiential baseball knowledge. The baseball pro is invaluable in generating testable hypotheses, interpreting data, and responding when there are no numbers or no time for numbers, and so forth. The numbers approach is good because it adds a level of rigor that individual minds often lack and allows for consideration of volumes of data and variables that the individual mind would be hopeless to deal with.

Not everyone likes the Moneyball school of thought, however. As recounted by Michael Lewis in the new Afterword to Moneyball in a recent reprint of the book, many baseball insiders – baseball writers, managers, GMs, ex-ball players, etc. – aggressively scorned the book – usually without even having read it. Some, Lewis claimed, exuded pride in their having not read it and refusal to read it. Another set of detractors that do appear to have read the book exist in Sheldon and Alan Hirsch, who penned the book The Beauty of Short Hops: How Chance and Circumstance Confound the Moneyball Approach to Baseball.

Has anybody read this book? I haven’t, but am considering doing so.

The book, from the summaries I’ve read, argues that Michael Lewis’ Moneyball book (and the subsequent movie) ignore 1) the fact that, for non-moneyball reasons, the A’s had 3 of the best starting pitchers in the game at the time – Barry Zito, Tim Hudson and Mark Mulder, and that this was a massive contributing factor to the teams’ success; 2) that chance alone would allow even poor teams to put together a string of good years every now and then; and 3) that chance and circumstance (e.g., bad hops, fan interference, wind, etc.) play a big role in baseball that stats largely can’t account for.

I have to say that, based on the summaries and blurbs on the book authored by the authors, I have some strong skepticism regarding this book’s skepticism toward Moneyball.

Firstly, yes the A’s did have the three big pitchers. However, even after losing Jason Giambi (probably the second most dangerous offensive player in the game at the time), Johnny Damon and Jason Isringhausen, being forced by a tight wallet to replace them with low-rent players that the A’s statistical analyses suggested were tremendously undervalued on the free agent market, the A’s managed to outperform their previous year’s performance, prior to losing these three core players. What is more, they won 103 games (they’d won 102 the year before)! These are STUNNINGLY, EXCEPTIONALLY good win totals! Now, yes, chance, chance, chance. Sure, this team had one of the few lowest payrolls every year from 1999 to 2006 but never won fewer than 54% of their games during that period (this, by the way, is GOOD!), and had an average winning percentage near 60% (this is GREAT!), but yes, chance, chance, chance. Can’t discount chance. Plus, not all of their players were the product of Moneyball methods, and the team wasn’t nearly as poor just prior to this string of 8 consecutive strong years. The team has also done quite poorly since 2006 – though one could argue that this was due in part to their trade secrets having gotten out. So fine. But this is hardly the mother lode of my skepticism.

The Mother Lode of My Skepticism

Yes, chance and circumstance are big parts of baseball and they muddy up prediction, but that does not take away all the value of good data. Chance affects everyone and every game, but some players at the end of the day get on base more often than others (and thus get out less and score more, all else equal) – that matters. As was said repeatedly in Moneyball, Beane saw himself not as a fortune teller but as a card counter at a casino. Card counters don’t know the next card, but they can make probabilistic inferences. To the degree that a team’s management is able to identify, collect and mathematically analyze data that is keenly relevant to the winning and losing of games (or factors indirectly related to this – e.g., bullpen longevity across a 3-game series) or a players value in terms of productivity, the better off they will be, despite still being subject to chance. So long as it is used effectively and weighed in proportion to its epistemological value (that is, one does not under or over-estimate what they know), more information is good.

Can Advanced Baseball Statistics Make a Team Less Vulnerable to Chance?

It can be argued that a team run by card counters may be somewhat less susceptible to chance by virtue of having made more of the unpredictable predictable. A long time ago humanity had no idea what the weather would be like over the next day or two. Today, we still don’t know for sure, but we can make predictions that are more accurate than coin-flipping. That’s an informational advantage over people of the past that allows us to do a bit better than simply taking our chances on the weather. Good baseball data identification, collection and analysis could give the card counting team a bit more leverage over chance. There will still be bad hops, freak accidents, fan interference, pigeons in the wrong place at the wrong time, April flurries and powerful headwinds that will chance the game in ways that stats can hardly address specifically. But these factors affect every team; I’d rather be on the team with more information. What is more, the player with strong aggregate statistics is apparently playing better than other players against the broad spectrum of playing conditions and freak occurrences that take place over the course of the 162 game season.

If anyone has actually read the Hirsch’s book, or objects to Moneyball or anything stated here, please share your views.

PS: Since this is my first substantive baseball/Sabermetrics post, I’ll drop a few links to baseball blogs and sites I’ve been following so that interested readers can take a look at them and, hopefully, some of these bloggers will come here and share their views on this post. You’ll recognize immediately the team that I favour.

Drunk Jays Fans

Mop Up Duty

Blue Jay Hunter

Tao of Stieb

Bleacher Report – Blue Jays- Stephen Brown

Buddhism for Skeptics of Religion

I’m not a Buddhist. I subscribe to no traditional religion (though as I argue here, like everyone else I am religious). I am an agnostic atheist who values secularism, science, reason, mindfulness, and the pursuit of individual and collective wisdom and wellness. As an expression of these values, I would like to highlight key aspects of Buddhist philosophy and practice that I believe can be palatable, useful and positively enriching for even the most ardent skeptic.

Concepts to be addressed:

• Monism
• Atheism
• Impermanence, Emptiness and Dependent Origination
• No Self (or No Soul)
• Attachment as source of Suffering; Letting Go as source of Freedom
• Pursuing Wisdom, not Happiness
• Mindfulness as a path to Wisdom and Wellness
• Reincarnation and Rebirth
• Karma

Kicking Addictions: Commentary on What It Takes and What Helps

A few weeks ago, Daniel Fincke did a post on what it takes to  kick an addiction such as alcoholism. Factors considered include self-discipline, humility, support and substitutions (i.e., replacements to fill the life-space previously filled by the addictive substance). Based on education and experience gained via an undergrad degree in Psychology, years of practicing and studying mindfulness meditation and related philosophy, a Masters degree in Occupational Therapy, and an outpatient mental health placement in which one of the focuses is on assisting people in managing addictions (e.g., smoking, alcohol, marijuana, hard drugs, impulsive spending, self-destructive sexual promiscuity), I would like to offer additional perspective on the issue of what it takes and what can help in kicking addictions. Concepts to be addressed include:

• Reasonable goal setting;
• Commitment and discipline;
• Tolerance for lapses;
• Support;
• Substitutions, Distractions and Strategies; and
• Mindfulness and insight into the nature of one’s emotions and thought.

Atheists are Differently Religious – and No, Atheism is not the/a Religion

A main focus of this blog is to consider and compare different political and ethical philosophies so as to promote better understanding of one’s own worldview and those of others. I frequently focus on progressivism/liberalism and libertarian conservativism, arguing that these incompletely overlapping moral/political philosophies each have their own internal logic and validity, but that when viewed from the perspective of the other, each is libel to look stupid and/or even evil.

Close to a year ago, I posted Atheists are Religious. Here I re-post it with modifications. In this article, I argue that while lack of a belief in this or that God is not itself a religion, any value system that an atheist may hold is ultimately ungrounded in any sort of empiricism. Rather, these and all value systems rely on circular self-validation and assumptions and assertions that are themselves unscientific. As I will argue below, this doesn’t make them wrong or deserving of dismissal; it just means that subscribers cannot claim that their values are rooted in nothing but reason and logic. Reason and logic, in these value systems, are applied based on unempirical values, which can be conceived of as faith claims about an implied moral/existential reality.

Mental Health Risks For Political Activists

We’ve heard of mental health risks for trauma victims, models, high-performance athletes, people in the public eye, soldiers, executives, people living in poverty, and many other social demographics. As a political activist who studies and works in healthcare, is currently on a placement in a mental health unit, and has had personal struggles with mental health issues linked to depression, anxiety and emotion regulation, I have come to believe that political activists may represent another identifiable group at elevated risk for a series of  mental health issues.

New Rule: Only People With PhDs May Give Opinions.

This appears to be the premise of an unduly dismissive commenter responding to a recent post on homeopathy. For your enjoyment, here is what he/she had to say:

Hi Ron,

I hope you will forgive me for sounding a tad harsh here, but a trade school certificate from a tenth rate university does not qualify you to speak about scientific research, pro or con. An OT MA is science only in pretension, not in fact. Ditto for an undergrad BA in psych, albeit at a much better university. Get a good Ph.D. in a hard science, then get a few decades under your belt as a real researcher, publish in major peer reviewed journals, and perhaps you will have earned sufficient knowledge (and humility) to be able to comment intelligently. Otherwise I regret to say, it just may be possible that some of your blogging may be more about the hubris inherent in being young (29 years old) than about carefully weighed, thoughtful analysis.

So we’re all clear on the new rule, yes? Until you have earned a PhD in a hard science (i.e., bio, chem, physics) from an Ivy League school, have gotten a couple of decades of research under your belt, authored publications in major peer reviewed journals, and are much older than 29, if you have an opinion on something scientific, for heaven’s sake,

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU ARROGANT LITTLE BASTARD!

Because of course, if you don’t meet all of those qualifications, you couldn’t possibly have done extensive research. You couldn’t possibly have thoughtfully looked at both sides. And, if you are like me, all of the following is not even close to qualifying you for any type of scientific thinking:

* Hon. B.Sc in Psychology Research and Cognitive Science with High Distinction from the University of Toronto;

* A 3.9 GPA in my MS/PhD program in Cognitive Psychology at Rutgers University – before I dropped out, having finally realized how terrible the job market is for psych profs and how tedious I found most of what I was doing to be;

* Completion of an MSc(Occupational Therapy) at the University of Western Ontario, which far from being a “10th rate university”, is among the top 15% or so of Canadian universities; furthermore, the average incoming GPA to the OT program was ~3.6/4.

* 4-5 years of experience working in labs in Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, and Social/Personality Psychology.

* 12 full course equivalents (FCE) at the undergraduate and graduate levels in statistics, research methodology and design, and lab research. Since a typical school year contains 5 FCEs, this experience is equivalent to taking nothing but scientific methodology, statistics and lab research courses for about 2.5 school years.

* Being an intellectually curious person who regularly reads up on areas of interest.

What this commenter has demonstrated is a form of elitism. What is more, the comment exudes incredible ignorance with regard to everything it addresses. In addition to radically under-estimating pretty well everyone that has not become a tenured university professor, it radically over-estimates the value of the education and experience required to meet the commenter’s criteria.

The 50 year old PhD that our commenter has given exclusive speaking privileges to need not be dramatically more scientifically literate in a broad sense than a Masters graduate, a very keen B.Sc graduate, or an exceptionally keen person without university education but with a determined willingness to engage in years of independent study of critical thinking, scientific methodology and particular areas of research, and intellectual fellowship with other rigorously interested parties.

It really does not take nearly as long as our commenter seems to believe to become scientifically literate and informed. The 50 year old PhD’s understanding of how science works, scientific thinking, and the like, was probably for the most part about as developed as it was going to get by the time he or she was part-way through their Masters, if not earlier. In terms of developing expertise in their field, they could easily have been quite up to snuff before the completion of their PhD. Speaking from personal experience, I was able to hold my own quite well with leading scientists in my area of research – first language acquisition and related areas of cognitive development – prior to even starting my Masters at Rutgers. Most of the many years invested by mid and late career PhD scientists are spent doing the laborious, time-consuming and often tedious work that goes into doing and getting funding for good science, not in developing scientific literacy or subject matter expertise.

However, as a service to the commenter, I’ll recommend that he visits the blog of University of Toronto biochemist, Larry Moran, if he wants more credentialed views on homeopathy. Maybe while our commenter is there, he’ll notice that like many other esteemed scientists, Larry positively encourages the masses to engage with science.

Where do Observant Jews and Conservative Christians get their Morals, Theologically Speaking?

Bill Maher pointed out the irony of American Right Wing Christianity when he said that if Jesus were a Presidential candidate, the Christian Right would NEVER elect him because he’s a long-haired, sandal-wearing liberal hippie Jew. The issue of how a Conservative Christianity that demonizes nearly all government social programming directed at helping the less affluent, sick, disabled, elderly and so on, could have evolved has perplexed many.

Some on the American Christian Right have attempted to argue that Jesus was not a socialist or even remotely liberal. The honesty-impaired crew over at Conservapedia have even taken it upon themselves to literally begin re-writing the Bible, claiming that previous translations have packed it full of liberal spin. Of course, the Conservapedia answer to this alleged problem is not to create a balanced Bible, but to create a Conservative Bible – hence the name of the project, the Conservative Bible Project.

Daniel Florien, ex-Christian turned atheist, recently posted some of the more liberal, socialist New Testament passages on his blog, Unreasonable Faith. Here are a few of them:

44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 2: 44, 45

13 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you.
14 You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

Luke 14:13, 14

If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Matthew 19:21

24 You cannot serve both God and Money.

Matthew 6:24.

In addition to these quotes are Jesus’ famous endorsements of forgiveness, compassion and acceptance, rather than grudge-holding, retribution-seeking and judging (e.g., Let he who is without sin cast the first stone; judge not lest ye be judged; turn the other cheek).

When you look at these sorts of quotes, it is perplexing to fathom how Conservative Christians could see themselves in Christ and how they could appreciate let alone revere him. How do they square their widespread antipathy for government assistance programs and homosexuality with these iconic passages? Now, it’s true that the Bible may well be the most cherry-picked, quote-mined text of all time. Given this,

Are there New Testament passages that Conservative Christians can interpret as endorsing their political values?

We’ve all seen Conservative Christians site verses from the Old Testament, perhaps none more so than Leviticus 20:13 (“If a man lies with another man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands.”). Indeed, the more grim, authoritarian theme of the Old Testament appears – to me, at least – to jive far better with modern day American Conservative values of respect for authority, tradition, corporal punishment, capital punishment, and thoroughly retributive justice. The New Testament, judging by mainstream cultural folklore, sounds to be far more liberal, socialist, egalitarian, compassionate, and forgiving. Am I wrong? I’ll admit that I’ve only read parts of the Old Testament and none of the New, so my question is not rhetorical. What exactly is the Right taking from the New Testament?

What About Jewish Moral Theology?

The Old Testament is often viewed as hellishly harsh and unforgiving. If a country today were to use it as a strict policy guide, said country would rightly be considered to be a stunningly cruel, vicious, totalitarian state. Many Christians today, in my limited experience, seem to downplay the moral significance of the Old Testament, pointing to the New Testament as the relevant Christian moral framework. Accepting this, I can’t help but ask:

Where is the warmer, more humane side of Jewish Theology?

For Christianity, it’s the New Testament. The New Testament gives license to Christians to move past authoritarian barbarism toward less judgmental forgiveness and acceptance. Where does that come in within Judaism? Where is the feel good part of Jewish Moral Theology? It’s got to be in there somewhere. Is it burried within the OT, or in a sister scripture? I don’t for a minute buy that people get their morals from scripture. But there are plenty of people who do. So from this perspective,

Where do observant Jews get their morals?

 

Share your views and knowledge in the Comment section!

Homeopathy Under Fire in the US, UK, Italy, Israel and Australia

Skeptic North, a well-written Canadian team blog advocating for science, skepticism and rationalism, has been a great source of information on the ongoing scientific, intellectual and moral train-wreck that is homeopathy. I have a bit of a warm spot for this blog, as it was formed in part by concurrent and later-coming members of Canadian skeptic organizations that I have been a member of in the past, and continue to endorse to this day (e.g., the University of Toronto Secular Alliance; Centre for Inquiry Canada). And though I’ve never met her, Skeptic North-er Kim Hebert and I have a fair bit in common – we’re both Canadian Occupational Therapists whom have been independently concerned about the “feel good” post-modernist “science-isn’t-the-only-truth” type thinking that often pervades the public healthcare and healthcare education systems. Each of us have experienced strong pressure within our Master’s of Science in Occupational Therapy professional graduate programs to “respect” homeopathy. Quite frankly, if I was respecting homeopathy while knowing what it was, I’d hardly be a Master of Science.

Anyhow, the most recent posting in Skeptic North’s ongoing coverage of homeopathy’s trials and tribulations (e.g., the tribulations resulting from one failed clinical trial after another) is a listing of embarrassing and potentially expensive legal suits that various homeopathic education and product outfits are currently ensnared in in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Israel and Australia.

When they lose their cases, maybe they can try to pay off the settlements with bags and suitcases that previously contained money…

RELATED POSTS:

Tomorrow’s Dinner: Homeopathic Chicken Stirfry