I don’t feel much like talking about politics tonight nor about public policy. My thoughts are running in a different direction. Still, a very brief comment. Tomorrow, I will go to to that direction.
A fair bit of public policy is based on this logical equation, if a then b. Governments rely on it all the time in presenting their arguments.
If we introduce new security restrictions, we will reduce the risk of terrorist attack. If we make drivers do more hours before they get their driver’s licenses, we will reduce road fatalities. If we impose new restrictions on swimming pools, we will reduce drowning deaths among the young. If we impose licensing and inspections conditions on septic tanks, we will reduce water pollution. If we introduce new controls on advertising of certain food stuffs, we will reduce obesity.
This form of argument is highly persuasive. If you agree with b, then how could you argue against a? You try it some time. People will generally say that b is a good thing, therefore you must support a. If you don’t, watch out. In fact, you are generally dealing with a logical fallacy.
Just because I or the Government assert that a equals b doesn’t prove a damn thing. The relationship has to be proved. Further, even if a relationship does exist, then you have to ask about the cost. Is the price we pay worth the gain?
If you follow this approach, ask these questions, you will very quickly make yourself unpopular at dinner parties and indeed with politicians and some public servants. Consider this scenario.
You are at a dinner party or the pub where someone is supporting the anti-terror legislation, arguing that it will prevent terrorist attacks from IS or whatever. Now you say I don’t understand this. How will the proposed legislation stop terrorism? We have lots of controls and surveillance. Why aren’t these adequate?
Often this will reduce the conversation to a sometimes apoplectic halt at once. However, if the other side in the conversation mounts a reasonable case, then you move to the second question. I am worried about the cost to all of us from these measured in reduced freedom. Do we want this extra surveillance? Are the gains worth that cost?
Now if your role is to learn and not persuade, you may be forced to accept the argument if the other side puts forward a persuasive argument. But you will at least have learned something.
I suspect that the most useful thing that we can do as bloggers, commentators or commenters is just to ask questions, to make the other side prove its case. Of course these things are matters of judgement. However, that does not remove the need to subject argument to logical analysis.
39 comments:
"He's suffering from politician's logic: Something must be done, here is Something, therefore we must do it" -Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister
I do agree Jim.
Love that quote Scott.
Hi Jim - The anti-terror drama follows a well worn path by political parties of all persuasions. First we define the threat. Then we ramp up the fear. Once we convince the masses that there is an imminent possibility of a major calamity then we introduce legislation to bypass existing freedoms. We want the trains to run on time and people to turn up for work so we tell them it's business as usual. The Police are happy, they can go about their job without worrying too much about due process. We're assured that these powers will only be used in extreme situations by the men and women who enforce them. And we should trust their discretion to get it right. Shouldn't we?
But hang on what about the Assistant Director of the NSW Crime Commission who was arrested. And lets not forget the NSW Police Force as quoted by 7.30 Report. And remember this is just NSW.
"The total number of convictions recorded against 437 officers are 595, which equates to one in 40 NSW police officers having a criminal record.
The names of the convicted officers remain confidential but there are 14 inspectors, five senior sergeants, 80 sergeants, 236 senior constables, 69 constables, 20 probationary constables and 13 students". And that's just NSW. There are no figures available for ASIO or Customs Officers."
It would seem that some who have been given these new powers have little respect for the law they are supposed to enforce. A bit like handing over the keys for the hen house to the foxes.
John Stitch, those figures are old news from a beat-up back in March. Most were recorded before the individuals entered the police service, and most of those were stuff like PCA driving offences. So what is your point, other than that it is possible to selectively quote numbers to support your pov?
Anyway, if you are into numbers per se, then I'd suggest yours are worth significantly less than three-fifths of five-eights of you know what.
It's a lovely day; go outside and smell the flowers. (Those that aren't bugged, preferably :)
kvd
typical RUDE kvd, did your mum never teach you any manners, you need a good kick up the arse
Jim: Often this will reduce the conversation to a sometimes apoplectic halt at once
Anon: you need a good kick up the arse
To which kvd now says: "quod erat demonstrandum" :)
Play nicely, please kvd! Can't think of an appropriate latin tag.
audacter calumniare, semper aliquid haeret
somehow seems appropriate :)
kvd
Ah, kvd, indeed. But how might it apply?
And for those who want a handy list of latin tags - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(A)
Aint Wikipedia great.
To the regurgitation of already discredited statistics, of course.
Have a nice day!
kvd
Looking at the tags, I found that ad acta, to the archives, is no longer relevant. That's disappointing!
mmm. Does two edged sword have a latin equivalent? I will enjoy the flowers.
Jim, your claim to be a populist is beginning to look doubtful. Populists never question the aorta principle.
You have a very narrow view on populists, Winton. :) Did you see Ken Henry's views on mercantilists?
Meanwhile, back on the Budget, at a press conference yesterday Treasurer Hockey and Senator Cormann announced, and I quote: "We are drawing a line under the sand on Labor's budget mess".
Left me wondering if this was a slip of the tongue, or Speaking In Tongues?
From Wikipedia: Glossolalia, often understood among Protestant Christians as speaking in tongues, is the fluid vocalizing of speech-like syllables that lack any readily comprehended meaning
That seems about right :)
kvd
I can only smile, kvd.
Well actually KVD you are wrong. The convictions recorded are by serving NSW Police. Had they had the convictions prior to entry to NSW Police they would have been culled prior to interview.
And further to my previous observations:
"But documents obtained through a Government Information Public Access Act (GIPA) application show the actual convictions include much more.
The more serious convictions include fraud, false pretences, dishonestly obtaining financial advantage, apprehended domestic violence, and dangerous driving causing death."
Of course being a supercilious snobbish prig is no exclusion to joining the force, so maybe you have career path ahead of you.
John Stitch, Jim has made it known many times that discussion should remain polite, or taken elsewhere. If you wish, I am perfectly happy to correspond direct with you, and if you email Jim, he may take this as my permission to advise you of my email address. As penance, I might even respond :)
That said, with a nephew being a current NSW police detective, and a close family friend being an ASIO officer of some 10 years standing (doing I know not what, just as it should be) I must say that I continue to take exception to your casual slurring of all police and ASIO officers. For what it's worth, I admire them for the mosttimes thankless task of dealing with an unappreciative and suspicious public - for which attitude the blame rests at least in part with the likes of yourself.
Now, I hope the above is polite enough for you - but if not, I can assure you that I will lose no sleep over it. Have a nice day.
kvd
Dear KVD - Please accept my sincerest apologies it was wrong of me to think that you could respond to a bit of gentle goading with a well constructed argument. I believe my response was measured and in keeping with the general spirit of discussion in this forum. If you care to look back over this post you may discover that it was you who fired the first shot over the bow with your mathematical alliteration of my piece. As they say "If you can't take it then don't dish it out." And I have no interest what so ever in corresponding with you directly. I am more than happy to share my views in the open arena of Jim's forum. For the record I did not slur the majority of Police and other agencies, hence the quoting of figures.
BRAVO Mr Stich!
John, am sorry you feel unable to correspond. I wanted to pass on the impolite version of my earlier reply. Anyway.
John Stitch: "A bit like handing over the keys for the hen house to the foxes."
I now see that this is a very measured observation; forgive my reaction.
John Stitch: "And further to my previous observations"
I may have been confused here between what might actually be 'your observations' and what is more usually termed thoughtless 'cut and paste'.
Contrast: "For the record I did not slur the majority of Police and other agencies"
- with: "It would seem that some who have been given these new powers have little respect for the law they are supposed to enforce [...] And that's just NSW. There are no figures available for ASIO or Customs Officers"
Somebody (Don Watson?) wrote a book about mealy-mouth weasle words. "It would seem that some" is almost a classic of the genre.
Anyway, thanks John. I accept your apology with a sincerity no less equal to that with which you offer it.
kvd
Jim, I have indeed seem Ken Henry's views on mercantilism. I thought it was a very skilful exercise in muddying the waters.
That's an interesting reaction, Winton. I must reread. I thought that it was a fair point.
Mmmm, Winton. Revisiting, I can see why you might say that from your perspective.
Having grown up in Brisbane during the Bjelke Petersen era I think that Mr Stitch has a valid point. The Police were used as a political wing of the government to quell opposition. And my personal experience was that they, the Police were more than willing participants (I was arrested whilst standing on the sidewalk watching the march). Whilst not wishing to get between Mr Stitch and KVD I think that current proposed laws go too far. It may not be this lot that you have to worry about but down the track who knows who will be running the country.
H Spotter. I suspect there is a probably general agreement that the laws go too far. Your point about us not knowing who might run the country is well taken.
While I think Mr Stitch could use some lessons in manners, he has a basic point. Not all police and not all people whose names cannot even be publicly released can be trusted. The powers to be handed over (including tapping all internet communications in this country with one warrant, which itself may be subject to a suppression order) should not be handled by a force which on the whole is statistically likely to be largely composed of good guys. But may not be.
Helen Dale has written a fairly chilling piece on how overreaching in suppression legislation, of whatever kind, nearly always comes back to bite you when you are no longer in power.
Her summary is "If you would pursue revenge, first dig TWO graves."
I agree with Helen, 2T. But if you want an example of how even basically good people can have their actions distorted, can misuse power, consider the Hicks case.
I think Mr Stitch (who seems to have bowed out of this conversation) may have been a bit over the top with his response, I also think that KVD (whoever he is) was equally discourteous in his first response to what was an opinion piece by JS. My understanding is that this is an open forum where all manner of views are held equally and not as KVD seems to think "are worth significantly less than three-fifths of five-eights of you know what."
I also think that the spirit of Mr Stitch's argument is probably valid regardless of any cut and paste he may employ to back his case.
Spotter, I thought I was being polite in assuming the comment was made from stupidity rather than malevolence, and replied in kind.
I have no problem whatsoever with anyone using dodgy stats to promote their point of view; happens all the time. But when called on it, I think the more polite thing to do is to simply acknowledge the misleading nature of what was posted. You think that wrong?
Anyway, statistics:
"one in 40 NSW police officers having a criminal record"
This (if true) would equate to 2.5% of the NSW police force - about equal to the margin of error usually quoted in the endless polls we are supposed to believe, and also equal to the rump end of the scientists who do not acknowledge unthinkingly the 'consensus' of AGW.
But never mind that. Let's extrapolate; let's move on to denigrate other organisations for which we don't have any (even the dodgy) stats:
"that's just NSW. There are no figures available for ASIO or Customs Officers."
Spotter, did you not subconsciously accept the "1 in 40" as BIG AND THEREFORE IMPORTANT AND THEREFORE SOMETHING MUST BE DONE BY SOMEBODY, then also move unwittingly to applying the same BIG figure to the officers of both ASIO and Customs? Never mind the 'statistical' truth that 1 in 40 is (I politely repeat) sweet f.. a..
And never mind the other truth that these same police, customs, ASIO, people have friends and relatives who might just occasionally take exception to such unthinking group-think slurs proffered by people who obviously can't think for themselves, other than blindly accepting such a nonsense as "1 in 40" means that the world is somehow collapsing about our ears.
kvd
Mmm. In terms of this thread. Spotter, this is an open forum. Further, I value JS as I do you and kvd.
As an open forum, you will get sometimes robust discussion. As moderator, I am very reluctant to censor comments, but I do want people to play properly.
kvd could have expressed his comments in a less dogmatic form without the overlay. The core of his comment was actually a factual challenge, wrapped in stronger language. The difficult with that is discussion then tends to focus on the emotional wrapping, not the factual challenge. Still, that's kvd's right.
I think of this blog as a learning forum in which different views play against each other. Sometimes that's hard. Evan, for example, has had his head chopped of several times, while I have bitten my own tongue on occasion.
Don't know what else helpful to offer! :)
frankly kvd, when it comes to macro policy debates we don't give a fuck who you claim to be related to or if you take offense as a result. I am related to Malcolm MacKenneth king of Scotland, that doesn't mean I throw a tantrum every time someone makes an argument around Scottish possible independence.
Anon, too funny! "Macro policy debates"? "We"? Your "we don't give a f*ck" reminds me of just why I despise such nonsense, and those who spout it.
Anyway, how's young Malcolm feeling now that sense has prevailed? Relieved, I expect - thoughtful governing for all is such a bother. Much easier to just tell any questioner to "f*ck off" - hey?
kvd
I almost deleted the last two comments, but then let them stand. Both to the naughty corner, I suppose.
Hang on KVD I was not supporting Mr Stitch's statistics. I was merely supporting the thrust of his argument. And I agree with anon I couldn't care less whether friends, relatives or you take exception to criticism of the Police and ASIO. So what if they are mates or relatives of yours. Is this supposed to intimidate me. And what's all this rubbish about my subconscious. Is that the best you can do. Is anyone allowed to hold views that differ from yours without being put down or have their motivations examined at a subconscious level.
Hi Spotter.
JS made the observation that 1 in 40 NSW police were corrupt, or were guilty of serious crimes, and therefore how could you trust them with increased powers.
He then applied the same disputed 7.30 Report stat to ASIO, Customs, and probably other police forces - while admitting there were no stats for these.
I called him on the veracity of the stats, but further stated that even if they were accurate, the resulting 2.5% (he stated 1 in 40, but that is the percentage involved) was hardly earth shattering.
We to'd and fro'd but it resulted with his statement that he was interested in "macro policy" and didn't give a flying proverbial about the individuals involved.
Here we disagree profoundly.
I hope that is clear enough, polite enough, for you.
But to answer your question - I'm happy for you to hold whatever views you wish, and I simply expect the same courtesy from you.
kvd
I saw no evidence that it was John Stitch who made the Macro Economic statement. By the look of it someone else out there disagrees with you.
Spotter, I accept your correction of my error and apologise for incorrectly attributing that "macro policy" comment to JS.
kvd
Post a Comment