Internet Commentator

More Lessons in Logic

David B over at Gene Expression points to a very interesting site: Fallacy Files which explains many common fallacies and errors of logic. Lots of great stuff there. It might profitably be read by at least one of his fellow bloggers!

Au Revoir

Abiola marked the exit of Germany and England, so now that France have been dumped out of Euro 2004, it's my turn to comment. It has been a source of irritation to me, the lavish praise bestowed on this tired and over-rated team who ill-deserved to be considered favourites. But, even I thought that France wouldn't be found out until the semi-finals. Tonight, Greece were deserving winners and finally exposed France's faults. Here's a poser for all the Francophiles mystified by this "upset": Before their lucky win over England, when was the last time France beat a team from FIFA's top 40 in a competitive fixture over 90 minutes?

Impoliteness or Unpleasant Associations?

Eugene Volokh asks:

Why do some people think that it's more polite to say "Jewish people" than "Jews"? I've heard some people say that "Jews" is somehow considered rude, and "Jewish people" is better, but I just don't see why. Does anyone know the story here? People don't generally say "black people," "Catholic people," or "female people." Why should they call us "Jewish people" rather than just "Jews"? I don't quite get it.

Personally, speaking as someone who prefers not to use the term "Jews" or "Blacks" but instead the longer terms mentioned, I would just say that when I read the word "Jews", I hear an extended anti-semitic "Jooooos" and when I read the word "Blacks", I hear a clipped Boer-ish "Blecks". These unpleasant associations incline me to over-elaborate.

You call these intellectuals?

There are a number of surprising inclusions in Prospect magazine's list of Britain's top 100 intellectuals which reflect poorly on either Prospect's judgement or the state of intellectual discourse in the UK. There are quite a few bum notes: assorted posers, dullards, charlatans and pseudo-intellectual hacks gatecrashing this list. These in particular caught my eye:

• George Monbiot

• Charles Jencks

• Jeanette Winterson

• Brian Eno

• Will Hutton

• Rowan Williams

• James Lovelock

If you think I am unfair and these deserve to be so lauded, follow the links, wallow in the sloppy thinking and you will soon be disabused of this notion.

[via Marginal revolution]

Forza Italia

In the aftermath of Italy's exit from Euro 2004, John wonders if demographics might be behind Calcio's problems. It is certainly an interesting and plausible suggestion, the only problem is that it is erroneous.

Remember first of all, to put things in perspective, it was by the slenderest margins that Italy failed to progress. They had the exact same points score as Group winners, Sweden, and missed out because, according to UEFA's arcane qualification method, less goals were scored in their draws with Denmark and Sweden than were scored in the drawn games Sweden and Denmark respectively played. Put in Italy Group B with France and England, it is not unreasonable to guess that they would have progressed at the expense of either of those overrated teams.

Secondly, and more importantly, Italy's problem, unlike that of Germany, is not a dearth of talent. Part of the reason the Azzuri frustrate neutral soccer fans is that they have plenty of talented footballers who rarely exhibit their skills. Italy remains a proud footballing nation and calcio is a big part of its culture. There will always be a pool of talented Italian kids, even if the supposed demographic decline persists. It is worth considering that you don't actually need a large population to have a successful football team: FIFA's top 20 contains Czech Republic, Republic of Ireland, Croatia, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium, none of which is overly populous, ranging between 4 million and 10 million. Italy's population is 58 million.

No, the problem is the extent to which Catenaccio is ingrained in Italian football thinking. Despite the averrals of some players, Catenaccio is not dead. Italians, so elegant in defense, seem profoundly uncomfortable with the cavalier approach from which the Czechs have profited.

It's People, Right?

Astonishing stuff, Abiola reveals the misanthropic vision of anti-DDT environmentalist activists as paraded in the New York Times. This august organ seems to have some difficulty answering the question - Mosquitoes or People?:

Another value of mosquitoes, perverse to some, obvious to others, is that they "keep out the riffraff," meaning human beings. Concentrations of pests offer protection to wilderness areas. The tsetse fly, which causes livestock disease as well as human sleeping sickness, has kept humans away from some wildlife refuges and has been called "Africa's best conservationist." Of course, this view has been described by others as ecological imperialism.

"Ecological imperialism" wasn't the precise term I had in mind. I was thinking of something a little less euphemistic.

€450 €570

That's what my brother made from a €10 bet. He predicted all four group winners in Euro 2004: Portugal, France, Czech Republic and Sweden. Sweden left it very late, though. With minutes remaining in their last group stage game against neighbours Denmark, they were trailing 1-2, a score which would have elevated the Danes. Luckily for (exceedingly jammy) John, the Swedes managed a late equaliser.

You see, kids: Gambling does pay!

UPDATE: Seems like I underestimated his winnings: it was more like €570!

Mwah ha ha!

Dick turns his back for a second (well, actually a couple of weeks in Madrid) and the zionist neocon cabal has taken over Backseat Central! - Courtesy of its sleeper agent, Jon Ihle.

A Lesson in Logic

I mentioned before that those who are obsessed by IQ often, ironically, display poor logic in framing their arguments. One can quibble about precisely what IQ actually measures, it may or may not be a good measure of overall intelligence but few dispute that it is a reasonably good marker of one's facility with logic. Over at Gene Expression, the pseudonymous blogger Godless Capitalist provides a good example of the type of thing I mean, in referring to "the climate of fear in academia" that applies to "race (sur)realists" such as he, i.e. those who seek to categorise all of humanity into a handful of "races" and for whom pretty much any phenomenon is best explainable by race.

What he imagines is his killer argument is the admission by some researchers that they are reluctant to research a "gene for violence" because they are afraid that there will be a racial correlation. "You see," he invites us to infer, "even these guys think there will be a racial correlation. That means there must be."

It is easy to demonstrate that this is no argument at all: Imagine any contestable proposition. It doesn't really matter what it is, let's say it is proposition X:

"That gulwags are squiddles"

Now let's divide everybody (or at least everybody acquainted with gulwags and squiddles) into two sets. Set A consists of people who think X is probably true and Set B consists of people think X is probably untrue. Now, set A contains two subsets:

Subset A1: Those who think X is probably true and are happy or indifferent that it is true

Subset A2: Those who think X is probably true but don't want it to be true.

It is unremarkable to produce someone from subset A2 and in itself it proves nothing. For any proposition they are bound to exist. In the set of football fans who hold "that Manchester United will probably win the league next year" there is bound to be a subset of fans who don't want that to be true. This doesn't in itself prove that Manchester United will win the league.

This puts you in a good mood?

Nina Simone's "Feeling good" is playing on the radio. It reminds me that there are two contrasting ways of appreciating popular music and this particular song deftly exposes the chasm between both camps. I had been aware for a while that many people take keen interest in the lyrical content of a song and accord an elevated importance to the meaning of those lyrics. It follows that they have a dim opinion of songs with trite lyrics. I am firmly in the opposing camp: For me singing is just another instrument and I am much more interested in the sound made than the message imparted.

A few months ago, I listened to an interview with some Irish micro-celeb - I can't remember exactly who, but it doesn't particularly matter - relating her favourite tunes. The last one, and one she claimed was sure to put her in a really good mood, was "Feeling Good". My instinctive reaction was one of utter disbelief. I am a huge fan of the late Nina Simone but her entire oeuvre has always seemed to me to be tinged by sadness. All of her songs, from "See-line woman", to the epic "Sinnerman" and the more well-known "My baby just cares for me" and "I wish I knew how it felt to be free" (used as the theme for the BBC film review show) have an enduring melancholic quality.

And "Feeling good" is no exception. In fact, it is probably the most depressing song she ever recorded, despite the lyrics. To me it is the type of song which is more useful in strengthening one's resolve to commit suicide than in elevating one's mood.