Another One

One downside to floating around atheist/skeptic communities so long is that I’ve seen a lot of people leave. The most painful departures are the ones where people get frustrated with their peers over their inaction or inability to comprehend, or burn out from having to explain concepts that shouldn’t need explaining. These cases always leave me self-conscious of my own silence and inaction, wondering if I’d help stem the tide if I became more active.

For four years I have written and given talks about the same core message: Movement atheism must expand its ambitions to include the interests and needs of communities systematically disenfranchised in ways far more harrowing than merely existing as an atheist (within the US context).

Little changed in the five years that I was a part of organized secular communities. To what degree things have changed is debatable. For me, the point is that these spaces haven’t evolved to the point that they are welcoming or even ideal for certain groups of people.

Over time, I was able to better understand how this resistance to change that infests these spaces has a lot to do with select donors sustaining these spaces as well as those occupying executive and board leadership positions.

The thing is, the writing was always on the wall. It just took a considerable amount of time for me to admit it to myself.

Ouch. Sincere Kirabo has come a long way since 2015, when he earned a scholarship from American Atheists. He’s also been a writer for The Establishment, Huffington Post, the Good Men Project, and Everyday Feminism. He was the Social Justice Coordinator for the American Humanist Association until a week ago. He remains frustrated with the inaction of leaders within the atheist/skeptic movement. How could you not, when you’re dealing with shit like this:

Sexism continues to be a huge problem with this movement. And by “problem” I mean that it exists and most men choose to either deny it, minimize it, or blame victims.

I’m directly and indirectly connected to countless women who were once a part of this movement and have since left. It’s sad and disgusting and infuriating that there are whisper networks within secular circles so that women can warn each other about certain men rumored to be sexual harassers or abusers.

And yes, several women have reported instances of sexual misconduct and even rape to me. I’m not at liberty to discuss these incidents in any detail, but I will say that all three cases involve men who were at one point connected to organized humanism or atheism.

A lot of people have dropped out of the movement for a lot less.

My bandwidth has been depleted and there’s no way that I can fully recover and advance the causes that mean the most to me until I remove myself from spaces that preserve/propagate elitist rationalism, complacency, and general white nonsense.

I know some are interested in knowing what’s next for me. At this time, all I will say is that I and several others are in the process of building a platform dedicated to cultivating Black humanist culture with a focus on creating a world that honors the “radical” idea of free Black people. Details will follow in the near future.

… so it’s to Kirabo’s credit that he’s not dropping out of the movement. He’s switched from working for change within existing orgs, to creating his own organisations that are less problematic. I heartily approve, though had Kirabo dropped out instead I’d also approve. Even if the change in tactics doesn’t work, it’ll at least create a safe space for people to promote secularism without having to hold their nose over casual bigotry.

The Two Cultures, as per Steven Pinker

As I mentioned before, C.P. Snow’s “Two Culture” lecture is light on facts, which makes it easy to mould to your whims. Go back and re-read that old post, absorb C.P. Snow’s version of the Two Cultures, then compare it to Pinker’s summary:

A final alternative to Enlightenment humanism condemns its embrace of science. Following C.P. Snow, we can call it the Second Culture, the worldview of many literary intellectuals and cultural critics, as distinguished from the First Culture of science.[12] Snow decried the iron curtain between the two cultures and called for greater integration of science into intellectual life. It was not just that science was, “in its intellectual depth, complexity, and articulation, the most beautiful and wonderful collective work of the mind of man.” Knowledge of science, he argued, was a moral imperative, because it could alleviate suffering on a global scale …

[Pinker, Steven. Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. Penguin, 2018. Pg. 33-34]

C.P. Snow went out his way to criticise scientists for failing to incorporate literature into their lives, and never ranked one culture as superior to another. Nor did he label them “First Culture” or “Second Culture.” And it wasn’t increased knowledge of science in general that would remove suffering, it was the two cultures intermixing. Pinker is presenting a very different argument than C.P. Snow, at least on the face of it.

But hang on, there’s a footnote right in the middle of that passage….

[12] Snow never assigned an order to his Two Cultures, but subsequent usage has numbered them in that way; see, for example, Brockman 2003.

[Pg. 456]

How is it “following C.P Snow” to call it “Second Culture,” when you acknowledge C.P. Snow never called it “Second Culture?!” What’s worse, look at the page numbers: that acknowledgement comes a full four hundred pages after the misleading phrasing. How many people would bother to flip that far ahead, let alone make the connection to four hundred pages ago? But all right, fine, maaaybe Steven Pinker is just going with the flow, and re-using a common distortion of C.P Snow’s original argument. The proof should lie in that citation to Brockman [2003], which fortunately is available via Google Books. In fact, I can do you one better: John Brockman’s anthology was a mix of work published in Edge magazine and original essays, and the relevant parts just happen to be online.

Bravo, John! You are playing a vital role in moving the sciences beyond a defensive posture in response to turf attacks from the “postmodernists” and other leeches on the academies. You celebrate science and technology as our most pragmatic expressions of optimism.

I wonder, though, if it’s enough to merely point out how hopelessly lost those encrusted arts and humanities intellectuals have become in their petty arms race of cynicism. If we scientists and technologists are to be the new humanists, we must recognize that there are questions that must be addressed by any thinking person which do not lie within our established methods and dialogs. …

While “postmodern” academics and “Second Culture” celebrity figures are perhaps the most insufferable enemies of science, they are certainly not the most dangerous. Even as we are beginning to peer at biology’s deepest foundations for the first time, we find ourselves in a situation in which vast portions of the educated population have turned against the project of science in favor of pop alternatives usually billed as being more “spiritual.”

It appears exactly once in that reference, which falls well short of demonstrating common usage. Even more damning is that Pinker’s citation references the 2003 edition of the book. There’s a 2008 version, and it doesn’t have a single reference to a “Second Culture.” I’ve done my own homework, and I can find a thesis from 2011 which has that usage of “Second Culture,” but falsely attributes it to Snow and never brings it up past the intro. There is an obscure 1993 book which Pinker missed, but thanks to book reviews I can tell it labels science as the “Second Culture,” contrary to how Pinker uses the term. Everything else I’ve found is a false positive, which means Pinker is promoting one mention in one essay by one author as sufficient to show a pattern.

And can I take a moment to call out the contrary labelling here: how, in any way, is science “First” relative to literature? Well before Philosophical Transactions began publishing, we’d already had the Ramayana, the Chu Ci anthology, the Epic of Gilgamesh, The Illiad, Beowulf, and on and on. Instead, Pinker and friends are invoking “Second” as in “Secondary,” lesser, inferior. Unlike de Beauvoir, though, they’re not doing it as a critique, they honestly believe in the superiority of science over literature.

Pinker didn’t invent this ranking, nor was he the first to lump all the humanities in with the literary elites. I think that honour belongs to John Brockman. Consider this essay of his; read very carefully, and you’ll see he’s a little confused on who’s in the non-scientific culture.

Ten years later, that fossil culture is in decline, replaced by the emergent “third culture” of the essay’s title, a reference to C. P. Snow’s celebrated division of the thinking world into two cultures—that of the literary intellectual and that of the scientist. …

In the twentieth century, a period of great scientific advancement, instead of having science and technology at the center of the intellectual world—of having a unity in which scholarship includes science and technology just as it includes literature and art—the official culture kicked them out. The traditional humanities scholar looked at science and technology as some sort of technical special product—the fine print. The elite universities nudged science out of the liberal arts undergraduate curriculum, and out of the minds of many young people, who abandoned true humanistic inquiry in their early twenties and turned themselves into the authoritarian voice of the establishment. …

And one is amazed that for others still mired in the old establishment culture, intellectual debate continues to center on such matters as who was or was not a Stalinist in 1937, or what the sleeping arrangements were for guests at a Bloomsbury weekend in the early part of the twentieth century. This is not to suggest that studying history is a waste of time. History illuminates our origins and keeps us from reinventing the wheel. But the question arises: history of what? Do we want the center of culture to be based on a closed system, a process of text in/text out, and no empirical contact with the world in between?

A fundamental distinction exists between the literature of science and those disciplines in which the writing is most often concerned with exegesis of some earlier writer. In too many university courses, most of the examination questions are about what one or another earlier authority thought. The subjects are self-referential. …

The essay itself is a type specimen of science cheer-leading, which sweeps all the problems of science under the carpet; try squaring “Science is nothing more nor less than the most reliable way of gaining knowledge about anything” with “Most Published Research Findings Are False,” then try finding a published literary critic doing literary criticism wrong. More importantly, Brockman’s December 2001 essay reads a lot like Pinker’s February 2018 book, right down to the “elite” and “authoritarian” “liberal arts” universities turning their back on science. Brockman was definitely ahead of his time, and while only three of his works show up in Pinker’s citation list he’s definitely had a big influence.

This also means Pinker suffers from the same confusion as Brockman. Here’s some of the people he considers part of the Second Culture:

It’s an oddball list. Karl Popper is a member, probably by accident. Adorno was actually an opponent of Heidegger and Popper’s views of science. Essayists (Wieseltier and Gopnik) rub shoulders with glaciologists (Carey, Jackson), sociologists (Bauman), and philosophers (Foucault, Derrida). It’s dominated by the bogey-people of the alt-right, none of whom can be classified as elite authors.

Stranger still, Thomas Kuhn isn’t on there. Kuhn should have been: he argued that science doesn’t necessarily follow the strength of the evidence. During Kuhn’s heyday, many physicists thought that Arthur Eddington’s famous solar eclipse data fell short of proper science. The error bars were very large, the dataset was small, and some contrary data from another telescope was ignored; nonetheless, scientists during Eddington’s heyday took the same dataset as confirmatory. Why? They wanted General Relativity to be true, because it offered an explanation for why light seemed to have a fixed speed and Mercury precessed the way it did. Kuhn called these “puzzles,” things which should be easily solvable via existing, familiar knowledge. Newtonian Mechanics violated that “easy” part of the contract, GR did not, so physicists abandoned ship even in the face of dodgy data. Utility was more important than truth-hood.

Conversely, remember the neutrinos that seemed to run faster than light? If science advanced by falsification, physicists should have abandoned General Relativity in droves; instead, they dismissed the finding and asked the scientists who ran the experiment to try again. In this case, they didn’t want GR to be false, so contrary evidence was rejected. That might seem like a cheap example, since the experimental equipment was shown to be the real problem, but consider that we already knew GR was false because it’s incompatible with Quantum Mechanics. Neither theory can be true at the same time, which means there’s a third theory out there which has a vague resemblance to both but has radically different axioms. Nonetheless no physicist has stopped using GR or QM, because both are effective at solving puzzles. Utility again trumps truth-hood.

Kuhn argued that scientists proposed frameworks for understanding the world, “paradigms,” which don’t progress as we think they do. For instance, Newtonian Mechanics says the International Space Station is perpetually falling towards Earth, because the mass of both is generating attractive forces which cause a constant acceleration; General Relativity says the ISS is travelling in a straight line, but appears to orbit around the Earth because it is moving through a spacetime curved by the energy and mass of both objects. These two explanations are different on a fundamental level, you can’t transform one into the other without destroying some axioms. You’ve gotta chose one or the other, and why would you switch ever switch back? Kuhn even rejected the idea that the next paradigm is more “truthful” than another; again, utility trumps truth-hood.

It’s opposed to a lot of what Pinker is arguing for, and yet:

The most commonly assigned book on science in modern universities (aside from a popular biology textbook) is Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. That 1962 classic is commonly interpreted as showing that science does not converge on the truth but merely busies itself with solving puzzles before flipping to some new paradigm which renders its previous theories obsolete, indeed, unintelligible. Though Kuhn himself later disavowed this nihilist interpretation, it has become the conventional wisdom within the Second Culture. [22]

[Enlightenment Now, pg. 400]

Weird, I can find no evidence Kuhn disavowed that interpretation in my source:

Bird, Alexander, “Thomas Kuhn“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/thomas-kuhn/>

Still, Pinker is kind enough to source his claim, so let’s track it down…. Right, footnote [22] references Bird [2011], which I can find on page 500…

Bird, A. 2011. Thomas Kuhn. In E. N. Zalta, ed., Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/.

He’s using the same source?! I mean, score another point for Kuhn, as he thought that people with different paradigms perceive the same data differently, but we’ve still got a puzzle here. I can’t be sure, but I have a theory for why Pinker swept Kuhn under the rug. From our source:

Feminists and social theorists (…) have argued that the fact that the evidence, or, in Kuhn’s case, the shared values of science, do not fix a single choice of theory, allows external factors to determine the final outcome (…). Furthermore, the fact that Kuhn identified values as what guide judgment opens up the possibility that scientists ought to employ different values, as has been argued by feminist and post-colonial writers (…).

Kuhn himself, however, showed only limited sympathy for such developments. In his “The Trouble with the Historical Philosophy of Science” (1992) Kuhn derides those who take the view that in the ‘negotiations’ that determine the accepted outcome of an experiment or its theoretical significance, all that counts are the interests and power relations among the participants. Kuhn targeted the proponents of the Strong Programme in the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge with such comments; and even if this is not entirely fair to the Strong Programme, it reflects Kuhn’s own view that the primary determinants of the outcome of a scientific episode are to be found within science.

Oh ho, Kuhn thought it was unlikely that sexism or racism could warp science! That makes him the enemy of Pinker’s enemies, and therefore his friend. Hence why Pinker finds it useful to bring up Kuhn, despite their contrary views of science, and for that matter why Pinker can look at Snow’s arguments and see his own: utility trumps truth-hood.

The Return of COINTEL-PRO

You remember them, right? A secretive group within the FBI who targeted “domestic subversives” like Martin Luther King Jr. and Roberta Salper, with tactics that ranged from surveillance to blackmail to false flag ops and entrapment. Even the modern FBI agrees it was both unethical and unlawful.

Rakem Balogun thought he was dreaming when armed agents in tactical gear stormed his apartment. Startled awake by a large crash and officers screaming commands, he soon realized his nightmare was real, and he and his 15-year-old son were forced outside of their Dallas home, wearing only underwear.

Handcuffed and shaking in the cold wind, Balogun thought a misunderstanding must have led the FBI to his door on 12 December 2017. The father of three said he was shocked to later learn that agents investigating “domestic terrorism” had been monitoring him for years and were arresting him that day in part because of his Facebook posts criticizing police.

This isn’t on the same level, but it’s close. FBI officials monitored, arrested, and prosecuted Rakem Balogun for the high crime of being angry enough at how black people are treated in the USA to organize and agitate.

Authorities have not publicly labeled Balogun a BIE [Black Identity Extremist], but their language in court resembled the warnings in the FBI’s file. German said the case also appeared to utilize a “disruption strategy” in which the FBI targets lower-level arrests and charges to interfere with suspects’ lives as the agency struggles to build terrorism cases.

“Sometimes when you couldn’t prove somebody was a terrorist, it’s because they weren’t a terrorist,” he said, adding that prosecutors’ argument that Balogun was too dangerous to be released on bail was “astonishing”. “It seems this effort was designed to punish him for his political activity rather than actually solve any sort of security issue.”

The official one-count indictment against Balogun was illegal firearm possession, with prosecutors alleging he was prohibited from owning a gun due to a 2007 misdemeanor domestic assault case in Tennessee. But this month, a judge rejected the charge, saying the firearms law did not apply.

Ruined his life for it, too; he lost his job, house, and car because of overzealous FBI agents. Amazingly, their crusade lacks the weight of evidence.

The government’s own crime data has largely undermined the notion of a growing threat from a “black identity extremist” [BIE] movement, a term invented by law enforcement. In addition to an overall decline in police deaths, most individuals who shoot and kill officers are white men, and white supremacists have been responsible for nearly 75% of deadly extremist attacks since 2001.

The BIE surveillance and failed prosecution of Balogun, first reported by Foreign Policy, have drawn comparisons to the government’s discredited efforts to monitor and disrupt activists during the civil rights movement, particularly the FBI counterintelligence program called Cointelpro, which targeted Martin Luther King Jr, the NAACP and the Black Panther party.

OK, if I keep talking about this I’ll just wind up quoting the entire article. Go read it and witness the injustice yourself.

Continued Fractions

If you’ve followed my work for a while, you’ve probably noted my love of low-discrepancy sequences. Any time I want to do a uniform sample, and I’m not sure when I’ll stop, I’ll reach for an additive recurrence: repeatedly sum an irrational number with itself, check if the sum is bigger than one, and if so chop it down. Dirt easy, super-fast, and most of the time it gives great results.

But finding the best irrational numbers to add has been a bit of a juggle. The Wikipedia page recommends primes, but it also claimed this was the best choice of all:\frac{\sqrt{5} - 1}{2}

I couldn’t see why. I made a half-hearted attempt at digging through the references, but it got too complicated for me and I was more focused on the results, anyway. So I quickly shelved that and returned to just trusting that they worked.

That is, until this Numberphile video explained them with crystal clarity. Not getting the connection? The worst possible number to use in an additive recurrence is a rational number: it’ll start repeating earlier points and you’ll miss at least half the numbers you could have used. This is precisely like having outward spokes on your flower (no seriously, watch the video), and so you’re also looking for any irrational number that’s poorly approximated by any rational number. And, wouldn’t you know it…

\frac{\sqrt{5} - 1}{2} ~=~ \frac{\sqrt{5} + 1}{2} - 1 ~=~ \phi - 1

… I’ve relied on the Golden Ratio without realising it.

Want to play around a bit with continued fractions? I whipped up a bit of Go which allows you to translate any number into the integer sequence behind its fraction. Go ahead, muck with the thing and see what patterns pop out.

Abductive and Inferential Science

I love it when Professor Moriarty wanders back to YouTube, and his latest was pretty good. He got into a spot of trouble at the end, which led me to muse on writing a blog post to help him out. I’ve already covered some of that territory, alas, but in the process I also stumbled on something more interesting to blog about. It also effects Sean Carroll’s paper, which Moriarty relied on.

The fulcrum of my topic is the distinction between inference and abduction. The former goes “I have a hypothesis, what does the data say about it?,” while the latter goes “I have data, can I find a hypothesis which explains it?” Moriarty uses this as a refutation of falsification: if we start from the data instead of the hypothesis, we’re not trying to falsify anything! To add salt to the wound, Moriarty argues (and I agree) that a majority of scientific activity consists of abduction and not inference; it’s quite common for scientists to jump from one topic to another, essentially engaging in a tonne of abductive activity until someone forces them to write up a hypothesis. Sean Carroll doesn’t dwell on this as much, but his paper does treat abduction and inference as separate things.

They aren’t separate, at least when it comes to the Bayesian interpretation of statistics. Let’s use a toy example to explain how; here’s a black box with a clear cover:

import ("math/rand")

func blackbox() float64 {

     x := rand.Float64()
     return (4111 + x*(4619 + x*(3627 + x*(7392*x - 9206)))/1213
     }

Each time we turn the crank on this function, we get back a number of some sort. The abductive way to analyse this is pretty straightforward: we grab a tonne of numbers and look for a hypothesis. I’ll go for the mean, median, and standard deviation here, the minimum I’ll need to check for a Gaussian distribution.

Samples = 1000001
Mean    = 5.61148
Std.Dev = 1.40887
Median  = 5.47287

Looks like there’s a slight skew downwards, but it’s not that bad. So I’ll propose that the output of this black box follows a Gaussian distribution, with mean 5.612 and standard deviation 1.409, until I can think of a better hypothesis which handles the skew.

After we reset for the inferential analysis, we immediately run into a problem: this is a black box. We know it has no input, and outputs a floating-point number, and that’s it. How can we form any hypothesis, let alone a null and alternative? We’ve no choice but to make something up. I’ll set my null to be “the black box outputs a random floating-point number,” and the alternative to “the output follows a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1.” Turn the crank, aaaand…

Samples            = 1000001
log(Bayes Factor)  = 26705438.01142
  (That means the most likely hypothesis is H1 (Gaussian distribution, mean = 0, std.dev = 1))

Unsurprisingly, our alternative does a lot better than our null. But our alternative is wrong! We’d get that impression pretty quickly if we watched the numbers streaming in. There’s an incredible temptation to take that data to refine or propose a new hypothesis, but that’s an abductive move. Inference is really letting us down.

Worse, this black box isn’t too far off from the typical science experiment. It’s rare any researcher is querying a black box, true, but it’s overwhelmingly true that they’re generating new data without incorporating other people’s datasets. It’s also rare you’re replicating someone else’s work; most likely, you’re taking existing ideas and rearranging them into something new, so prior findings may not carry forward. Inferential analysis is more tractable than I painted it, I’ll confess, but the limited information and focus on novelty still favors the abductive approach.

But think a bit about what I did on the inferential side: I picked two hypotheses and pitted them against one another. Do I have to limit myself to two? Certainly not! Let’s rerun the analysis with twenty-two hypotheses: the flat distribution we used as a null before, plus twenty-one alternative hypotheses covering every integral mean from -10 to 10 (though keeping the standard deviation at 1).

Samples                                 = 100001
log(likelihood*prior), H0               = -4436161.89971
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean = -10   = -12378220.82173
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =  -9   = -10866965.39358
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =  -8   = -9455710.96544
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =  -7   = -8144457.53730
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =  -6   = -6933205.10915
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =  -5   = -5821953.68101
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =  -4   = -4810703.25287
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =  -3   = -3899453.82472
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =  -2   = -3088205.39658
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =  -1   = -2376957.96844
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =   0   = -1765711.54029
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =   1   = -1254466.11215
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =   2   = -843221.68401
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =   3   = -531978.25586
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =   4   = -320735.82772
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =   5   = -209494.39958
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =   6   = -198253.97143
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =   7   = -287014.54329
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =   8   = -475776.11515
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =   9   = -764538.68700
log(likelihood*prior), H1, mean =  10   = -1153302.25886
  (That means the most likely hypothesis is H1 (Gaussian distribution, mean = 6, std.dev = 1))

Aha, the inferential approach has finally gotten us somewhere! It’s still wrong, but you can see the obvious solution: come up with as many hypotheses as you can to explain the data, before we look at it, and run them all as the data rolls in. If you’re worried about being swamped by hypotheses, I’ve got a word for you: marginalization. Bayesian statistics handles hypotheses with parameters by integrating over all of them; you can think of these as composites, a mash of point hypotheses which collectively do a helluva lot better at prediction than any one hypothesis in isolation. In practice, then, Bayesians have always dealt with large numbers of hypotheses simultaneously.

The classic example of this is conjugate priors, where we carefully combine hyperparameters to evaluate a potentially infinite family of probability distributions. In fact, let’s try it right now: the proper conjugate here is the Normal-Inverse-Gamma, as we’re tracking both the mean and standard deviation of Gaussian distributions.

Samples = 1000001
μ       = 5.61148
λ       = 1000001.00000
α       = 500000.50000
β       = 992457.82655

median  = 5.47287

That’s a good start, μ lines up with the mean we calculated earlier, and λ is obviously the sample count. The shape of the posteriors is still pretty opaque, though; we’ll need to chart this out by evaluating the Normal-Inverse-Gamma PDF a few times.Conjugate posterior for the collection of all Gaussian distributions which could describe the data.Excellent, the inferential method has caught up to abduction! In fact, as of now they’re both working identically. Think: what’s the difference between a hypothesis you proposed before collecting the data, and one you proposed after? In frequentism, the stopping problem implies that we could exit early and falsely reject our null, when data coming down the pipe would have pushed it back to “fail to reject.” There, the choice of hypothesis could have an influence on the outcome, so there is a difference between the two cases. This is made worse by frequentism’s obsession over one hypothesis above all others, the null.

Bayesian statistics is free of that problem, because every hypothesis is judged on their relative likelihood in reference to a dataset shared by all hypotheses. There is no stopping problem baked into the methodology. Whether I evaluate any given hypothesis before or after I collect the data is irrelevant, because either way it has to cope with all the data. This also frees me up to invent hypotheses whenever I wish.

But this also defeats the main attack against falsification. The whole point of invoking abduction was to save us from asserting any hypotheses in the beginning; if there’s no difference in when we invoke our hypotheses, however, then falsification might still apply.

Here’s where I return to giving Professor Moriarity a hand. He began that video by saying scientists usually don’t engage in falsification, hence it cannot be The Scientific Method, but ended it by approvingly quoting Feynman: “We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.” Isn’t that falsification, right there?

This is yet another area where frequentist and Bayesian statistics diverge. As I pointed out earlier, frequentism is obsessed with falsifying the null hypothesis and trying to prove it wrong. Compare and contrast with what past-me wrote about Bayes Factors:

If data comes up that doesn’t square well with a hypothesis, its certainty takes a hit. But if we’re comparing it to another hypothesis that also doesn’t predict the data, the Bayes Factor will remain close to 1 and our certainties won’t shift much at all. Likewise, if both hypotheses strongly predict the data, the Factor again stays close to 1. If we’re looking to really shift our certainty around, we need a big Bayes Factor, which means we need to find scenarios where one hypothesis strongly predicts the data while the other strongly predicts this data shouldn’t happen.

Or, in other words, we should look for situations where one theory is… false. That sounds an awful lot like falsification!

But it’s not the same thing. Scroll back up to that Normal-Inverse-Gamma PDF, and pick a random point on the graph. The likelihood at that point is less than the likelihood at the maximum point. If you were watching those two points as we updated with new data, your choice would have gradually gone from about equally likely to substantially less likely. Your choice is more likely to be false, all things being equal, but it’s also not false with a capital F. Maybe the first million data points were a fluke, and if we continued sampling to a billion your choice would roar back to the top? This is the flip-side of having no stopping problem: the door is always left open a crack for any crackpot hypotheses to make a comeback.

Now look closely at the scale of the vertical axis. That maximal likelihood is well above 100%! In fact it’s somewhere around 4,023,000% by my calculations. While the vast majority are dropping downwards, there’s an ever-shrinking huddle of points that are becoming more likely as data is added! Falsification should only make things less likely, however.

Under Bayesian statistics, falsification is treated as a heuristic rather than a core part of the process. We’re best served by trying to find areas where hypotheses differ, yet we never declare one hypothesis to be false. This saves Moriarty: he’s both correct in disclaiming falsification, and endorsing the process of trying to prove yourself wrong. The confusion between the two stems from having to deal with two separate paradigms that appear to have substantial overlap, even though a closer look reveals fundamental differences.

“Aggressive, unpredictable, unreliable”

It’s funny, Trump didn’t used to be this opposed to Iran. Now, between all the domestic scandals he faces, and his love of military power along with the warmongering far-right, he’s decided to reverse course and get aggressive with Iran.

“It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement,” Trump said from the White House Diplomatic Room. “The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing we know exactly what will happen.” In announcing his decision, Trump said he would initiate new sanctions on the regime, crippling the touchstone agreement negotiated by his predecessor. Trump said any country that helps Iran obtain nuclear weapons would also be “strongly sanctioned.”
“This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” the President said. “It didn’t bring calm, it didn’t bring peace, and it never will.” … “At the point when the US had maximum leverage, this disastrous deal gave this regime — and it’s a regime of great terror — many billions of dollars, some of it in actually cash — a great embarrassment to me as a citizen,” Trump said.

One problem: what are the consequences of withdrawing? Iran’s nuclear program was going fine when they were under earlier sanctions, so imposing sanctions isn’t going to have much effect. As for the political situation within Iran,

Sadeq Zibakalam, a prominent political commentator and professor of politics at Tehran University, struck a pessimistic tone about the consequences of Trump’s decision in Iran. “Many people are worried about war,” he told the Guardian on phone from Tehran. “Whenever the country faces a crisis in its foreign policy or economy, the situation gets better for hardliners, they’d be able to exert their force more easily.”

He added: “At the same time, hardliners will gain politically from this situation, because they’ll attack reformists and moderates like [President] Rouhani that this is evidence of what they had been saying for years, that the US cannot be trusted, and that US is always prepared to knife you in the back.”

Zibakalam, who is close to the reformists, said he did not think it would take long for Europeans and other nations to follow in the footsteps of the US, because they won’t endanger their economic ties with Washington, which would outweigh the benefits of doing business with Iran.

Rouhani has taken an aggressive stance to jump in front of the hardliners.

“This is a psychological war, we won’t allow Trump to win… I’m happy that the pesky being has left the Barjam,” he said referring to Persian acronym for JCPOA or the nuclear deal.

“Tonight we witnessed a new historic experience… for 40 years we’ve said and repeated that Iran always abides by its commitments, and the US never complies, our 40-year history shows us Americans have been aggressive towards great people of Iran and our region .. from the [1953] coup against the legitimate government of [Mohammad] Mosaddegh Mosadeq government and their meddling in the affairs of the last regime, support for Saddam [Hussein during Iran-Iraq war] and downing or our passenger plane by a US vessel and their actions in Afghanistan, in Yemen,” he said.

“What Americans announced today was a clear demonstration of what they have been doing for months. Since the nuclear deal, when did they comply? They only left a signature and made some statements, but did nothing that would benefit the people of Iran.”

Rouhani said the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA) has verified that Tehran has abide by its obligations under the deal. “This is not an agreement between Iran and the US… for US to announce it’s pulling out, it’s a multilateral agreement, endorsed by the UN security council resolution 2231, Americans officially announcement today showed that their disregard for international commitments.. We saw that in their disregard for Paris agreement..

“Our people saw that the only regime that supports Trump is the illegitimate Zionist regime, the [s]ame regime that killed our nuclear scientists”

“From now on, this is an agreement between Iran and five countries… from now on the P5+1 has lost its 1… we have to wait and see how other react. If we come to the conclusion that with cooperation with the five countries we can keep what we wanted despite Israeli and American efforts, Barjam can cursive,” he said referring to Persian acronym for JCPOA or the nuclear deal.

“We had already come to the conclusion that Trump will not abide by international commitments and won’t respect Barjam.”

And the other signers to the Iran deal are keeping a stiff upper lip, at least for now.

According to the IAEA, Iran continues to abide by the restrictions set out by the JCPoA, in line with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The world is a safer place as a result. Therefore we, the E3, will remain parties to the JCPoA. Our governments remain committed to ensuring the agreement is upheld, and will work with all the remaining parties to the deal to ensure this remains the case including through ensuring the continuing economic benefits to the Iranian people that are linked to the agreement.

Most commentators are united in calling the withdrawal a prelude to disaster. Most Americans were fine with the Iran deal. Most of the world is starting to get on board this train:

Last year, on a reporting trip though a few European capitals, something I heard over and over from European foreign policy officials: We remember 2003, and we’re starting to think this is the real America. Aggressive, unpredictable, unreliable, and dangerous.

Checking in on Local Politics

I’m ridiculously bad at following local politics, the American Implosion is far too addicting. Still, it does allow me to cross-reference between our two countries, and watch Southern trends migrate up North. For instance:

In a speech about women in politics at the United Conservative Party founding annual general meeting in Red Deer Saturday, [Heather] Forsyth expressed disbelief that women face structural barriers and are marginalized. “How the heck do you expect to get women involved in politics and get them excited when you have to read that socialist crap,” she said as a number of UCP members hooted and clapped. “When I ran in the nomination, which was one of the most hotly-contested nominations in the province, I didn’t play the ‘oh, poor me’ card. Nor did I play the ‘I’m a woman and they should provide me with a hand-up.’ ”

Forsyth … also criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley for having gender-balanced cabinets. “I honestly would be in trouble if someone asked me to name all the women in their cabinet and I would have trouble even trying to remember five,” she said. “I quite frankly find it humiliating and I find it patronizing that we as women can’t do it. And we can do it on our own and by ourselves.”

Self-hating conservative women? Yep, we’ve got that. We’ve also imported blatant hypocrisy; I can just imagine the reporter smiling as they tacked this bit on:

Forsyth’s message was in stark contrast to interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose, who used her speech to announce a new initiative to overcome the barriers Forsyth dismissed. The non-profit, which also involves Laureen Harper, will encourage and mentor women who want to run for the UCP in next year’s election. …

Ambrose said UCP Leader Jason Kenney has made it a priority to attract women and LGBTQ candidates to the party and meets constantly with future prospects. “I’m here to push that message forward,” Ambrose said.

She acknowledged that harassment on social media is one barrier women face. She said female politicians should have staff monitor feeds on Facebook and Twitter to create a buffer.  Ambrose said Twitter, in particular, is “a sewer for women.” “They need to make a lot of changes before it is a safe place for women,” she said.

What’s depressing is that Alberta has a liberal-ish government, with the notable exception of oil pipelines. The NDP have done a great job since coming to power, but their election was due to a divided and squabbling opposition. Now that conservatives in the province have united under the United Conservative Party, however, they’re likely to regain control. This is terrifying, because they “united” by essentially rolling over and handing the keys to the social conservatives. Abortion services are back to being controversial, their leader is fine with harming LGBTQ youth and exploiting them to whip up the base. He’s also opposed to environmental regulations. A party member who fired a woman for filing a sexual harassment complaint is still in charge of Democracy and Accountability. Hell, their shadiness even extends to their own voting procedures.

Maybe it’s time I paid more attention. I bet the NDP could use some volunteers next year …

Speaking of the devil, and Twitter shall appear:

Kathleen Smith: UCP just passed a resolution to out teens who join a GSA. And they wonder why won’t let them march under their party banner in the parade.

Marni Panas: Every progressive who is still part of this party should be ashamed of themselves. Any member of the LGBTQ community who is part of this party should take a long look in the mirror. Disgusting resolution.

Marni Panas: The and pay more attention to anti-lgbtq activist John Carpay than the actual kids who will be harmed by being outed in GSA. I’m sick.

: Holy crap. This is what’s happening now at the . If you’ve lost track, they’ve gone from attack teens to attack & teachers to attack First Nation’s persons in a matter of minutes.

Marni Panas: This is what happens when racists and homophobes are emboldened by leaders like Trump and Kenney. I no longer want to hear “this would never happen in Canada. We’re better than that.” It’s happening right now in a hotel in Red Deer, Alberta.

This is all happening as the UCP is explicitly doing outreach to the LGBT community. They’re a bunch of two-faced bigots.

The Two Cultures, as per C. P. Snow

I’d never heard of C.P. Snow until Steven Pinker brought him up, but apparently he’s quite the deal. Much of it stems from a lecture Snow gave nearly sixty years ago. It’s been discussed and debated (funny meeting you here, Lawrence Krauss) to the point that I, several generations and one ocean away, can grab a reprint of the original with an intro about as long as the lecture itself.

Snow’s core idea is this: two types of intellectuals, scientists and elite authors, don’t talk with one another and are largely ignorant of each other’s work. His quote about elite authors being ignorant of physics is plastered everywhere, so I’d like to instead repeat what he said about scientists being ignorant of literature:

As one would expect, some of the very best scientists had and have plenty of energy and interest to spare, and we came across several who had read everything that literary people talk about. But that’s very rare. Most of the rest, when one tried to probe for what books they had read, would modestly confess “Well, I’ve tried a bit of Dickens”, rather as though Dickens were an extraordinarily esoteric, tangled and dubiously rewarding writer, something like Ranier Maria Rilke. In fact that is exactly how they do regard him: we thought that discovery, that Dickens had been transformed into the type-specimen of literary incomprehensibility, was one of the oddest results of the whole exercise. […]

Remember, these are very intelligent men. Their culture is in many ways an exacting and admirable one. It doesn’t contain much art, with the exception, and important exception, of music. Verbal exchange, insistent argument. Long-playing records. Colour photography. The ear, to some extent the eye. Books, very little, though perhaps not many would go so far as one hero, who perhaps I should admit was further down the scientific ladder than the people I’ve been talking about – who, when asked what books he read, replied firmly and confidently: “Books? I prefer to use my books as tools.” It was very hard not to let the mind wander – what sort of tool would a book make? Perhaps a hammer? A primitive digging instrument?

[Snow, Charles P. “The two cultures.” (1959): pg. 6-7]

To be honest, I have a hard time comprehending why the argument exists. If I were to transpose it to my place and time, it would be like complaining that Margaret Atwood, Alice Munro, and Michael Ondaatje are shockingly ignorant of basic physics, while if you were to quiz famous Canadian scientists about Canadian literature you’d eventually drag out a few mentions of Farley Mowat. I… don’t see the problem? Yes, it would be great if more people knew more things, but if you want to push the frontiers of knowledge you’ve got to focus on the specifics. Given that your time is (likely) finite, that means sacrificing some general knowledge. It would be quite ridiculous to ask someone in one speciality to explain something specific to another.

If we forget the scientific culture, then the rest of western intellectuals have never tried, wanted, or been able to understand the industrial revolution, much less accept it. Intellectuals, in particular literary intellectuals, are natural Luddites. [pg. 11-12]

The academics had nothing to do with the industrial revolution; as Corrie, the old Master of Jesus, said about trains running into Cambridge on Sunday, `It is equally displeasing to God and to myself’. So far as there was any thinking in nineteenth-century industry, it was left to cranks and clever workmen. American social historians have told me that much the same was true of the
U.S. The industrial revolution, which began developing in New England fifty years or so later than ours, apparently received very little educated talent, either then or later in the nineteenth century. [pg. 12]

… do we understand how they have happened? Have we begun to comprehend even the old industrial revolution? Much less the new scientific revolution in which we stand? There never was any thing more necessary to comprehend. [pg. 14]

Yep, that’s Snow trashing authors of high fiction for not having an understanding of the Industrial Revolution. It’s not an isolated case, either; Snow also criticises Cambridge art graduates for not being aware of “the human organisation” behind buttons [pg. 15]. He might as well have spent several paragraphs yelling at physicists for being unable to explain why Houlden Caulfield wanted to be a gas station attendant, he’s that far from reality.

Which gets us to the real consequences of Snow’s divide, and how he proposes heading them off at the pass.

To say we have to educate ourselves or perish, is a little more melodramatic than the facts warrant. To say, we have to educate ourselves or watch a steep decline in our own lifetime, is about right. We can’t do it, I am now convinced, without breaking the existing pattern. I know how difficult this is. It goes against the emotional grain of nearly all of us. In many ways, it goes against my own, standing uneasily with one foot in a dead or dying world and the other in a world that at all costs we must see born. I wish I could be certain that we shall have the courage of what our minds tell us. [pg. 20]

This disparity between the rich and the poor has been noticed. It has been noticed, most acutely and not unnaturally, by the poor. Just because they have noticed it, it won’t last for long. Whatever else in the world we know survives to the year 2000, that won’t. Once the trick of getting rich is known, as it now is, the world can’t survive half rich and half poor. It’s just not on.

The West has got to help in this transformation. The trouble is, the West with its divided culture finds it hard to grasp just how big, and above all just how fast, the transformation must be. [pg. 21-22]

So we need to educate scientists about the works of elite authors, and those authors about the work of scientists… because otherwise Britain will become impoverished, and/or we’d end poverty faster?! That doesn’t square up with the data. Let’s look at what the government of Namibia, a well-off African country, thinks will help end poverty.

  • Improving access to Community Skills Development Centres (Cosdecs) in remote areas and aligning the curriculum with that of the Vocational Training Centres.
  • To improve career options and full integration into the modern economy, there is need to introduce vocational subjects at upper primary and junior secondary levels. This will facilitate access to vocational education and labour market readiness by the youth.
  • Improving productivity of the subsistence agriculture by encouraging the use of both traditional and modern fertiliser and by providing information on modern farming methods.
  • The dismantling of the “Red Line” seems to hold some promise for livestock farmers in the North who were previously prevented access to markets outside of the northern regions.
  • Consider establishing a third economic hub for Namibia to relief Khomas and Erongo from migration pressure. With abundant water resources, a fertile land and being along the Trans Zambezi Corridor, Kavango East is a good candidate for an agricultural capital and a logistic growth point.
  • Given persistent drop-out rates especially in remote rural areas, there is need for increased access to secondary education by addressing both the distance and the quality of education.
  • Educate youth on the danger of adolescence pregnancy both in terms of exclusion from the modern economy and health implications.
  • Given the established relationship between access to services, poverty and economic inclusion, there is need for government to strive towards a regional balanced provision of access to safe drinking water, sanitation, electricity and housing. [pg. 58-59]

I don’t see any references to science in there, nor any to Neshani Andreas or Joseph Diescho. Britain’s the same story. But who knows, maybe an author/chemist who thought world poverty would end by the year 2000 has a better understanding of poverty than government agencies and century-old NGOs tasked with improving social conditions.

There’s a greater problem here, too. Let’s detour to something Donald Trump said:

Trump: “The Democrats don’t care about our military. They don’t.” He says that is also true of the border and crime

How would we prove that Democrats don’t care about the military, the US border, or crime? The easiest approach would be to look at their national platform and see it those things are listed there (they’re not, I checked). A much harder one would be to parse their actions instead. If we can find a single Democrat who does care about crime, then we’ve refuted the claim in the deductive sense.

But there’s still an inductive way to keep it alive: if “enough” Democrats don’t care about those things, then Trump can argue he meant the statements informally and thus it’s still true-ish. That’s a helluva lot of work, and since the burden is on the person making the claim it’s not my job to run around gathering data for Trump’s argument. If I’m sympathetic to Trump’s views or pride myself in being intellectually “fair,” however, there’s a good chance I’d do some of his homework anyway.

Lurking behind all of the logical stuff, however, is an emotional component. The US-Mexico border, the military, and crime all stir strong emotions in his audience; by positioning his opponents as being opposed to “positive” things, at the same time implying that he’s in favour of them, Trump’s angering his audience and motivating them to being less charitable towards his opponents.

That’s the language of hate: emotionally charged false statements about a minority, to be glib. It’s all the more reason to be careful when talking about groups.

The non-scientists have a rooted impression that the scientists are shallowly optimistic, unaware of man’s condition. On the other hand, the scientists believe that the literary intellectuals are totally lacking in foresight, peculiarly unconcerned with their brother men,
in a deep sense anti-intellectual, anxious to restrict both art and thought to the existential moment. And so on. Anyone with a mild talent for invective could produce plenty of this kind of subterranean back-chat. [pg. 3]

If you side with either scientists or elite authors, this is emotionally charged language. At the same time, I have no idea how you’d even begin to prove half of that. Snow’s defence consists of quoting Adam Rutherford and T.S. Elliot, all the rest comes from his experiences with “intimate friends among both scientists and writers” and “living among these groups and much more.” [pg. 1] Nonetheless, that small sample set is enough for Snow to assert “this is a problem of the entire West.” [pg. 2] Calling scientists or elite authors a minority is a stretch, but the net result is similar: increased polarisation between the two groups, and the promotion of harmful myths.

Yes, Snow would go on propose a “third culture” which would bridge the gap, but if the gap doesn’t exist in the first place this amounts to selling you a cure after convincing you you’re sick.

What’s worse is that if you’re operating in a fact-deficient environment, you’ve got tremendous flexibility to tweak things to your liking. Is J.K. Rowling a “literary intellectual?” She doesn’t fit into the highbrow culture Snow was talking about, but she is a well-known and influential author who isn’t afraid to let her opinions be known (for better or worse). Doesn’t that make her a decision maker, worthy of inclusion? And if we’ve opened the door for non-elite authors, why not add other people from the humanities? Or social scientists?

This also means that one of the harshest critics of C. P. Snow is C. P. Snow.

I have been argued with by non-scientists of strong down-to-earth interests. Their view is that it is an over-simplification, and that
if one is going to talk in these terms there ought to be at least three cultures. They argue that, though they are not scientists themselves, they would share a good deal of the scientific feeling. They would have as little use-perhaps, since they knew more about it, even less use-for the recent literary culture as the scientists themselves. …

I respect those arguments. The number 2 is a very dangerous number: that is why the dialectic is a dangerous process. Attempts to divide anything into two ought to be regarded with much suspicion. I have thought a long time about going in for further refinements: but in the end I have decided against. I was searching for something a little more than a dashing metaphor, a good deal less than a cultural map: and for those purposes the two cultures is about right, and subtilising any more would bring more disadvantages than it’s worth. [pg. 5]

He’s aware that some people regard “the two cultures” as an oversimplification, he recognises the problem with dividing people in two, and his response amounts to “well, I’m still right.” He’s working with such a deficiency of facts that he can undercut his own arguments and still keep making them as if no counter-argument existed.

I think it is only fair to say that most pure scientists have themselves been devastatingly ignorant of productive industry, and many still are. It is permissible to lump pure and applied scientists into the same scientific culture, but the gaps are wide. Pure scientists and engineers often totally misunderstand each other. Their behaviour tends to be very different: engineers have to live their lives in an organised community, and however odd they are underneath they manage to present a disciplined face to the world. Not so pure scientists. [pg. 16]

Snow makes a strong case for a third culture here, something he earlier said “would bring more disadvantages than it’s worth!” He’s seeing gaps and division everywhere, and defining things so narrowly that he can rattle off five counter-examples then immediately dismiss them (emphasis mine).

Almost everywhere, though, intellectual persons didn’t comprehend what was happening. Certainly the writers didn’t. Plenty of them shuddered away, as though the right course for a man of feeling was to contract out; some, like Ruskin and William Morris and Thoreau and Emerson and Lawrence, tried various kinds of fancies which were not in effect more than screams of horror. It
is hard to think of a writer of high class who really stretched his imaginative sympathy, who could see at once the hideous back-streets, the smoking chimneys, the internal price—and also the prospects of life that were opening out for the poor, the intimations, up to now unknown except to the lucky, which were just coming within reach of the remaining 99.0 per cent of his brother men.

Snow himself mentions Charles Dickens earlier in the lecture, a perfect fit for the label of “a writer of high class who really stretched his imaginative sympathy.” And yet here, he has difficulty remembering that author’s existence.

It’s oddly reminiscent of modern conservative writing: long-winded, self-important, and with only a fleeting connection to the facts. No wonder his ideas keep getting resurrected by them, they can be warped and distorted to suit your current needs.

Something for the Reading List

For nearly a decade, I have been researching and writing about women who dressed and lived as men and men who lived and dressed as women in the nineteenth-century American West. During that time, when people asked me about my work, my response was invariably met with a quizzical expression and then the inevitable question: “Were there really such people?” Newspapers document hundreds, in fact, and it is likely there were many more. Historians have been writing about cross-dressers for some time, and we know that such people have existed in all parts of the world and for about as long as we have recorded and remembered history.

Boag, Peter. “The Trouble with Cross-Dressers: Researching and Writing the History of Sexual and Gender Transgressiveness in the Nineteenth-Century American West.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 112, no. 3 (2011): 322–39. https://doi.org/10.5403/oregonhistq.112.3.0322.

Human beings have a really distorted view of history; we tend to project our experiences backward in time. Just recently introduced to the term “transgender?” Then transgender people must have only recently been invented, in the same way that bromances never existed before the term was added to the dictionary. Everyone is prone to this error, however, not just the bigots.

A central argument of my book is that many nineteenth-century western Americans who cross-dressed did so to express their transgender identity. Transgender is a term coined only during the last quarter of the twentieth century. It refers to people who identify with the gender (female or male) “opposite” of what society would typically assign to their bodies. I place “opposite” in quotation marks because the notion that female and male are somehow diametric to each other is a historical creation; scholars have shown, for example, that in the not-too-distant past, people in western civilization understood that there was only one sex and that male and female simply occupied different gradations on a single scale. That at one time the western world held to a one-sex or one-gender model, but later developed a two-sex or two-gender model, clearly shows that social conceptualization of gender, sex, and even sexuality changes over time. This reveals a problem that confronts historians: it is anachronistic to impose our present-day terms and concepts for and about gender and sexuality — such as transgender — onto the past.

In Re-Dressing America’s Frontier Past, I therefore strove to avoid the term transgender as much as possible. It is central to my study, however, to show that people in the nineteenth century had their own concepts and expressions for gender fluidity. By the end of the nineteenth century, for example, sexologists (medical doctors and scientists who study sex) had created the terms “sex invert” and “sexual inversion” to refer to people whose sexual desires and gender presentations (that is, the way they walked and talked, the clothing they wanted to wear, and so forth) did not, according to social views, conform to what their physiological sex should “naturally” dictate.

I wish I’d known about this book earlier, it would have made a cool citation. Oh well, either way it’s long since hit the shelves and been patiently waiting for a spot on your wishlist.

NO COLLUSION, right?

Trump’s been a broken record about collision with the Kremlin. A small sampling from the last month:

It was a great report, no collusion, which I knew anyway, no coordination, no nothing. It’s a witch hunt, that’s all it is. There was no collusion with Russia, you can believe this one. She (Merkel) probably can’t believe it, who can? But the report was very powerful, very strong, there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian people. Cause I’ve said many times before, I’ve always said there was no collusion, but I’ve also said there has been nobody tougher on Russia than me.

Jennifer, I can say this — that there was no collusion, and that’s been so found, as you know, by the House Intelligence Committee. There’s no collusion. There was no collusion with Russia, other than by the Democrats — or, as I call them, the obstuctionists, because they truly are obstructionists.

James Comey Memos just out and show clearly that there was NO COLLUSION and NO OBSTRUCTION. Also, he leaked classified information. WOW! Will the Witch Hunt continue?

Much of the bad blood with Russia is caused by the Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation, headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama. Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy!

We get it, we get it, NO COLLUSION. Fine. Then I suppose Trump would have no problem answering these questions:

  1. When did you become aware of the Trump Tower meeting?
  2. What involvement did you have in the communication strategy [about that meeting], including the release of Donald Trump Jr.’s emails?
  3. During a 2013 trip to Russia, what communication and relationships did you have with the Agalarovs and Russian government officials?
  4. What communication did you have with Michael D. Cohen, Felix Sater and others, including foreign nationals, about Russian real estate developments during the campaign?
  5. What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding any meeting with Mr. Putin? Did you discuss it with others?
  6. What discussions did you have during the campaign regarding Russian sanctions?
  7. What involvement did you have concerning [the] platform changes regarding arming Ukraine [during the 2016 RNC convention]?
  8. What knowledge did you have of any outreach by your campaign, including by Paul Manafort, to Russia about potential assistance to the campaign?
  9. What did you know about communication between Roger Stone, his associates, Julian Assange or WikiLeaks?
  10. What did you know during the transition about an attempt to establish back-channel communication to Russia, and Jared Kushner’s efforts?
  11. What do you know about a 2017 meeting in Seychelles involving Erik Prince?
  12. What do you know about a Ukrainian peace proposal provided to Mr. Cohen in 2017?

Because according to the New York Times, those and many others are on the Special Council’s wish list. That should be easy enough, after all there’s NO COLLUSION and Robert Mueller’s long since requested to interview-

… oh wait, Trump is refusing to sit down with Mueller’s team and answer their questions? Strange. Come to think, why do we have these questions at all? The Special Council investigation is airtight, the only reason we have any information on what they’re doing is that the people they interview keep blabbing to the press. Trump’s “team” of lawyers would be the only people privy to those questions, other than Trump, and there’s no way they’d leak something like this. Oh well, I guess it’ll be up to the press to ask-

… ooohhh. I see what you did there, Mueller.

[HJH 2018-05-01] … or maybe not?

So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see…you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice!

That’s Trump, using “leaked” in scare quotes. And apparently looking at an entirely different list of questions than I am. He’s smart enough to realize that collusion is not a crime, yet unaware that foreign contributions to US elections are a crime and that the US president can be impeached for non-crimes.

But if Trump’s advisers can spin that infamous Fox and Friends interview into a positive, maybe they thought slipping this list to reporters was another win for Trump. Somehow.

Kudos to Matthew Rozsa over at Salon for filling in some of the “somehow.”

[Margaret] Hartmann also noted that there were three prevailing theories as to why the questions were leaked (and most likely by someone either currently or formerly associated with Trump’s team): to convince Trump not to speak with Mueller, to turn the public against the Mueller investigation or to persuade the Republican-controlled Congress that Mueller is getting too close to the president and needs to be stopped. […]

[Norm Eison:] I helped witnesses decide whether to talk to prosecutors for decades. Now that we know Mueller’s questions, I believe that Trump is unlikely ever to answer them unless subpoenaed–and then his answer will be “I take the Fifth.” No wonder Dowd quit. […]

“The very fact that the questions are out there, my first reaction is that it could be an act of obstruction just to have released these questions,” John Dean, the former White House counsel to President Richard Nixon, told Anderson Cooper. He elaborated that they may have been released “to try to somehow disrupt the flow of information, the tipping off of a witness in advance as to what the questions are going to be.”

Rozsa also has a good summary of the evidence that Trump’s team leaked the questions.

[HJH 2018-05-02] OK, I think we’ve finally cracked this one.

In the wake of the testy March 5 meeting, Mueller’s team agreed to provide the president’s lawyers with more specific information about the subjects that prosecutors wished to discuss with the president. With those details in hand, Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow compiled a list of 49 questions that the team believed the president would be asked, according to three of the four people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly. […]

After investigators laid out 16 specific subjects they wanted to review with the president and added a few topics within each one, Sekulow broke the queries down into 49 separate questions, according to people familiar with the process. […]

For his part, Trump fumed when he saw the breadth of the questions that emerged out of the talks with Mueller’s team, according to two White House officials. The president and several advisers now plan to point to the list as evidence that Mueller has strayed beyond his mandate and is overreaching, they said.

So this was just another front in the grand plan to discredit, distract, or damage the Special Council investigation by the current President of the United States and high-ranking members of the Republican Party. It’s gotten so bad even Trump’s supporters assume he’s guilty of something. I don’t think it worked, which shouldn’t be a surprise given the calibre of the talent surrounding Trump. The only person more blind is Trump himself.