Proportional Representation

Well, on May 2nd a minority of Canadians spoke and decided to subject the majority to an arrogant, untrustworthy government that will do everything in their power to act against the very people they are meant to serve. Never before have I felt to ashamed of being Canadian, or felt so betrayed by the nation I love.

I ask you, how is it that 40% of voters can elect a majority government? Is this really a democracy? Sure we go through the song and dance to make it look all democratic, but the voices of 60% of Canadians were not heard (at least not in any meaningful way since a majority government has the power to do whatever they want). Our political system may follow the principles of democracy, but certainly not the spirit of democracy. There is clearly a fundamental flaw that must be addressed.

The solution: Proportional Representation. 

In this system, seats in parliament are based on the popular vote and not ridings. This way every voter is heard, and is represented accordingly. Essentially, the political system would then mirror the ideological differences found within the nation.

Here is a breakdown of votes and corresponding seats for the 5 parties (YAY Green Party!!!) now represented in parliament.

As you can see, the Conservatives and NDP are overrepresented, and the remaining three parties are greatly underrepresented. Under proportional representation, we would again be under a minority Conservative government, but at least we wouldn't feel so bad about it.

There are 83 nations around the world practice some form of proportional representation at the national level.

And sure, these nations have problems of their own (some more than others), but you have to admit at least their citizens have fewer grounds to be discontent with the structure of their government.

And other nations are presently dealing with this very question.

Well said Mr. Fry

A major problem with proportional representations (or party-proportional systems) is that they tend to split the left and right into smaller parties that can not work together. This may not be such a problem in Canada since we're used to having more than 2 parties. Also, this system often leave the balance of power in the hands of smaller parties with idiosyncratic beliefs... like the Green Party. 

Know what? I think Canada is up to the challenge. But if we never give it a try, we'll never know. This system would also require a fundamental change in our politicians. Instead of being blinded by partisan politics (which can be painfully laughable... just look at the republican response to Obama's intervention in Libya), they need to start actually acting on their parties' ideologies, and not just toting the party line. If another party proposes an idea that is in congruence with your own beliefs or those of your party... support it! Don't just oppose it because it wasn't your idea.

Again, we can take a hint from nature. Nature rewards cooperation, and so should we.

Salute to PZ Myers

Today we salute 'the magnificent' PZ Myers (to quote Richard Dawkins) for his contributions to science and logic. Paul Zachary Myers is a biology professor at University of Minnesota Morris who studies evolutionary developmental (evo-devo) neuroscience, and has a particular fondness for cephalopods (but come on, who doesn't?). In addition to teaching and research, Dr. Myers also maintains the wonderful science blog Pharyngula, which was named as the top blog written by a scientist by the journal Nature in 2006. He is a vocal figure in the ongoing 'creation-evolution controversy', and as a man after my own heart, is something of a shit disturber. He uses frank, honest, and relatable language, and at times he can be a little insulting, which makes him all the more appealing. And if that wasn't awesome enough, he has a freaking asteroid named after him! Do you?

Myers appeared in Ben Stein's travesty "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," a documentary about 'censorship' of Intelligent Design in the scientific community. Along with many respected scientists, by all accounts Myers was misled regarding the content of the film. They were told the film was going to be about science and religion, and instead the film did everything it could to avoid discussing science and religion... well, science anyway. Myers said regarding the discrepancy,

"I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest."

Had Myers actually been allowed to speak his piece (or rather, had his spoken piece been conveyed properly... or something), it probably would have sounded something like this:

Myers gave this lecture, entitled "Science and Atheism: Natural Allies", at the Humanist Canada 2010 Convention in held in Montreal. This video is part of the BIG Ideas video podcast series, and can be downloaded for free (along with nearly 200 other lectures). I'm not about to summarize the entire lecture, but here are a few of the highlights.

First, he defines the new atheism (the 'gnu-atheists' *tee hee*) as people who value the truth of a claim foremost (even if the truth hurts), and that science is our best tool of assessing the truth. CNN defined the new atheists as people who believe "...that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises", but that is more of a side-effect, rather than a philosophy. The point is, there is considerably more to the philosophy of atheism than just not believing in god.

He goes on to provide three positive human values that form the foundation of this new atheistic philosophy, and also happen to be scientific values:

1) The importance of bad brains: We know our brains are imperfect. Our brains initially evolved for a smaller skill set: eat, don't get eaten, use tools, social interaction, and reproduce. But we do a lot of things that our brains didn't evolve to do... like building a space shuttle. So our brains are inefficient tools for many (if not most) of the things we do. And our brains are easily tricked or confused (e.g., matrixing), and we must recognize this. This fundamental uncertainty is exactly why scientific graphs have error bars. We must doubt and question ourselves, and adapt to new information.

2) The importance of evidence: We just don't accept the word of somebody, we need to see it for ourselves. So we adhere to a rigorous, standard method that forces us to support our claims with evidence. If someone said that they can throw a rock over 1 km, you'd ask them to prove it. Simply asserting something or claiming to know something from revelation is not enough, nor are old books written by people who knew nothing of contemporary science.

On a personal note, I once threw a rock at Mexico (standing at the Belize/Mexico border)... and I missed.

 

3) The importance of asking questions: "The difference between a mediocre scientist and a great scientist are the questions they ask". Science is all about asking questions, especially "How do you know?" We use many tools to help us refine our questions, because if they are too broad we are unable to address them. This is the main reason for the reductionist approach in the sciences, which granted has its faults. But big questions require far too much background information before you just dive in. Instead, for the most part we work on specific, focused questions that we are actually able to address.

So according to Myers, science and gnu-atheism are in congruence and compliment each other, and I agree. But this is not to say that theists adopting a 'watchmaker' perspective of the Universe (where god created the Universe and all its complex mechanisms, and simply set things in motion) can't make substantial contributions to science. I think they can, because they still accept and trust the patterns they observe. To them, the Universe is as science describes it, and a little something extra special. And I am completely willing to accept this perspective as a positive one, although I may not share it. It is fundamentalism, or the denial of observation to preserve belief, that is harmful.

Here is Myers' complementary lecture "Science Education: Caught in the Middle in the War Between Science and Religion".

As he describes it, this lecture is a 'traditional cranky rant against creationism', and good on him! (Around the 49 minute mark, Myers discusses his experience in "Expelled: No Intelligence Required.")

(again, just a few highlights)

Cranky though this talk may be, the story he lays down is altogether terrifying. Young Earth creationists have positioned themselves in key influential positions, with the sole objective of discrediting evolution. From the people who approve text books, to the head of school boards, to well-funded think-tanks, to a Vice Presidential hopeful (phew... glad we dodged that bullet). And possibly most appalling, 16% of high school biology teachers in the US believe the Earth is 10,000 years old and that god created humans in their present form.

(Image taken from Pharyngula)

This blatant conflict of interest guarantees that American youth (at least 16% of them) will not be properly educated in basic evolutionary theory, and therefore will be ill-prepared for University/College, or worse still, will have already closed their minds to evolutionary thought (which is the very foundation to our understanding of life).

And if that wasn't enough to make your blood boil, Myers also lists some dishonest academics who knowingly lied their way through grad school just so they could gain the credentials. They then stand behind these credentials, that they obviously have no respect for, while they propagate further lies about the nature of life... as if their credentials make their arguments for creationism any stronger (... they don't). These people include Marcus Ross, Nathanial Abraham, and Jonathan Wells (the anti-Myers). Frankly, this astonishes me because I know first hand how hard grad school is, as well as how rewarding it can be. I can't even imagine investing all the time and energy and tears into something, just to turn around and shit on it.

This is true dedication, and it is repulsive. But... as it happens, credentials alone aren't enough to structure good arguments. Just in case 140 minutes of video wasn't enough for you, here is a 40-minute debate between PZ Myers and Geoff Simmons (author of "What Darwin Didn't Know" and "Billions of Missing Links", and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute) originally aired on KKMS, 980 AM in Minneapolis.

 (I hope you enjoy the christian adds in the breaks)

  Geoff Simmons is a medical doctor, and from his observations in medicine he has concluded that it would have been impossible for various complex systems to evolve through 'trial and error', relying heavily on arguments of 'irreducible complexity' (which can easily be explained in an evolutionary framework) and the logical fallacy of personal incredulity (which does nothing but illustrate the lack of imagination of the speaker. LISTEN FOR IT! He actually says the words, "I can not imagine how..."). But fear not, Myers steps up to the plate despite having had a last minute topic change imposed on him. By the final 20 minutes it becomes clear that Simmons does not have an accurate grasp of evolutionary theory or the current state of the fossil record, and Myers (in typical fashion) called him on it.     PZ Myers, I salute you for fighting the good fight. I aspire to be as lippy, outspoken, daring, and entirely brilliant as you. With people of your outstanding character and charisma on the front lines defending the integrity of science and education, there will always be hope that someday logic and reason will prevail. Thank you.    Now... let the hate mail roll in.