
Monday, 26 February 2007
Hear no evil, ...

Wednesday, 21 February 2007
An update...
Just received a letter from Brisbane's Lord Mayor, or at least his representative (can't make out the signature). In the Update from the 16 Feb I complained about the lack of response. Well, here it is:
Thank you for your letter of 22 January 2007 concerning Council's position on the protection of the Torresian Crow.
I realise that the loud noise generated in the places where the flocks of crows congregate is a city-wide problem, which is believed to be caused by three main factors:
- Ongoing human disturbance to their natural habitat
- The ready supply of food from sources such as open rubbish bins and road kill; and
- The current drought
Council is working with residents to address the causes of the problem, such as open rubbish bins, in order to minimise crow numbers.
I am aware of the social and environmental problems caused by large, local populations of crows and would advise that Council has previously helped to fund research into suburban wildlife conflicts. Research has shown that culling is ineffective over medium term, that is, where environmental conditions remain conducive, the crow populations return within two or three years. Trapping and relocation has also been shown to ineffective, with crows flying more than 600km to return to the place where they were caught.
As you are aware, the Torresian Crow is a native Australian bird and is protected under the State Wildlife Legislation (Nature Conservation Act 1992). Should you continue to experience excessive nuisance conditions or have further queries regarding crows, I encourage you to contact the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, the agency responsible for the management or protected wildlife on [+61 7] 3227 7111.
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns.
It seems it all hinges on the legislation that turned crows into icons. Without that constraint all these contortions would not be necessary. So it's back to Professor Darryl Jones from Griffith University. Several attempts at contacting him had been made in the past, all with no success. Nothing new here: true believers in their cause are always above the grit at ground level.
Sunday, 18 February 2007
Unstated questions, hidden answers
Friday, 16 February 2007
An update...
Four weeks have passed since the letters to the Brisbane Lord Mayor and the environmental scientist at Griffith University have been sent (see In the name of the Crow: human abuse). No response.
It goes to show that, regardless of the substance, it is the force behind a presentation which gets results. Activists know this of course; too bad for the rest of us.
Monday, 12 February 2007
Am I colour-blind?
Some respondents to the previous post here and privately seem to think my view on academics had been too harsh.
Although I have not compiled a comprehensive analysis of every scientist or researcher around the world, one way to gauge the effectiveness of some action is to look for its results. Let's not forget, someone in their position does have the ear of an editor, convener, or program chef. So, where and when has someone confronted a public phenomenon grounded in ideology head-on through his or her expertise on the subject?
Then there is the anecdotal evidence. Such as the comments by Jennie Brockie, presenter of the SBS-TV Insight program. On the 12 Oct 04 the topic of the discussion was, "Is animal rights activism out of control?". According to Ms Brockie several scientists were invited to attend to give the research side of the story. They declined because they were intimidated by activists who sometimes went as far as issuing death threats. The point was made repeatedly in the program, with the two scientists who did appear confirming the situation.
Remarks by Islamic clerics or others who are more interested in the shock value than actual substance are not countered by the voices of reason. And if editors cannot bring themselves to accommodate the unsensational then why is there not a systematic pressure applied to them in the interest of a mature society?
A critical and objective analysis is of course in line with the principles of the Enlightenment, the antagonist of Middle Eastern ideologies from the very beginning. Currently it is deemed the height of political incorrectness to criticise the general denigration of Western and/or European culture.
Some days ago the London think tank Policy Exchange published the report "Living apart together". Muslims across Britain were surveyed on their attitudes towards the British and Westerners in general. Their own comments made reference to a crude anti-Western bias existing in society (pp 7, 16), the official policy of multi-culturalism was seen as making the situation actually worse by mostly denigrating its own (pp 24, 33), and the report's authors recognised that the ideals once introduced by the Enlightenment and now downgraded provide the cultural vacuum for extremism to flourish once again (p 92). I don't think Australia is that much different.
No-one expects intellectuals to fight it out on the streets. But their professional status also comes with the duty attached to preserve the cultural climate which gave them their positions in the first place.
Monday, 5 February 2007
Has science turned yellow?
There can be many reasons why something is misunderstood. Sometimes psychoanalysts have a field day.
The editor of a journal - both shall remain nameless - saw fit to reject a recent article about the worm program. The reason? As a "functionalist" I omitted important references to the field of functionalism, thereby evading the ongoing debate about the latter's tenets.
Why am I a "functionalist"? Throughout the article I had used the words 'functional' and its noun to describe a principle form of behaviour, compared to the behaviour's content (for instance, 'love' can be viewed as a functionality; one's love for a car is the instantiated content).
Nothing more, nothing less. Although explained in those terms, to that reader this was neither here nor there. Now it is true functionalism features large in the debates surrounding cognitive science and artificial intelligence. But it is a movement, if you will, which ultimately did not produce a viable model of how the mind works. Despite the often intricate hypotheses the resultant perspectives were insufficient to address the phenomenon of mind in a realistic, useful manner. Hence no reason to waste my time on it.
Why then jump to such a conclusion?
Well, it might have been a simple matter of a certain word capturing one's imagination in a rather indiscriminate fashion. But there could be more behind this.
How their mind works is a question that has occupied humans for ages. So you'd think somebody coming along and declaring "I know!" would be greeted with enthusiasm. Not necessarily.
Anyone claiming to have found the solution should then be able to address such matters as religion, culture, or ideology in a formal, objective manner. He or she should give a proper explanation why the Iraq war for example is such a disaster, or why Pacific island nations implode, or why it came to the street riots in France not so long ago.
Deep down this is understood of course, and so such a claim would consequently require the courage to engage with life out there, something an increasing number of academics are reluctant to do. What is left for public occasions such as debates on TV shows are the extremists, political players of any ilk, and interested lay people having to make do with random information. Conveners of such shows find it difficult to invite professionals who can provide some factual input as a balance.
It is much more comfortable to draw differential equations inside a cosy office, or to engage in sparkling word play at a lecture. Yet there is a world beyond those walls, and what one finds out there are hardened adventurers under many an exotic flag or no flag at all.
Lest you think I am exaggerating, just watch a politician's discomfort rise as soon as the topic turns to religion - an increasing likelihood these days.
Much better then to remain with the incestuous squabbles about this or that -ism and forget about reality. Edgar Allan Poe in his "The Masque of the Red Death" described it so well!
It is interesting to note that in the case of my work no-one has ever found an error in my observations, my deductions or conclusions, in my calculations or in my use of logic or in any line of my code. Instead, vacuous generalisations are used to hide from the world.