From the "More stuff we know that ain't so" files: Nobelist Tinbergen

From Nature:

Classic behavioural studies flawed:

Nobel prizewinner took short cuts to show that the way gulls feed is instinctive.

John Whitfield

One of the most famous experiments in biology isn't the solid piece of work it's usually portrayed as, say Dutch researchers who have replicated the study. Instead, it's more like an anecdote that became slightly more legendary each time its author retold the story.

The work in question was done in 1947 by the Dutch researcher Niko Tinbergen on the begging behaviour of herring-gull chicks. At the time, the dominant idea in animal behaviour was that learning was all-important. Tinbergen argued that animals come into the world with instincts already adapted to their environments.

Adult gulls have a red spot on their lower bill. Tinbergen, who shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1973, presented wild chicks with model birds bearing spots and measured how much they pecked at the model.

The story that made it into the textbooks is that chicks have a powerful innate tendency to peck at red dots, which has evolved as a way of getting their parents to feed them. The original paper, however, shows that Tinbergen found that chicks actually pecked more at a black dot than a red one.

In a follow-up paper written in 1949, Tinbergen concluded that this strange finding resulted from a mistake in his methods. He had tested red, black, blue, white and yellow spots, but he presented the 'natural' red spot much more often than any other. The chicks, he decided, became habituated to the red spot and stopped pecking at it.

Of course, Tinbergen has his defenders:

"Tinbergen shouldn't be castigated for this," agrees Rebecca Kilner, who studies bird behaviour at the University of Cambridge in the UK and was not involved in the new study.

"Tinbergen is an iconic character in the history of animal behaviour research," she adds. "He pioneered the use of simple but ingenious field experiments, and these experiments are a classic example of that approach."

Other researchers think that ten Cate's study risks sullying Tinbergen's legacy. "It's not fair to Tinbergen — any paper from 50 years ago wouldn't pass modern standards," says Johan Bolhuis, a researcher in animal behaviour at the University of Utrecht and editor of a book on Tinbergen. "If we applied the same standards to Darwin's work, we'd say what a terrible experimenter he was."

"It'd be easy to be nasty — if you wanted to be negative and critical, you could do a fair amount of damage to Tinbergen's reputation," agrees ecologist Hans Kruuk, Tinbergen's biographer and former student. "He'd often simplify and gloss over complications: if these publications appeared now, they'd get hammered, but the ideas are lovely."

Yeah, like Darwinism. Lovely for certain people ...

If the day ever comes that I get to the bottom of all the stuff we know that ain't so, I could start learning some real science at last. But, from what I can tell at present, that'll be the day ...

For one thing, you end up wondering how much real science there actually is ...

That's where high science feels different from engineering. Engineering, nada problem. The Last Spike. The CN Tower. Functional magnetic resonance imaging. Stuff either works or it doesn't.

But with high science, we can be arguing about the big bazooms theory of evolution - until the cows find their own way back to the barn - and have no sense that anything could possibly be amiss.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Evolutionists' careers built on plagiarism?

A recent article in Cracked, discussing plagiarism, used the careers of Richard Owen and H.G. Wells - both important evolutionists - as 40% of "Five Great Men who Built Their Careers on Plagiarism." Read it and see what you think.

See also "Science fiction finding religion?"

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 12

Well, I am afraid that after this post, you will all just have to go to your nearest Internet shopping cart (click through the book covers below) and buy the book. I must get back to my regular news desks and can't spend any more time persuading you that this is one of the best and most instructive books you will read all year.

Especially if you are an American.

If you are an American, you are making one big mistake if you think this kind of thing can only happen in Canada. It can happen anywhere that "human rights" start to suppress civil rights. Just keep your eyes open, and fight like hell against it.

Anyway, Levant writes,

There are always dangers involved when you let the government into the civic education business; such projects are ripe for political hijacking by interest groups, and other forms of abuse. But if there is really a need for the promotion of human rights, wouldn't a reiteration of fundamental rights, the building blocks of our Western tradition, be more useful than the human rights commissions we have now? (p. 187)

Levant has two things right here, in one paragraph. First, yes, civic education should not be offered directly by government; that inevitably leads to politicking for the system instead of merely explaining how it works. Someone who cannot gain or lose by how you cast your vote should be the teacher, not someone who is paid directly by the government.

And yes again, a critical need today is explaining to new immigrants to North America why we do things the way we do. Why women can sue for divorce. Why families do not have the right to murder teenage girls who behave inappropriately. Why it is okay to make fun of religions (= because any real religion would emerge unscathed from some silly comic's jokes).

Talk to us. We've learned what we know from experience. We don't claim we are always right, but we have good reasons for thinking what we do.

See also: From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 11; Shakedown - 10; Shakedown - 9; Shakedown - 8; Shakedown 7; Shakedown - 6; Shakedown - 5; Shakedown - 4; Shakedown - 3; Shakedown - 2; Shakedown - 1; From Mark Steyn's "Introduction" to Ezra Levant's "Shakedown"; Mark Steyn introduces Levant's work. Ezra Levant's Shakedown: A Preliminary Note

From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 11

With the exception of a handful of Muslim radicals, such as Arman Chak, Canada's HRCs are generally the preserve of middle-aged white folk. It says a lot about how thoroughly our society has distorted the concept of human rights over the yeas that leftist, feminist bureaucrats could unwittingly become the allies of angry men with fascist politics and medieval ideas about women's place in society. (p. 120)

That's the strangest part of all, of course. The romance between the authoritarian left and radical Islamists.

Until you realize one really simple thing. Both groups want to oppress someone; they just disagree on who to beat up on. Sort of like two wolf packs having a huge row about whether to attack the cows or the sheep first, and deciding to go after both at once .... gee, if I am the farmer, my cup runneth over, right?

Hey, why listen to me? Buy the book:

See also: From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 10; Shakedown - 9; Shakedown - 8; Shakedown 7; Shakedown - 6; Levant's Shakedown - 5; Shakedown - 4; Shakedown - 3; Shakedown - 2; Shakedown - 1; From Mark Steyn's "Introduction" to Ezra Levant's "Shakedown"; Mark Steyn introduces Levant's work. Ezra Levant's Shakedown: A Preliminary Note

From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 10

Levant respects our famous civil rights lawyer Alan Borovoy, even though Borovoy unwittingly helped this corrupt "human rights" system gain a foothold in Canada. Levant especially notes,

Borovoy doesn't us the term human rights. He sticks with the phrase civil rights, and he knows exactly what it means - fundamental individual freedoms, equality before the law, and natural justice. The phrase human rights in Canada has cme to mean any desire, entitlement, or grievance dressed up as aright. And, usually, that right is claimed by representatives of politically correct groups, not individual human beings. (p. 99)

Well, good for Borovoy then. I have long felt that that is a key issue, long misunderstood.

Civil rights are the rights of citizens. If you choose to be a citizen or landed immigrant in Canada, you acquire certain rights - including the right to tell government officials what you really think of their policies. Now, if (I am sure that none of my gentle readers would ever be in this position) someone were to make a fool of himself, showering unjustified abuse on civil servants and elected officials - and offering no solutions - he just wouldn't be consulted thereafter. That's all. Traditionally, there would be no follow-up other than politely ignoring him.

By contrast, "human rights" are a grab bag of the ambitions of activist groups, and can be made to mean whatever the groups and their supporters in government want. It can mean persecuting a comedian for stuff he said in a late night comedy routine which everyone had to know was off colour. (If they didn't know, why were they even there? How did they even know about the club anyway?) It can mean hounding a restaurant owner for refusing to allow someone to smoke pot on the premises or a surgeon for declining to act in a case where he just didn't feel confident about operating.

In other words, anything but what civil rights are traditionally intended to mean.

Where this became particularly interesting was when many readers of Ezra Levant's blog were upset with him recently for supporting the exclusion of British MP George Galloway from Canada. These readers seemed to think that "freedom of speech" means that anyone can come to Canada and say anything they want at any time, in any place.

No.

No, no, no.

Freedom of speech is a civil right. It is a right of citizens of Canada. It is how we communicate freely with each other. (Until "human rights" interfered.)

We may sometimes find it necessary to refuse a foreigner access to Canada, if we have reason to believe that his presence here will do more harm than good. That is our right as a sovereign nation.

If the foreigner really wants to be a Canadian, he can apply for landed immigrant status, and then he will have civil rights here. Of course, that might not work out so well for a guy whose job is being a British MP ... well, into each life a little rain must fall, I supppose ...

See also: From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 9; Shakedown - 8; Shakedown 7; Shakedown - 6; Levant's Shakedown - 5; Shakedown - 4; Shakedown - 3; Shakedown - 2; Shakedown - 1; From Mark Steyn's "Introduction" to Ezra Levant's "Shakedown"; Mark Steyn introduces Levant's work. Ezra Levant's Shakedown: A Preliminary Note

From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 9

From Ezra Levant's Shakedown 9

... the reasons that the Supreme Court cited in giving HRCs ["human rights" commissions] the benefit of the constitutional doubt - that they weren't as punitive as criminal courts, and that they could be expected to confine their investigations to genuinely "evil" hatemongers - have been debunked by events. Section 13 has become the worst of both worlds: a tool to beat political dissidents with police raids, five-year-long trials, arbitrary procedure, and, it if comes to it, jail time - but with none of the protections that we see fit to grant even to murderers and extortionists. (P. 95)

That's interesting, because when I read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago years ago, one thing that struck me was his testimony that, in general, the Soviet regime punished political dissidents much more viciously than it punished street criminals.

That makes sense in a certain kind of regime. Street criminals, after all, threaten only the citizen. Political dissidents threaten the bureaucrat - a much more serious crime. Or - oh, wait, I thought Canada was a ... what kind of a country? A constitutional monarchy?

But then ... well then we have one huge mess to clean up, right?

See also: From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 8; Shakedown 7; Shakedown - 6; Levant's Shakedown - 5; Shakedown - 4; Shakedown - 3; Shakedown - 2; Shakedown - 1; From Mark Steyn's "Introduction" to Ezra Levant's "Shakedown"; Mark Steyn introduces Levant's work. Ezra Levant's Shakedown: A Preliminary Note

From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 8

From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 8

Although Alberta is often regarded as the freest Canadian province - it certainly thinks of itself that way, like a Texas of the north - it has been one of the most brutal in its enforcement of the thought crimes section of its human rights law,. (p. 83)

Hello? Hello? Do we have a connection here? Of course we do.

When a tough jurisdiction goes bad, it goes mega-bad. A candy-ass jurisdiction that goes bad will let half the targets go if they are clean and polite, and their handwriting is neat.

Now, by my advice, government should only prosecute real crime, not pretend crime, which is what the "human rights" commissions do.

When taking down drug lords and terrorists, we can afford a Texas of the north. It's actually quite useful (= if you don't like our jails, don't commit crimes here and you won't ever see the inside of one). But a tough jurisdiction is a way worse evil than a soft one when the crimes are only imaginary (cf "human rights" commissions).

See also: From Ezra Levant's Shakedown 7; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 6; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 5; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 4; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 3; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 2; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 1; From Mark Steyn's "Introduction" to Ezra Levant's "Shakedown"; Mark Steyn introduces Levant's work. Ezra Levant's Shakedown: A Preliminary Note

From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 7

Discussing the infamous Section 13 of the Canadian "Human Rights" Act:

The speculative nature of Section 13 reminds me of the blockbuster movie, Minority Report, in which Tom Cruise's character works as a cop in the department of "pre-crime." He doesn't arrest criminals. He arrests future criminals. Minority Report is a work of science fiction: the plot revolves around psychics who are able to predict when something bad is going to happen. Section 13 relies instead on human rights tribunals. But in both cases, the concept is the same.: It is more or less impossible to plead not guilty if you're charged with a pre-crime. You can't say "I didn't do it." No one said you did anything. They said you might - in the future. No losses need actually be suffered, so no harm need be proved. This is the main reason why, in the thirty-plus years Section 13 has been on the books, not a single Canadian tried under it has been acquitted. (P. 76)

Well, Canada, welcome to Future World, where everyone smiles and makes nice, and gets shaken down - or else!

See also: From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 6; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 5; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 4; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 3; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 2; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 1 ; From Mark Steyn's "Introduction" to Ezra Levant's "Shakedown"; Mark Steyn introduces Levant's work. See also: Ezra Levant's Shakedown: A Preliminary Note

From Ezra Levant's Shakedown 6

If you're mad about something in your life, no matter how trivial - no matter if it's your own fault - there really is no reason not to file a complaint with your unfriendly neighbourhood human rights commission. It doesn't cost you a thing to start a complaint. Not even the price of a postage stamp - you can just fax your complaint in. If you win, you can get tax-free cash, and often some sort of government order that will try to assuage your feelings - like an order to make those darned pizza boys change the CD at work and stop hiding your stool. And even if you lose and the HRC vindicates your opponent, there's the cruel satisfaction of knowing that you've punished your adversaries by putting them through years of legal hassles. (p. 70)

Yes, exactly. It is a system tailored to elevate grievances traditionally solved by common sense methods into cases that not only create work for commissioners but expand the number of situations commissioners can intrude into. Just what the world needs - a grievance industry!

My own view, for that it is worth, is this: Many modern Western governments are nearly bankrupt. So the key current business opportunity for many people is shaking down private citizens for the little they own. It is no surprise that "human rights" commissions have ramped up to do precisely that.

Indeed, Levant discovered that recently:

... thousands of Canadians have been "quiet victims" of human rights commissions. They're the 90% of HRC targets who make the choice to cut their losses and pay some shakedown money just to get out of the unfair system, but they're scarred by the experience forever. (I suppose even my own father falls into that category, though he refused to pay the danegeld.) Those folks are just glad to hear someone finally chose to fight back.

Good for old Dr. Levant then! Healthy change will come when people simply stop regarding or obeying these diktats from social engineers. Civil disobedience can sometimes be the most important duty of a citizen.

See also:

From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 5; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 4; From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 3;From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 2;From Ezra Levant's Shakedown - 1 ;From Mark Steyn's "Introduction" to Ezra Levant's "Shakedown";Mark Steyn introduces Levant's wor.k See also: Ezra Levant's Shakedown: A Preliminary Note

Shakedown: