Monday 6 August 2018

It's how we frame the issue of euthanasia


As usual, and as expected, my letter to The Straits Times Forum page was not published. Fortunately, Blogger exists, so here it is.

I refer to the letter “Consider legalising euthanasia” by Seah Yam Meng (The Straits Times, 1 Aug), and wish to contribute just one point to the discussion.

Some objectors will base their objection on the claim that putting someone to death is murder – the worst and most immoral thing one person can do to another. I wish to question this claim.

There is a fate worse than death. It goes by the name “torture”.

Imagine a patient suffering a painful terminal illness, while undergoing costly and hopeless medical procedures, and who knows he is burdening his family with financial and emotional distress, while being personally unable to contribute anything meaningful or useful to anyone or anything. He cannot see any justification for his continued existence.

When we deny this patient the facility to be put to sleep (let’s use the humane phrase here, the one we use when we do the same thing for suffering animals), we can reasonably be described as forcing this patient to suffer torture – until he dies of bodily damage or exhaustion. And then we heave a sigh of relief – glad that he is now “at rest”.

I believe that when the issue as framed as “put to sleep” versus “torture”, we will react differently to the suggestion of legalising euthanasia.

END

Thursday 2 August 2018

Misunderstanding the Michelin Guide

The latest Michelin Guide for Singapore has added five new one-star restaurants to the list. Columnist Wong Ah Yoke ("Questions remain over selection process", The Straits Times, 27 July 2018), and other critics, have bemoaned the exclusion of other deserving restaurants.

This complaint arises from the interpretation of "not in the list" to mean "not worthy to be in the list".

This inference is illogical -- because there is no suggestion that all restaurants in Singapore were visited, and only five were found to deserve a Michelin listing. All that a listing in the Michelin Guide means is: Michelin visited these restaurants, and found that they deserve to be listed. It says nothing about any other restaurant in Singapore.

This illogical leap (fallacy) has a name: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (Appeal to ignorance). Its argument form goes this way: "If there is no proof that X is true, then X is false". In this context, "Since there is no proof that Restaurant A is worthy to be listed in the Michelin Guide, then Restaurant A is not worthy to be listed in the Michelin Guide."

This fallacy has a mirror version: "If there is no proof that Y is false, then Y is true".

All we need to do when we encounter a logical fallacy is to expose the argument as a fallacy. We do not need to mount any kind of rebuttal, counterargument or alternative argument to the claim.

END

Tuesday 24 July 2018

Discussing how to determine the optimal subsidy for public transport


The commentary piece “Determining the optimal subsidy for public transport” (The Straits Times, 20 July 2018) is a useful exercise for critical thinking.

First, a logical principle: “To determine optimal subsidies for a transport system, we need to identify the justifications for subsidising the system.” This statement is in line with the key principle in critical thinking: that every position must be supported by a good argument.

A “commonly invoked argument” is described: “Public transport subsidies benefit the poor since the poor are more likely than the rich to use public transport.” But transport is a “small portion” of the poor’s household expenditure. Hence, this argument is rejected.

The “main argument” for public transport subsidies is an “economy of scale” argument. Subsidies increases ridership, which reduces the average cost of providing public transport services (total operation cost divided by more users). More ridership also means more frequent services, which reduces commuters’ waiting time, which encourages more commuters, and so on. This is known as the Mohring Effect. Economists Ian Parry and Kenneth Small say this argument is used to justify subsidies in London, Washington and Los Angeles – especially during off-peak times.

Public transport subsidies encourage people to switch from cars to public transport. This reduces road congestion, pollution and accident costs. Professor Stef Proost and Dr Kurt Van Dender find this “congestion externality” consideration to be “quantitatively more important” than the “economy of scale” factors in justifying subsidies in Brussels and London.

On congestion costs: Singapore imposes a congestion tax via the Electronic Road Pricing system. Associate Professor Leonardo Basso and Assistant Professor Hugo Silva find that this lessens the congestion reduction benefit of public transport subsidy. The writer here adds: “Nevertheless, the benefit of subsidies on reduced congestion on Singapore’s roads is likely to be a non-negligible amount”. [No argument is presented to support the subsidiary claim of “non-negligible amount”.]

On pollution costs: Economists found that “the opening of a new subway network decreases particulate concentrations by about five percent in the 10km disk around the city centre”.

So subsidies provide the following benefits: lower average cost to service provider, lower waiting time for service, less road congestion, less pollution, less accident costs.

We are next introduced to some “arguments against public transport subsidies”.

Public transport subsidies increase ridership – which increases crowding, and hence increases discomfort and extends boarding and alighting times. These are the main costs of subsidies: discomfort, longer boarding and alighting times. Since boarding and alighting times are independent of distance travelled, subsidies should be a function of distance travelled less a fixed amount for boarding and alighting delays. This should result in “commuters traveling short distances with a smaller fraction of their fares subsidised”. This is a subsidiary point – relating to the quantum of individual subsidy, not the fact of general subsidy.

Money spent on public transport subsidies means money not spent on “other purposes, such as education, healthcare, or welfare.” This is the “opportunity cost” of public transport subsidies. Professor Proost and Dr Van Dender find that for Brussels, this opportunity cost “wipes out” the economy of scale benefits.

“Combined, these reasons determine the optimal subsidy for public transport operations.”

This is the key sentence. It tells us that the considerations relevant to public transport subsidy are: average cost to service provider, waiting time for service, road congestion, pollution, accident costs, passenger discomfort, boarding and alighting times, money available for other purposes. It is interesting that the actual money value of subsidy is not mentioned.

This list of considerations suggest that the justification argument is utilitarian in nature. However, this is not explicitly stated, so we must not presume so.

Dr Parry and Professor Small find optimal subsidies “to be very large” (mostly over 90 percent of operation costs) in Washington, London and Lost Angeles. Prof Proost and Dr Van Dender “find the optimal subsidy for Brussels during peak periods should be close to zero.” Prof Basso and Prof Silva find “optimal subsidies in Santiago to be about 55 percent of operation costs”.

The Brussels finding is clearly a recommendation, since it says “should be”. The statements regarding the other cities use the phrase “to be”, which precedes a fact (meaning that recommendations were implemented). The question that interests us is: How were these optimal subsidies determined?

The differences “stem from the various cities’ characteristics, including congestion levels, commuters’ preferences for different transport modes, and commuter valuation of travel time”. This is just a summary (as we have also done above) of the relevant considerations.

The essay concludes: “There is no hard and fast rule for optimal subsidies that Singapore can easily adopt. Instead, the Government will have to determine optimal levels by assessing the merits of each consideration in the Singapore context.”

Here is the remaining problem: The “considerations” may be as listed above, but we have not been told how to use them to determine the optimal (value of the) subsidy. So, referring to the opening logical principle: the “justifications for subsidising the system” have not been fully identified. Worse, what does the unequivocal declaration that “there is no hard and fast rule for optimal subsidies” portend for any further discussion of this matter?

END

Monday 16 July 2018

How not to identify fake news

A recent news report ("Brazilian kids being schooled to fight fake news", The Straits Times, 14 July 2018) said schoolchildren in Brazil are being taught how to identify fake news.

Teacher Ms Lucilene Varandas said students are taught to "look at the articles, who wrote them, who could be interested in them and where they're published, which are all ways of questioning the information."

In logic, we recognise a fallacy called Argumentum ad Hominem, which says that a person's character or circumstance is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of what that person says or writes.

A learned professor can possibly get something wrong (perhaps by accident); a fool can possibly get something right (perhaps by sheer good fortune); a campaigner for some cause can possibly conceal or invent some data just to forward his or her cause.

The stated methods of identifying fake news are entirely fallacious, meaning they are errors in reasoning. It is a pity that these are the methods that are being taught to those schoolkids.

END

Wednesday 14 February 2018

Let's think about fake news

What is news?

News is an account of what has happened (eg. Christchurch has been struck by an earthquake), been done (eg. The result of a British referendum was "leave the European Union), or been said (eg. Trump said he will build a southern wall as president).

In contrast, analysis and commentary is not news. These are opinions held by various persons. More generally, these are speculations -- because only the principal actors (such as politicians) know the true motives behind their actions and words. (By the way, only persons can hold opinions; organisations cannot.)

What is fake? Fake is the opposite of true.

So: True news is an account of what has in fact happened, been done, or been said. And fake news is an account of what has not in fact happened, been done, or been said.

But this is not enough. It is also important to avoid selective truth and embellished truth. Selective truth is when one reports something true, but omits other relevant truths. Embellished truth is when one reports something true, and adds some falsehoods. True news is captured by the old court requirement of the witness: To tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

In this regard, there are two mainstream organisations that we need to watch out for: Advertisers and Public Relation agents. These people exist precisely to disseminate information just to serve the client's or organisation's agenda -- and the information may (but not always) be either selected or embellished. When these happen, we have fake news.

Fortunately, advertisements and public relation missives are usually flagged as such to their audience. This alerts the audience to be more discerning of the information provided.

The danger of fake news arises when no flag is provided. The audience is not warned.

Asking a third party to curate the alleged news is not a solution. It merely pushes the question back one step: Can the third party to be trusted to disseminate only true news? How can one be sure of this? Reputation is no real help -- because reputation is earned only by performance, which makes the matter rather circular.

The solution lies in teaching the audience to be more discerning and critical. Access news from different sources to seek consistency -- it is difficult for several sources to tell the same falsehoods, or make the same selections or embellishments. Ask if the given information conflicts with common sense (eg. causes occur before effects) and generally known facts (eg. the earth orbits the sun).

These strategies should take us a long way towards protecting ourselves from fake news.