Obama's press conference: more lies

At his press conference at the weekend President Obama promised "appropriate reforms" to the domestic surveillance carried out by the NSA.  He also used the term "safeguards against abuse" but it is crystal clear that he does not intend any dismantling of the apparatus that has come under such criticism since Edward Snowden's revelations.  In fact Obama's track record on truthfulness is so patchy (along with almost all administration apologists) that we cannot have any trust in even the weak promises that he made.  The sad fact is that Obama is a liar, just one of many in the US government.

His hypocrisy is mind-blowing.  The extraordinary claim that his administration would eventually have gotten round to reining in the NSA is pathetic in the light of the over 10 year abuses that have gone unchecked until the public was eventually enlightened.  And let us never forget that this enlightenment came from a man who is being pursued by the authorities as a criminal.

Mr Obama: you should be ashamed of yourself.  Not only for such dissembling but also for thinking that you retain any credibility at all.

Is there life on other planets?

The title of this post is surely one of the biggest questions for which we have no answer.  Of course it is one of those questions - like "Does God exist" - for which we shall never know the answer if it is "No" but could only know the answer if it is "Yes".  Put another way, the hypothesis that there is no extra-terrestrial life can be falsified but its opposite can't.  Or to paraphrase yet again: the null hypothesis is that there is no extra-terrestrial life.  I labour this point because often in science one's position is to accept the null hypothesis until we know otherwise (are there fairies at the bottom of your garden) and yet the scientific and popular literature is full of assertions about the overwhelming likelihood that life elsewhere exists.

The basis of these assertions is almost always the famous Drake equation which is an estimate for the total number N of intelligent civilisations in our galaxy based on multiplying together several unknown quantities.  In 1961, when Frank Drake invented his formula, we had virtually no idea about planets beyond our solar system.  But over 50 years later we now know that they are very numerous and we therefore have a much better idea about some of the factors in the formula.  This knowledge has made some people very hopeful that not only is N>1 but that N might be very large.  To put it crudely the argument goes: "Since there are literally billions of planets it is exceedingly likely that some of them will contain life".

I don't accept this argument.  The Drake equation contains another factor that measures the probability of life beginning (and I mean beginning, not evolving) on a planet with the conditions to sustain life.  We know nothing about this probability.  It may be so small that, even though the number of planets is vast, our own existence may be just a one-off fluke.  I am not saying that no extra-terrestrial life exists; I am saying that we do not know enough to put an estimate on how many instances of it there are, and in particular we cannot say whether this number is likely to be greater than 1.

Why then is there such a lot of firmly-held opinion on the question?  I think the belief in alien life is partly the result of wishful thinking.  It's a cool idea that there may be beings elsewhere in the galaxy, one that has inspired very many science fiction stories.  Wouldn't it be sad to consign all that imaginative writing to the fantasy bucket?  At the end of this post I'll advance another possible explanation for this "belief without evidence".

By the way, we have a much better understanding of how life can evolve once cellular life forms exist so the "trick" might be to explain how readily chemistry can give rise to very complex molecules.  However, that is not the only hurdle we have to vault: some scientists believe that other rare factors enabled the development of life on Earth (such as the shielding effect of Jupiter's gravitational field as an asteroid deflector).

But, before that, let me just touch on some of the scientific estimates for how much extra-terrestrial life there is out there.  First we have Andrew Watson (reported here) who, in 2008,  devised a model that suggested that the probability of (intelligent) life evolving anywhere else is less than 0.01%.  Watson's model took into account the steps from the formation of single-celled bacteria through to intelligent life with an established language.  I haven't managed to access his original paper but I think it must be problematic to estimate the chance of replicating molecules arising.

Next we have Edwin Turner and David Spiegel writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2012 (and reported here).  They too are pessimistic that life exists elsewhere and they specifically addressed the objection "But it exists on Earth, so why not elsewhere" using a Bayesian analysis.

In the other corner we have an opinion poll: 85% of those who answered a recent Debate.org poll voted for extra-terrestrial intelligent life.  Most of the believers do not advance serious arguments.  Some scientists, like Stephen Hawkins, merely make the claim that alien life is extremely likely (see here).  Or Harvard physicist and SETI leader Paul Horowitz.  He stated in a 1996 interview with TIME Magazine, "Intelligent life in the universe? Guaranteed. Intelligent life in our galaxy? So overwhelmingly likely that I'd give you almost any odds you'd like."  These types of statement are extremely common.  They stem from a knowledge of how many planets there seem to be but ignore the difficulty of life getting started.

I would like to advance another reason why some scientists and many non-scientists are prone to advance the unsubstantiated opinion that alien life is common.  We live in a culture that is very different from those in times past in the respect that today we see ourselves as occupants of the universe rather than occupants of Planet Earth.  Even 200 years ago most people's metaphysical concerns were with their destination after death: heaven or hell; and these domains figured in their thinking as the only domains other than earth itself (and, from a practical point of view, this was true even of those who pointed their telescopes skywards).  As knowledge of astronomy percolated into the realm of general knowledge and (for many people) the simplistic beliefs in heaven and hell retreated our view of our place in the cosmos was transformed.  We now know to think of ourselves not as the centre of the universe but as a microscopic agglomeration of carbon molecules in one arm of one galaxy among billions.  This has produced a feeling of loneliness that the tales of science fiction, both in literature and in films such as Star Trek, can tap into.  In my opinion, the void that religious world views used to occupy has been filled by another fantasy in which we are not alone; and this is the reason why we are prone to believe that there is indeed life beyond our own planet.

A final thought.  Suppose it is the case that we are alone in the universe.  What does that say for the tussle between theists and atheists?  I think it's fairly balanced.  The theist's world view is strengthened because humankind really would be as special as their churches tell them.  But, for the atheist there is an interesting counterpoint.  Your fine-tuning argument argument looks to be in fragments now, does it not?

Demonising Edward Snowden

Make no mistake: the US administration is very badly rattled by the revelations that they spy, at a massive scale, on all its citizens and many non-US citizens.  One common response I see repeatedly in the blog/news sphere is the comment "We already knew this was happening; Snowden has done little to advance our knowledge".  No.  We might reasonably have suspected it.  We might even have had evidence of some aspects of it.  But it is a far cry from that to the now absolute certainty that it is happening and on such a vast scale.  What Snowden did was heroic, informative, and very dangerous for him.

Another common response from the administration apologists is to declare that innocent people have nothing to hide.  Many people have said, but it is worth repeating, that this is unbelievably naive.  We have all got something to hide.  We all need privacy.  I do not want my government to use my private secrets against me if ever I do need to defend myself against an accusation.  I do not want to use my toilet in a glass-walled room.  I do not want the opinions I had thirty years ago to be used against me.  Isn't that absolutely obvious?  And isn't it absolutely obvious that I have a right to that protection?

I would love the consequence of the NSA's activities coming to light to be a rueful admission by the US administration that they have gone way too far in ignoring the rights of their people.  Obviously that would in turn also be unbelievably naive.  So what do I expect to actually happen?

Well,  I don't think they will try to seize Snowden and "render" him back to the US.  I believe they will be much more subtle and wage a campaign in the media to gradually discredit him.  Already we see that officialdom's main response is to ignore the actual content of the leaks and concentrate on his breaking of US law.  That is going to continue to be the issue that they hammer home.  Unfortunately they have a huge advantage in a war of opinion.  They have thousands of opinion-moulders and free access to every major news outlet.  Snowden and his supporters cannot match that propaganda machine.

To begin with, many US journalists who might well have known or suspected what was going on and turned an expedient (or cowardly) blind eye have clearly felt some irritation at missing out on the scoop of the decade.  Where in the US Press do we see the staunch defenders of their constitution?  Where is the outrage at what has been done to their society?  Instead we see nuanced discussions about how or whether Snowden has broken the law.  Where is the recognition that it is clearly impossible for Snowden to get a fair hearing from the US authorities?

Furthermore the US administration can channel opinion pieces in droves to the media.  Overwhelmingly we shall therefore see articles attacking Snowden personally and down-playing the surveillance issues.  Oh - you didn't think that some US officials might not tow the administration line, did you?  Why should they when they haven't done hitherto?

Only time will tell whether the administration can successfully distract the public attention from the real issue.  If that sounds pessimistic let me close with one optimistic comment.  I have read many article in the US Press about Snowden and, although most of them ignore or downplay the enormity of the NSA's trampling over civil rights, the comments of readers are much more supportive.  What I hope will happen is that this evidently large supportive constituency of folk, who understand that the true issue is civil liberties not breach of employment contract, will eventually have an effect on those powerful vested interests who wish to sweep the real issue under the carpet.

A limerick for the NSA

Their actions are dirty and base
But now they've been put in their place
They cannot have known
When the whistle was blown
How much egg they would find on their face

American lies

The US is claiming that the Syrian government has used poison gas against their rebel opponents, and they are using this as a reason to engage in the conflict on the rebel side.  Should we believe or discount their claim?  I have no idea but the fact that the claim was made adds nothing to whether I think it might be true.  The problem is that, in providing excuses for war, the US has absolutely no credibility.  I think about the Iraq war and the lies they told then about weapons of mass destruction.

The FBI is claiming that Edward Snowden's revelations have jeopardized American lives.  Should we believe or discount this claim?  Again, I have no idea.  Again the claim adds nothing to whether I think it might be true.  This time I think about the Bradley Manning leaks about the conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the claims that they jeopardized American lives have not been confirmed (and you would certainly expect the State Department to be trumpeting them abroad if there was confirmation).

The problem about lies is that they destroy credibility.  In the case of individual liars we don't have to be all that worldly-wise to withhold our judgement or immediately discount their statements.  Which of us, when Bill Clinton proclaimed "I did not have sex with that woman", immediately accepted the statement?  Or which of us, when former US Senator Todd Akin made the claim that victims of  "legitimate rape" cannot become pregnant immediately accepted the statement?  We are free to accept or reject the personal statements of individual politicians usually without any significant harm done.  If Clinton or Akin tried to sell me a second-hand car I wouldn't buy it, nor do I given any credence to any other personal protestations they might make.

But when a state lies, especially one as powerful as the US, we all have a problem.  Of course, states have always lied but nowadays the stakes are higher.  

To begin with, if we live in a democracy, we are part of a social contract.  We pay our taxes and we observe the laws of our country.  In return we are entitled to be honestly governed by the people we have chosen in a plebiscite where we have weighed the pros and cons of competing candidates.  If governments violate their side of this bargain they endanger this social contract.  If they betray our trust they lose our cooperation and our goodwill.  This is a downside for a government who, presumably, wish to be re-elected.  The problem is that damage is being done to the political fabric in the longer term.  When politicians see that the only downside is to be kicked out in favour of the next lot they may, when their personal economic advantage is at stake, simply accept this downside.  Worse still is that the lying precedent that has been set can all the more easily followed by the next lot.  In this way, the social contract continues to be degraded.

In my opinion much has gone wrong with American governance over the last generation and especially since the 9/11 attacks.  The implosion of the former USSR removed a check on the behaviour of the US - and their greater power led to greater corruption.  Then, in the wake of 9/11, when (understandably) many Americans looked for very strong leadership, that leadership abused its power in the most shocking ways.  Internationally, they went to war for the flimsiest of reasons.  Domestically, they instigated a regime of surveillance and harassment against their internal enemies in which many innocent citizens became victims.  All of this is possible only because liars are not held to account.  They can lie with impunity and now a climate of scepticism shrouds all governmental announcements.  Unfortunately this is bound to lead to a rise in those who believe in conspiracy theories.  How ironic that the lies over the Benghazi attack might encourage people to believe that the US government brought down the Twin Towers.

So what should we as individuals do?  Obviously, it is a rare person who can make a great difference.  But we shouldn't just leave it to others and we mustn't be cowed.  At every opportunity we must denounce the lies - and not care that this will lead to much repetition.  Remember: governments should fear the people, not people fear the government.

Don't be afraid to say: Clinton was a liar over Monica Lewinsky, Bush was a liar over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction,  Obama lied when he said that Mitt Romney planned to raise taxes by $2000 on middle-income tax-payers.

I am not saying disbelieve anything the government says.  No, let's not encourage conspiracy-mongering.  But I am saying don't believe anything until you have some corroborative evidence.  Politicians need to win back their credibility - it's in all our interests.

A surprise in the world of prime numbers

The world of mathematics is buzzing with the news of a breakthrough in the theory of prime numbers by a virtually unknown mathematician named Yitang Zhang.  Prime numbers are numbers like 3, 5, 23, 97 which cannot be expressed as a product of two smaller numbers.  Prime numbers have been studied since the time of the Ancient Greeks and about 23 centuries ago the famous geometer Euclid discovered that there are an infinite number of them.  Since that time the study of prime numbers has produced some of the deepest results in the whole of mathematics yet these results are often very easy to understand (but the reasons the results are true are another matter).  

It is easy to see that 2 and 3 are the only consecutive prime numbers (because if you have two consecutive numbers one of them must be even but 2 is the only even prime number).  What about prime numbers differing by 2?  Here there are more: (3, 5), (5, 7), (11, 13) for example and there are many other so-called twin primes.  But are there are an infinite supply of twin primes?  Despite hundreds of years of research we don't know the answer to this innocuous question.

What about pairs of prime numbers that differ by 4 (like (3,7) or (19, 23))?  We don't know if there are infinitely many such pairs either.  And if you replace 4 by any other even number at all we still don't know.  For example, we don't know whether there are infinitely many prime pairs that differ by 30 say (like 31 and 61).

Enter Yitang Zhang.  In his 50's he is definitely beyond the age where most mathematicians make their mark and until now he has been practically unknown.  After he got his PhD in 1992 he had found it difficult to get an academic job, working for several years as an accountant and even in a Subway sandwich shop.  But he never gave up doing mathematics and eventually was appointed at the University of New Hampshire.  There he pursued an unremarkable research career with no publication since 2001 but he was loved by his students apparently because he set easy exams.  Now he has burst onto the world's mathematical stage with a result that has surprised all the experts.  He has proved that there is some number k that "works" for prime pairs.  We don't know that k=2 or k=4; all we know is that k is less than 70 million.  And for this k, whatever it is, Zhang has proved that there are infinitely many pairs of prime numbers that differ by k.

The reason that this has excited mathematicians is that no result like this has ever been proved before and it gives some hope that the original prime twin problem might eventually be solved.  It is also a surprise result in that it hardly ever happens that a giant step like this is taken by such an obscure mathematician.  When it has happened before (such as for the Indian genius Ramanajuan) the newcomer is usually much younger since mathematics at its most creative is usually a young person's metier.

Zhang's theorem probably won't have much practical use.  If you like problems about ages and birthdays here's a consequence that might be appealing.  Somewhere, sometime, there were two mammals of different ages and there will be an infinite number of years when both their ages are prime numbers.  Might there be two human beings with this property?  We don't know because humans haven't been around for 70 million years whereas mammals have.

Freedom of information: a window?

You may not agree that the glory days of newspaper journalism are long gone.  Perhaps you think that the Washington Post's Watergate investigation which led to the eventual resignation of US President Nixon was less than stellar reporting.  Maybe you think that the meek way almost the entire mainstream media accepted the US and UK lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to go to war was an isolated collective error of judgement.  If so, you and I have quite different opinions on the way that newspaper reporting has changed over the years.

But perhaps we agree on something else: that the Wikileaks revelations told us things about how the US conducted its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how its emissaries around the world conducted business with foreign powers gave us an unprecedented grandstand view of events that most of us never hear about.  Perhaps you think, along with Senator Joe Lieberman, that the leaks were "outrageous, reckless and despicable" but I hope you would fall short of Sarah Palin's call to pursue Julian Assange with the same urgency that Al-Qaida leaders were pursued, or Congressman Mike Rogers' threat to have foreign national Assange executed for treason against the US.  Nevertheless the scale of what we learnt via Bradley Manning and Julian Assange cannot be denied.

The point of this post is not to persuade you to my view (that Manning and Assange are among the great heros of our time).  It is more to alert you to the fact that, if you care about knowing what is going on in the world, you have just lived through a short period where we the people had information about how great powers operate of a magnitude that we might not see again for a very long time.

The intense efforts that the US and UK governments went to in order to suppress events in the Afghan and Iraqi wars, and the publication of US diplomatic cables tell us how much they were embarrassed by the Wikileaks collaboration with the Guardian and other newspapers.  I have no doubt that they have ramped up their security to prevent a repeat.  In any case the US retaliation against Manning has been so severe that other potential leakers of his persuasion might well think again (certainly Julian Assange himself is in no hurry to be extradited to Sweden in case he is handed over to US authorities).  Furthermore the US authorities are now pursuing the Associated Press organisation by subpoena-ing phone records that might bear on the CIA successfully thwarting a plot by al-Qaeda in Yemen to blow up a U.S. jetliner (this is not the first such aggressive subpoena act).

So don't expect anything as informative as the Wikileak bonanza to strike again for a very long time.
Therefore my take home message is this.  Have a good luck at what we already have.  You can go to the Wikileaks web site itself.  However you might find this is more than you can handle!  It is vast.  Instead you might try the Guardian site which is very well-organised and will tell you also a lot about the politics associated with the reaction of the US and the UK.