Mr. Harper - One mans opinion

[Kip Powick]

Stephen Harper is reputed to be a clever and erudite man. As such, I’m sure he’ll enjoy the following little story.

In the 18th century, an Austrian physician named Franz Anton Mesmer believed that he could cure all sorts of ailments with hypnotic rituals and a simple wave of his hands. To the modern mind, this sounds more like a lounge act than legitimate therapy, but hundreds of patients testified to the wonderful healing properties of the good doctor’s ministrations.

Mesmer also had a theory to explain the efficacy of his treatments. Just as minerals and planets hold magnetic forces, Mesmer believed, so do all living things. In a healthy body, this magnetism flows freely. Illness is caused by blockages. Using the magnetism within his own body, Mesmer could force open those blockages and restore a healthy flow of what he dubbed “animal magnetism.” (Mesmer’s other contribution to modern vocabulary was “mesmerize,” which originally referred to Mesmer’s treatment but later became synonymous with the hypnotic quality of his séances.)

Mesmer’s theory did not contradict settled science. And he had all those testimonials from patients whose personal experiences and impressions left them absolutely certain the doctor had really helped them. Many people became convinced Mesmer was onto something.

Was he? Throughout most of human history, people would have accepted that he was. After all, those who came to him were ailing in some way. He treated them. They felt better. He even had a plausible explanation for the underlying process. What more proof did anyone need?

But this was the time of the Enlightenment. Science was on the rise and science wasn’t satisfied with Mesmer’s evidence. Science wanted to know more.

A panel of esteemed French scientists — along with Ben Franklin, the American ambassador to France — tested Mesmer’s theory with the help of a trained “mesmerist” and a group of patients said to be particularly receptive to the therapy.

In a first trial, the mesmerist was asked to direct animal magnetism to a particular body part. He waved his hands. Did you feel that? Why, yes, every patient answered. There was a surge of energy in the targeted body part.

Next, the patients were blindfolded. The mesmerist was again asked to direct magnetism to a chosen body part but the patients were not told which part was targeted.

Once again, every one of the patients said they felt a surge of energy. But where? In almost every case, the patients named the wrong body part.

In a third trial, the patients and the mesmerist were separated by a screen. All the patients were told they would be the focus of the mesmerist’s effort but, in fact, only a few were targeted. After the usual hand waving, the patients were asked if they had felt the magnetic force. Yes, they all replied.

Mesmerism was bunk. Mesmer’s patients genuinely believed that his treatment worked but they were wrong. They had personal experience. They had strong impressions. But they were wrong.

Mesmerism may be long forgotten but this story is as relevant as ever because it demonstrates that personal experience, impressions, feelings, hunches — subjective perceptions — can easily lead us to false conclusions.

If we want to discover the truth, experience and impressions aren’t enough. As scientists like to say, “anecdotes aren’t data.” Rational inquiry is essential. That’s the foundation of science. And science is the foundation of the modern world.

Which brings me back to our clever and erudite prime minister.

On Saturday, in a speech to the party faithful celebrating the second anniversary of the Conservative government, Stephen Harper declared that “Canadians feel less safe than they once did.” The available evidence suggests that isn’t true. Statistics Canada conducts regular surveys on feelings of safety and they show that in 2004 — the latest data available — 94 per cent of Canadians “said they were either somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with their personal safety, an increase from 91 per cent in 1999 and 86 per cent in 1993.”

But Mr. Harper made it clear in the same speech that he isn’t interested in what Statistics Canada has to say. In fact, he isn’t interested in data at all.

“Some try to pacify Canadians with statistics,” he scoffed. “Your personal experiences and impressions are wrong, they say; crime is really not a problem. These apologists remind me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz when the wizard says, ‘pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.’ But Canadians can see behind the curtain. They know there’s a problem.”

This is a truly amazing statement. Mr. Harper implicitly acknowledges that his claims about crime are not supported by data. But that doesn’t matter, he says. What matters is subjective perception. Rational inquiry isn’t the best way to discover the truth. Feeling is.

This is much bigger than the debate about crime policies. It is an epistemological claim of staggering primitiveness.

Ignore statistics. Forget rational inquiry and science. Damn the Enlightenment. Our feelings reveal what is true.

Coming from an 18th-century king, this would be an appalling defence of ignorance. From a 21st-century prime minister, it is much worse.

Incidentally, those wonderful men of the Enlightenment who put mesmerism to the test conducted a fourth trial. This one involved a 12-year-old boy who was said to be so sensitive to “animal magnetism” that he would routinely faint in the presence of a “mesmerized” tree.

The mesmerist was brought into the garden at Ben Franklin’s residence. There were five trees. The mesmerist selected one, waved his hands, and stepped back. The boy was then blind-folded, brought into the garden, and asked to identify the tree that had been mesmerized. After touching one of the trees, he passed out cold and had to be carried out. It was the wrong tree. History does not record the name of the boy. I like to think it was Stephen.

[Don Hudson]

Mesmer's principles at work:

"There will be no nuclear accident" - Stephen Harper, in response the questions in the House of Commons

"I don't want to get into 'he said, she said.' I don't think that's what Canadians want to hear about," Clement told reporters. "What they want to know is, is this reactor safe, and the answer is yes." - Health Minister Tony Clement, (in white lab costume, er coat, below - the very essence of knowledgeable authority whereas the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) of course, is not).

From the article above:

"These apologists remind me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz when the wizard says, ‘pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.’ But Canadians can see behind the curtain."

[GDR]

On Saturday, in a speech to the party faithful celebrating the second anniversary of the Conservative government, Stephen Harper declared that “Canadians feel less safe than they once did.” The available evidence suggests that isn’t true. Statistics Canada conducts regular surveys on feelings of safety and they show that in 2004 — the latest data available — 94 per cent of Canadians “said they were either somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with their personal safety, an increase from 91 per cent in 1999 and 86 per cent in 1993.”

OK. In the first place I think we all know that statistics like that are very much open to scrutiny. Who did they ask, how were the questions framed etc.

When I was 6 years old I could leave the house and be gone until the next meal time and there was no need for concern. I was taught as a child if I had a problem to go and ask an adult for help.

In a more modern context, since 9/11 I have never turned on the TV in the morning to watch the news without wondering whether this will be another day like that one.

In 1996 and 1993 I didn't even know the word pandemic. It is now a major concern for medical people all over the world.

The writer of this piece can put his absolute faith in Statistics Canada if he wants but I for one am a lot more skeptical.

[Specs]

Statistics can be easily manipulated.

The police constantly tell us crime is down. They swear it and use it* to justify their pay raises. What's never adequately explained though is why their equipment is being continuously being beefed up and more is being provided.

John Q Public in a big city would just tell you the lesser stuff it isn't reported by citizens any more. That would include minor assaults, theft and break ins.

(*Alternatively, sometimes they say it's tougher out there so they deserve more)

[IFG]

OK. In the first place I think we all know that statistics like that are very much open to scrutiny. Who did they ask, how were the questions framed etc .... When I was 6 years old I could leave the house and be gone until the next meal time and there was no need for concern. I was taught as a child if I had a problem to go and ask an adult for help .... The writer of this piece can put his absolute faith in Statistics Canada if he wants but I for one am a lot more skeptical.

Statistics can be easily manipulated ....

Hi, GDR & Specs - Indeed, dishonestly applied statistics can mislead. A wise man somewhere said that no lie deceives like a half-truth. But the article does not prescribe blind faith in any one statistic, it says "Rational inquiry is essential." So of course, any stats, including StatsCan's are "open to scrutiny." Harper doesn't scrutinize any stats, which I think you can find supported in many other studies and polls BTW, he simply discredits them with just as much basis and validity as that which Mesmer's acolytes applied, and apparently with similar effectiveness in persuading his own followers .

Re: ".... I was taught as a child if I had a problem to go and ask an adult for help ...." - That may still be good advice today. Teaching kids to be paranoid about adults (the vast, vast majority of whom are honourable, compassionate and concerned for any child's welfare), is not necessarily a great thing to do, and has probably prolonged many an ordeal for a lost or missing child.

Cheers, IFG

[Fido]

..John Q Public in a big city would just tell you the lesser stuff it isn't reported by citizens any more. ...

My name is not John, but I will not go out of my way again after what happened last summer.

I saw a young couple, nicely dressed and reasonably groomed walking down my street and I expected a knock at the door any moment asking to buy something.

Instead I heard my car door slam.

From my front door I watched the young lady go to every car down the street while the boy friend kept guard from the sidewalk.

I telephoned the police and told them that I was watching the scene right now as I was speaking to them.

The cop car showed up an hour and a half later.

[GDR]

he simply discredits them with just as much basis and validity as that which Mesmer's acolytes applied, and apparently with similar effectiveness in persuading his own followers .

I may belong to the Conservative party but my mind is still my own, at least until my wife tells me otherwise.

[IFG]

.... but my mind is still my own, at least until .... 

So's mine ... when I can find it