Unused and Probably Unusable

Over at Clever WoT (Waste Of Time, not a pun on "Clever, what?") the occasionally-brilliant, oft-entertaining Kurt posts helpful answers to the questions implied by the searches that propelled folks to his blog.

Since it appears to be fashionable amongst the more illiterate segments of Brit society to spell "what" as "wot," in keeping with their alien pronunciation, Kurt gets a fair number of search hits from people with questions like "wot does tigers eat". If these folks represented the Future, there'd be trouble. Fortunately, I don't think they represent the future.

I note that the linked post has been admired by the Fark community - linklove is always a nice thing, if you can stand the traffic.

Kurt previously discussed "spelling-deficient English kids" at Wot Happened to Spelling?, which provides additional examples of disturbing mangling of the Anguished Linguage.

I don't usually just post links to another blawg...but...

A simple Coasian test for some kinds of economic bollocks, over at Crooked Timber, is worth reading.

Daniel goes through a fascinating (to me) exploration of the assumptions in a Steven Landsburg "economics" article on Slate, in which Steven uses economics-esque reasoning and some plausible-sounding arguments to come to a conclusion which is what he calls "counterintuitive" and which everyone else calls things like "wrong" and "morally stupid" and "idiotic" and "obviously calling for some serious mockery."

Steven's article, which I decline to link to directly, examined what people would pay in advance to avoid the risk of being taken off a ventilator because they couldn't afford to pay, and concluded that the poor would not want to pay, and that therefore they should be taken off ventilators if they could not pay - it's moral!

Daniel's thoughtful analysis includes working Steven's numbers a little more carefully, and pointing out some hidden assumptions. Assumptions which, if false, mean there's no economic analysis that can be performed. Which is to say, unless certain felicity conditions are met, you aren't doing economics at all, you're using economic tools or reasoning or rhetoric on an area where the values are undefined. That is, you're blowing smoke.

Another case where, I would argue, plausible should not be confused with "correct."

This has been another in a continuing series of "Plausible, But Wrong" posts. Er, the subject is plausible. Not the post. The posts are implausible. Right. Onward and ever upward.

Proving once again that Blogs, and in particular Blawgs, are better at sounding plausible than getting things dead right, we have the latest non-scandal.

Like many non-events, including most of the Patriot Act, the Frist stock-trading non-scandal, and innumerable other Big Bad Things That Didn't Happen, at least not the way that they were at first portrayed, the blawgs were quick to disseminate the big news:

They're criminalizing anonablawging!

Well, sort of.

Criminalizing trolls!

Not exactly.

As Kip, Esquire brilliantly stitches (that is, rapidly notes without much need for depth, because he's accurate) on the new bits of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA),

New VAWA 'Annoying' Clause is Indeed Annoying -- But Not to Blogs

It's about _transmissions_, not blog posts. It does specify anonymity, and it says "annoy." But it also specifies "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent." It also isn't new that it is criminal to send an anonymous harassing phone call containing non-protected speech. What's new is that if you send the phone call via the Internet it's now illegal. That's it. That's all.

So when Mike says at Congress Passes, and the President Signs, Laughably Unconstitutional Law, it's plausible. Not in fact, but on its face. He's following on Sean Sirrine, who may have gotten his information from someone more reliable than Declan McCullagh, but it's not the point. Dozens of blawg posts are surely going live with the same idea: annoying blog posts are being criminalized! This can't be constitutional!

It takes someone like Kip to actually, say, examine the content of the law - be it ever so briefly - and pass on, not hysteria, but thoughtful commentary based on the _actual law_. I expect to see many, many more excellent blawg posts on a law that doesn't exist in the next week or two. How the law (that doesn't exist) would be unconstitutional. Why the law (as it wasn't passed) should not be passed. Why Congress and/or the President are foolishing for passing the law they didn't pass. Etc.

As this post title suggests, I'm getting tired of blawging that's more plausible than correct. The first is easy; just apply mostly-rigorous reasoning to rumor and speculation. The second is harder, requiring either careful research and reading, or exceptionally rigorous reasoning applied to rumor and speculation. In any case, GIGO. Your conclusions are only as good as your inputs, multiplied by the size of the grain of salt you assume in calculating the likelihood that your inputs are in fact false.