Month: October 2014

Continuing through Rebecca Goldstein’s Plato at the Googleplex and finding it sooooo good. In fact I’m loving it.

Despite two previous mentions [here][and here], I failed to mention that Larry Krauss is set up as the archetypal scientistic philosophy-(and theology)-jeerer. So, so true, and given the order of events last week – the culmination (so far) of my own long-running run-in with Krauss’ disingenuity. – restrained of me not to have mentioned it yet.  The “tumbleweed response” so far. The ignorance, The dishonesty. The horror.

Still not quite finished Googleplex, but after waxing lyrical about the three chapters majoring on love, I was quite simply blown away by the next chapter Socrates Must Die, hence the need to blog again before I’m finished. A mini textbook within the overall plot providing a wonderful readable summary of Plato’s world in historical context, the philosophy project he started in tribute to his first love, Socrates. No matter how much Plato you’ve read and interpreted yourself, I’d suggest Goldstein’s loving interpretation will be hard to beat. (And so many more Greek sources I’m going to have to find the time to read in a new light.)

For now a long quote from that chapter, to speak for itself:

The Euthyphro, which is one of Plato’s earlier dialogues and deals with the relationship between theism and morality – an issue still fraught for us today – [… takes place the same day while Socrates is … awaiting his turn to appear at the preliminary hearing on the charges against him … and it is Meletus who has brought the anti-Athens indictment against Socrates.]

Unwilling to squander any opportunity for meaningful discussion, he falls into conversation with a diviner-priest named Euthyphro, a priceless character whose sacerdotal vanity cannot be pierced. A self-declared expert on all things holy. Euthyphro has come […] to indict his own father on a charge of homicide for having accidentally killed a hireling, who had himself killed another worker in a fit of anger. Socrates is amazed to hear that Euthyphro is so secure in his moral certitude as to charge his own father. (The ancient Athenian codes of family loyalty make Euthyphro’s actions seem all the more questionable.) Euthyphro responds with the tell-tale conviction of the self-righteous.

Socrates immediately launches in, having his fun, declaring that Euthyphro alone can save him [Socrates] in this his moment of need, by instructing him on the nature of piety and holiness so that he can present himself as chastened to Meletus – though “Meletus, I perceive, along presumably everybody else, appears to overlook you.” With an interlocutor as deaf to sarcasm as to philosophical subtlety, Plato’s Socrates proceeds to formulate a line of reasoning that will prove to be of fundamental importance in the history of secularism, one that will be adapted by freethinkers from Baruch Spinoza to Bertrand Russell to the so-called new atheists of today, persuasively arguing that a belief in the gods – or God – cannot provide the philosophical grounding for morality.

Plato begins the inquisition innocently enough, with Socrates asking Euthyphro, “Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it’s holy?”. Plato uses this question to pry apart the notion of an action’s being divinely ordained from its having moral worth. The argument is formulated in terms of “the gods”, but is without loss susceptible to the substituting of “God” for “the gods”. Plato’s argument, in a nutshell, is this: If God approves of an action, either he approves of it arbitrarily, for no reason at all, or else there is a reason for his approving it, so that it is not an arbitrary whim on God’s part but rather he has a reason for his approval, that reason being the independent moral worth of that which he approves. If the former is the case then how does this arbitrary whim, even if it is a divine arbitrary whim, confer moral value. How can something be good just because someone up there feels like calling it good, when, if he were of a different disposition or in a different mood, he could just as easily call the opposite act good? But if the latter is the case, then there is a reason for the divine normative attitude, and that reason is the reason both for God’s approval and for the moral worth of that which he approves.

That makes God’s approval, normatively speaking, redundant – he is, as we say today, a rubber stamp. In neither case – whether the approval is arbitrary or whether it is not – does the supernatural approval make any difference to whether an act is genuinely right or wrong.

What is still referred to as “the Euthyphro Dilemma” or “the Euthyphro Argument” remains one of the most frequently utilised arguments against the claim that morality can be grounded only in theology, that it is only the belief in God that stands between us and the moral abyss of nihilism. Dostoevsky may have declared that “without God all is permissible”, but Plato’s preemptive riposte, sent out to us across the millennia, is that any act permissible with God is morally permissible without him, making clear how little the addition of God helps to clarify the ethical situation.

The argument Plato has Socrates make in the Euthyphro is one of the most important in the history of moral philosophy. When it is joined with another of Plato’s claims, namely that a person’s action is virtuous only if he can supply a reason for its being so, the Euthyphro Argument demonstrates the need for moral philosophy. We humans must reason our way to morality or we will not get there at all.

[… …]

This moment in Socrates’ life, as Plato has rendered it, is sufficiently important to step away from it, and reflect. It has a bearing on the question that is always hovering over this book, as it traces the sources of philosophy as we know it, and that is the question of philosophy’s progress.

If one evaluates what the Greek philosophers did solely in terms of Thales and Co., then of course one will conclude something like “Philosophy used to be a field that had content, but then ‘natural philosophy’ became physics and physics has only continued to make inroads.” But this is to focus on only one type of question the ancient philosophers posed to self-critical reason, the protoscientific questions that awaited the mature sciences. It is to ignore such questions as those that Plato has Socrates raising with Euthyphro […] It is to ignore Plato’s argument  that, since religious authority can’t answer these questions, we had better get to work on formulating the reasons that make right actions right and wrong actions wrong.

It is also to ignore the work that has since been done, not only on the normative questions of ethics but on the normative questions of epistemology, the work necessary to speak about rationality at all. It is to ignore the conclusions to which philosophy-jeerers freely help themselves, most certainly when they speak in the name of rationality.

When the philosophy-jeerers are also scientific, the their jeering frequently takes on religion as well as philosophy. Typically they do not differentiate between philosophy and theology. Anything that isn’t science is philosophy/theology. Lawrence Krauss, whom I keep mentioning only because he conveniently articulated a viewpoint that many scientists share, lumps philosophers and theologians together.

Such jeerers should pause and reflect on this moment of the Euthyphro.

And there is so much more to recommend.

Clearly that passage on why philosophy matters even where physicists believe they already have all bases covered is what failed to materialise when Larry Krauss talked with Mary Midgely and Angie Hobbs in “Philosophy Bites Back” at How The Light Gets In earlier this year.

More on Spinoza and sub specie aeternitatus embracing the whole cosmos.

More on re-admitting the poets to Plato’s domain.

More on the inescapable “elitism” angle that, when it comes to moral reasoning, not all men are created equal. Inescapable in the sense I concluded this independently before and always struggle to introduce the concept into more naive conversations about the mechanics of free democracies.

Friday I’m in love, with wisdom (again) and talking of Goldstein and love.

My investigations here started 15 years ago into information, particularly as knowledge in a decision-making context, but it’s been some years since I decided governance was the umbrella term for that agenda – the basis for enacting best decisions – for any groups of people or constituencies of any size.

Furthermore, wherever the information does not simply represent “objective” evidence forming the basis of a “logical, scientific” rational decision considered non-contentious by the stakeholders, then governance involves rational agreement on value-judgements by the group. Not all values can be reduced to objective logic, but most values are fundamentally based on love. Love of fellow man individually and collectively and what’s best for us and our cosmic environment. The qualitative nature of such values, particularly expressed as love, do not sit well with those who cling to the supremacy of logical positive, scientistic rationale of falsification and critical argument. But love it is. Even humanists agree. [Here][and here].

I’m no scholar of Plato, but anyone researching the philosophies, can’t fail to notice they are reading footnotes to Plato. And clearly for all it’s faults Plato’s Republic is the de-facto check-list for constructing a state governance manual. When I read Rebecca Goldstein’s Betraying Spinoza some years ago, I drew much the same message of love summarised above. Amor Vincit Omnia. Currently I’m reading her Plato at the Googleplex a good 2/3 through as I type. Borrowing the literary structure from Plato and from her earlier 36 Arguments, she places her subject character at the centre of a “speaking tour”, a sequence of dialogues in narrative time interspersed, in the current fiction, with historical chapters summarising the relevant original dialogues by, and contemporary writings about, Plato. In that sense her latest is a tougher read than 36 Arguments where (with hindsight) the Spinozan allusions are woven directly into the fictional narrative, and the 36 actual arguments are relegated to an appendix so as not to interrupt the narrative flow.

But, Googleplex nevertheless works really well. At the end of the 4th chapter (delta) Plato at the 42nd Street Y, there is a real cliff-hanger (or perhaps a gag I’ve not got yet) but it goes into a sequence of chapters majoring on love, love and more love as the basis for wisdom. Love in all its guises – Erotic, Platonic (as we typically misunderstand it), Carnal, Any-Which-Way-Orientated and Complicated in the modern-relationships agony-aunt sense. The language is really well crafted and necessarily varied too as the author puts her words as well as Plato’s in many different characters including 21st century Plato himself.

In a footnote in the Chapter I Don’t Know How To Love Him, this turn of phrase made me smile:

Eros is the full-on obsessional “in-love” experience,
the kind that makes people do crazy things,
like move from New York to Boston.

Given that I already made a privacy-invasive comment about witnessing the awkward (to me) presence of Ms Goldstein “in-love” in Cambridge, I’m pretty sure this note is autobiographical – and clearly vindicates the central theme, that personally invested love is …. what it’s all about. Real world rationality needs to welcome that crazy little thing called love, back into its domain.

Now, to resolve that cliff-hanger.

I attended the session organised by The Skeptic Magazine at Conway Hall last night involving Richard Dawkins and Larry Krauss introducing a showing of their film “The Unbelievers”. Having already seen the film, I was able to hear Michael Sandel at an earlier event, and arrive at the Dawkins / Krauss event during the break between the showing and the Q&A.

The evening:

One thing I did hear, that might colour my already negative reaction to the film itself, as Larry pointed out, they’d had a fair amount of critical response even from their natural supporters in the God vs Science debate, but the agenda and editing of the film itself was entirely down to the group of individuals that documented their earlier speaking tour and produced the film. The film didn’t necessarily reflect in any balanced way the overall Dawkins / Krauss agenda. Fair enough, but disingenuous to promote it as if it were.

The Q&A was pretty lively and long, most of the audience were “the converted”, the stage was preaching to the choir, yet as noted above there was quite a lot of critical questioning about the disingenuous “ridiculing” by selection of opponents in the film, no sign of the scientists looking for common ground with the religious – not even with the liberal rabbi in the audience – and suggestions that the scientists were not always being honest in their political campaigning, certainly not being as honest as they’d claim science to be. (There were of course a good number of questions about religious and scientific education in schools and from very early ages, and from younger members “inspired” to pursue science by our public scientists. Fair enough, more power to their elbows.)

I had a prepared question that fitted the very doubt of scientific honesty vs the positive agenda of science as politics driving us away from the science of reality – my biggest problem with the current topical discourse.

Unfortunately, I didn’t get the opportunity to ask it, but did manage to slip a written copy into Larry’s hand as he was whisked off to the book signing session …. and it goes like this:

My preamble:

Larry is often quoted, and indeed said during the Q&A, that physics is easy because it’s all sorted bar the details and it deals with physical reality anyway, whereas biology is altogether messier. Actually I beg to differ, the fundamentals of physical science – at the levels of fundamental particles and at the levels of cosmology are hugely speculative – and consequently exciting both theoretically and experimentally, whereas biology and evolution seem not in the least contentious bar ongoing details and extensions to knowledge.  Both suffer from experimental problems in controlling boundary conditions and accounting for prior assumptions and therefore in interpreting results from indirect measurements and so on – but all good science takes care over these issues.

In the theistic creationism vs scientific cosmology debate, there is no argument which is right, the argument should really be about the science of cosmology itself – where its physical and philosophical limits lie, and what authoritative solutions are going to look like. (Public science is nowhere without authority BTW.) But, the politics of fighting against theism and creationism, is distorting the quality of the actual science. So.

The film shows Larry in one lecture talking about his “Something From Nothing”, a good read – a good book. It’s fundamental comsogeny, and definitely opposed to any kind of theistic creationism (who isn’t?).

Before that book, back in May 2006 when interviewed in The Edge Larry said, in paraphrase:

• … when you look at CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the ecliptic – plane of the earth around the sun.
• That’s crazy. There’s no way there should be that correlation … telling us that our science is wrong and we’re (somehow) the center of the universe, or … something else … (but something’s wrong).

Since the book was published and recently, very topically, there are some very interesting scientific developments that call into question many aspects of the standard accepted model of cosmology, as different groups of researchers probe the CMB or perform their own first-principles research. Singularities and black holes, post-big-bang inflation theories, singularities and other things popping into existence from the energy field, including whole universes, even an infinite multiplicity of possible universes to explain this one in which human life has evolved, the quantities and distributions of mass, energy and gravitational forces being observed indirectly through the shadows of the big-bang in the CMB patterning …. I could go on. Just two recent examples:

• What about BICEP2 having to admit it did not find evidence to support inflation — despite massive fanfare. (and many others right now as we speak). Was its error a genuine oversight (of cosmic dust) or was it a political error being too directed towards proving the inflation predictions?
• What about Laura Mersini-Houghton’s team and the work to show that black holes and singularities really do not need to exist to support all these unnecessary conjectures.

My question for Larry:

So what exactly was/is “crazy” about those CMB indications, what is your latest view since your 2006 statements.

Is it possible that what is really wrong is something more fundamental about the starting point for a big bang not being a singularity, or the cosmological and gravitational constant assumptions needed to explain expansion and inflation of the mass and energy distributions in the cosmos, and the evolutionary timescales for humanity to exist – an accidental but conveniently deniable anthropic agenda.

The standard model of particle physics, completed by the Higgs Boson for the internally consistent Electro-Weak components, says nothing yet about strong and gravitational forces – yet we have a cosmological model of gravity presumed everywhere in scale from a singularity to a whole universe, the whole cosmos.

Physics is massively incomplete and speculative at these fundamental extremes. My fear for science is that by being dishonest about this in our arguments against creationist alternatives, even ridiculing moderate religious believers rather than engaging them on common ground, we simply expose our physics as being fundamentally flawed and our argument as being directed and politically motivated rather than based on the quality and integrity of the science. Science suffers.

[Numerous links and references available to support all the above – will be added in due course – but the question stands to be answered.]

Michael Sandel spoke to a large audience at Methodist Central Hall, Westminster last night, an event organised by the How To Academy, and introduced by Andrew Neil.

Very brief talk, max 40 minutes, introducing his latest book “What Money Can’t Buy – The Moral Limits of Markets“, in his usual minimally-scripted audience-participatory style, and therefore without subsequent Q&A.

Really only one point to his lecture and his brief book. Virtues cannot be bought and sold, evaluated by the markets, they need to be valued by proper public discourse, difficult though that is.

He described the tendency to not only talk in terms of market-economy, but to accept “market society” as leading to impoverished democratic political discourse. That is, not all transactions in society are strictly economic and the appeal of allowing spurious market concepts to replace difficult public debate on values is damaging.

He used audience participation to tease out people’s real views by voting – on the very topical NHS proposals  to financially incentivise dementure diagnoses, and the example (from his book) of selling to the highest bidder the right to shoot a single member of an endangered species annually to fund conservation for the population. By turning the nobs with “what-if” variations (*) with different audience members, which naturally included several GP’s, he drew out what we really valued. Interestingly, the individual vs population example turned completely when a participant suggested a human example auctioning the right for one individual to beat their spouse, in order to fund care for the wider population of victims. Focusses the mind.

He pointed out that the very idea of incentive as a market factor is in fact a relatively new concept , not mentioned by Adam Smith for example, and mentioned maybe only once each in Presidential and Prime Ministerial speeches in the early 80’s, whereas now to “incentivise” was practically de-rigeur. The politics of a market society.

The bottom line was two linked factors – the acceptance of allowing the market to establish policy meant political debate was impoverished and a source of much dissatisfaction with the political process in western democracies. And the underlying reason for that dissatisfaction was that people inherently knew there were other values, virtues, being corroded by the market incentivisation – patient-doctor trust in the first example, human and ecological rights and responsibilities in the others, and many more. Values that would previously have been called, or based upon, the virtues.

And why are virtues “corroded” by marketisation? Because they are quite self-evidently not the variables of economic theory and textbooks. They are not “scarce” resources that are consumed, even though they are involved in transactions. The application of trust engenders more trust, the giving of love creates more love, the giving of rights creates obligations to reciprocal rights – virtues grow by use, they are not consumed by use. Treating them as market variables corrodes, devalues, distorts and destroys them. The market is not neutral, it has downward causation on the value of the goods involved in the transaction. They are devalued by being bought and sold, whereas intrinsically we value them.

In order to establish the social value of these goods we really need proper public discourse in politics – the kind that leaves us feeling satisfied with the policies established, so we remain supportive of their application. A difficult process for sure, but necessary. Leaving them to the market devalues and destroys them.

Not new, ’twas ever thus, yet despite the 2008 crash we still don’t seem to have learned. What’s so funny ’bout peace, love and understanding? – again.

[Post Note (*) Sandel’s original equivalents of trolleyology, but without the trolleys! Plenty more in his on-line Harvard lectures.]

Saw and met Rebecca Goldstein doing the @platobooktour to promote her Plato at the Googleplex – why philosphy won’t go away on Monday at Nunn Hall, London. A bit like her 36 Arguments it’s a fictional creation as a vehicle for bringing long-standing (but still very relevant) philosophical questions and ideas into topical mainstream debates. I’ve not read her latest yet beyond the preface and opening chapter, but it’s looking promising and if it’s half as good as 36 Arguments it will be excellent.

The great and the good attending the British Humanist Association event included Ian McEwan, Peter Atkins, Stephen Law, Bob Churchill and Alice Fuller to name a few, as well as Andrew Copson in the chair.

She opened the evening with a little of her biography and her own journey into philosophy and writing having majored originally in physics. Some of this autobiographical journey – her ultra-orthodox Jewish upbringing, with a family background from fleeing the holocaust, via Hungary to the USA – you also get from reading her Betraying Spinoza – another thoroughly recommended read. The switch from ultra-theism to more scientific rationality and a belief in an objective world “out there” may seem obvious, but what we learn here though, is that her switch from physics to philosophy came from dissatisfaction at the lack of coherence in any real world explanation behind the mathematical elegance and success of Quantum Mechanics. David Bohm’s interpretations being the most coherent she believed, but these are not the current mainstream view in modern fundamental physics.

For many the subject (literally) of her latest work, Plato in the 21st century is a “hate figure” in scientistic humanism – Copson admitted so in his introduction. For any modern thinker, like Goldstein, the relationship with Plato must be a mixed love-hate balance between the narrow fascistic tendencies of (say) The Republic, with the fact that in his more lyrical dialogues, he pretty well invented every philosophical question that still matters to this day. As others have said “all philosophy is footnotes to Plato”.

Sure, as a man of his times, he could not have all the knowledge we have to create acceptable modern-day answers, but in fact by virtue of his dialogic style, he often didn’t attempt to commit hard answers to many such questions anyway.

A major part of Goldstein’s thesis is that the results of Plato (and similar contemporaries trying to codify the world in different “civilisations”) have been adapted through multiple channels theistic and secular. And, despite the fact in ancient Greece they kept their gods quite separate from moral codification and rational thinking, it is the modern Abrahamic theistic religions that dominate the outcome. Hence the hate figure for so many humanists. Doubly ironic since the origin of Ibrahim is to name those the other side of the Jordan from the Greeks.

By way of an aside, I noted in her switch from the mathematical elegance underlying (incomplete) fundamental physics to the hopes of more satisfactory (coherent) philosophy for our real world – metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, ethics, you name it – she also studied Kurt Godel seriously enough to publish another learned work Incompleteness: The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Godel. Much controversial opinion about the rights and wrongs of applying Godelian thinking beyond mathematics itself – but there is no doubt IF people believe the rules of life can be directly systematised objectively – rather than via a philosophical metaphysics – that the impossibility of both completeness and consistency is a real moral dilemma. Like Dennett, a friend of hers and a hero of mine, she warns against the arrogance of science in discounting the need for philosophy to complete the picture – being “too greedy” in its objective reductionism of real life and what counts as evidence. I now also have Goldstein’s Godel work on order.

Anyway, how she weaves her theses into the modern day lecturing, speaking and writing tour of our 21st century Plato I’m yet to read, but you will find him active on Twitter @platobooktour as we speak.

Nice one from XKCD

Hat tit to @Jon Butterworth on Twitter. (I’m seeing XKCD’s Randall Munroe next month.)

Finished reading John Lydon’s Anger is an Energy at the weekend. Had also booked to hear him at the Old Truman Brewery in London last week, but for personal reasons couldn’t make the book tour gig.

About a third through Anger I was thinking that Rotten was much the better read, and biographically the Pistols period is common ground between the two works. Anger is very much in John’s spoken voice – much of it recorded and transcribed it feels (?), whereas I came away from Rotten thinking you could see where he gets his lyrical skills from, since he certainly displays an engaging way with words and their composition. In that respect Anger is much more raw. You get the man and his imperfect human content ranted at you. But you do know who you’re dealing with.

I’m glad I wasn’t put off by the initial impression because Anger does continue to deliver the full story, right up to the abortive JC Superstar project earlier this year. Background to many PiL song lyrics, session musos, instrumentation and band line-ups as individuals, as well as the trajectory of his personal life that led him to settle in LA with Nora, become a US citizen, own a boat and, as his critics will never let him forget, “sell out” to more commercial media projects. Having also done the US living experience I found myself identifying with John’s take on life and human individuals. Like John, the US is much maligned from afar, but both worth getting to know their wider qualities – their aim is true.

Recommended – if you’re prepared for the rough edges. Great index too. I still find myself wondering how anyone who didn’t already love the man and his work would fare if they picked-up Anger is an Energy to read on spec? A painful introduction I’d suspect, but essential reading if you’re already interested.

The PiL collection playing repeatedly on my media player yet again, and looking forward to that lone UK PiL gig in December.

An impressive “The Life Scientific” yesterday, except not as we know it, Jim. Chris Toumazou has had an impressive career as an inventor, but where was the science? It was a life unscientific. It was a life driven by human needs. No less impressive, just not science.

I’m not naive, I know the point is to big-up science, everywhere from cosmology to daily life, taking in the Brian Cox “celebrity-dumbing-down” effect in the evolutionary ascent of man – but, come back Bruno. You know – we’d like you to believe science has all the bases covered and can provide all the answers we need to anything and everything. I’m pretty sure Jim doesn’t actually believe this, looking at his appointment as head of the BHA. This edition had no science whatsoever. It was all engineering and applied technology, even the medical technology and the multi-discipline development. I’m all for it. I’m an Imperial College Engineer too, but it’s just not science.

Yes, technology generally has a science base, but the application of technology isn’t the science, it’s far more than that. Promotion to prospective students is one thing, but misrepresenting science, setting misplaced expectations, is not doing it any favours in the long run.

[Post Note : When I wrote the above, I hadn’t watched even one episode of Cox’s “Human Universe”, I was just talking from repute, general media reports and quotes from Cox. I actually watched the “Why Are We Here?” episode last night. As I said on facebook:-

“… it’s an even bigger pile of unscientific tosh than I had feared – bollox mitigated by some nice cinematography. … Sagan and Bruno must be turning in their graves. …  It’s not the dumbing down that’s the problem. It’s the choice of contentious speculative lazy brainless ideas, expressed as opinion without the slightest hint of empirical evidence disguised as science fact. (I think Jim is deeper and wider – he plays the “promoting science” game, part of his day-job – but behind that I think he knows what’s what.) The irony; Cox was loved-up and waxing lyrical (cheesey, vomit-inducing) over the colour image of the CMBR sky-map (a meme if ever there was one!) – at the very time BICEP2 are eating humble-pie with their champagne. That never was science (it was always prejudiced politics ignoring existing evidence).”

To elaborate :

“As BICEP2 clearly demonstrates, most science is a work in progress.”

Sure, and not all work in progress is of equal scientific value, or necessarily of any scientific value beyond the process.

“At the heart of this theatre is the artificial landmark of a peer-reviewed paper.”

Exactly. Public science is really about authority, not about publication any more than it should be about press-releases and press-conferences or worse still stage-managed “theatre”. Authority based on concensus of the widest scientific community is what establishes science. Until then it is just speculation – 5-sigma speculation possibly, but 10 out of 10 useless. Speculation promoted in support of interests. Politics.

“[Even] Nature has a stake in discussions of the gravitational-waves story. Our news team was among those tipped off about the claim in advance.”

Science media (of all kinds, even major organs of repute) are part of the problem conflating the promotion and funding of science related activities with science itself, to the detriment of the latter.

Inflation, Multiple (all-possible) universes, etc – are pure drivel – politically developed as denial of otherwise obvious theories and evidence. BICEP2 never was science, never will be – the “error” is the least of their concerns, the question of why the error wasn’t detected is, or rather “overlooked” – not even considered – is …. political.

Wake up, science.]