In bed with information

Could you tell me what the GDP of Azerbaijan is? Could you explain to me what an axolotl might be? Could you possibly show me how to disengage the ignition retard mechanism on a Suzuki SV650 motorbike? Of course you could. Just click the links. Now you are an expert.

We have well and truly entered the information age. We are deep between her thighs and thoroughly enjoying ourselves. This moment of rapture, we are told, is what we've all been waiting for; the more we plough this enchanting furrow of information, the better off we we'll be.

It would be easy, however, to get overexcited. We don’t want to lose control and find ourselves overwhelmed.

Information has become cheap and easy. We’ve all been there, though, and we know that road leads to poor quality and a bad feeling the next morning. We have the world of knowledge at our fingertips; with our smart-phones (our WiFi-enabled brains), we’d put the QI elves to shame. No longer does someone ask in the pub “I wonder what the hottest chilli in the world is...”, only to inspire two hours of hot (sorry) debate. Now it’s a competition to see who can get Wikipedia to work faster, or who knows the best site to turn to for Scoville-related advice.

So what happens when this question is asked?

“Should Wikileaks have released all those Afganistan documents?”

Well, most people will vomit up the received opinion they’ve dutifully memorised from The Sun or The Guardian (depending on which pub you’re in) and then everyone will agree with whatever they think is socially acceptable (again, dependent on the pub) and then go home, thinking they’re engaged in political debate and are thoroughly good citizens.

But we’re not, are we? We’re not politically engaged. We are passive consumers of opinion, withering away at our computers; not active members of international democracy, all hands on hips, inflated chests and billowing capes. We stand rank and file in the servitude of the popular media. Political scientists across the Western world are despairing at the thunderous decline in political engagement, particularly in our youth. And what do they recommend we do about it? The Internet of course!

It is hardly surprising, ten years into the 21^st century, that our panacea is digital; even less so that it is on-line. So what is my radium-infused solution for our lack of engagement? It is called Debatewise.org and it should be taken once a day at minimum.

Debatewise, for those of you that haven’t spotted the clever pun, is a debating website. This is a very simple and quite misleading description. For a start, it doesn’t stand across from you and tell you that you’re wrong. Instead, debates are created, added to and edited by anyone. In a wiki-style, crowd-sourcing, gathering of communal knowledge and opinion, Debatewise is the daddy of argument. You want to make your mind up on an issue? Go to Debatewise. You want to tell other people what you think about an issue? Go to Debatewise.

Take a look at the debate about Wikileaks and Afganistan. No really, even if you just go to have a look at the format. Red on one side, blue on the other. FOR and AGAINST, YES and NO. This is not impartial, this is not just facts and figures; this is opinion and argument and persuasion. This is where to make decisions.

So, lost under the sheets with our cheap and easy information, we can be sated and spent, knowing that we didn't get overwhelmed and disappoint. We can be smug in the knowledge that we took the information just as we wanted it and gave it the time of its life.

Homeopathy

I've finally got interested in Politics.

It started with me reading Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, which caused me to subscribe to badscienceblogs.net, which led me to sign www.libelreform.org/sign, which led me to send my first ever correspondence to an MP.

I asked my MP to sign the EDM that supported the reform of the libel laws and she sent me a lovely reply saying she already had. On the back of that, with her seeming reasonable and all, I asked her not to sign the EDM that "expresses concern" at the results of the Science and Technology Committee meeting on Homeopathy.

She writes on 22nd March:

[Y]ou can assured [sic] that I am not intending to sign the EDM in question.

However, I know that many patients are happy with the treatment they receive from homeopaths, and it seems to me that making people with chronic conditions feel a bit better is a worthwhile endeavour for the NHS.

...

Whilst I do not intend to sign the EDM, my view is that Select Committees should consider carefully how they select witnesses to avoid possible imbalance.

I am in the process of writing a letter in reply, saying two things (i) people saying they are happy with the treatments or that they feel "a bit better" is positive evidence in favour of homeopathy, but has not been ignored as Ms Thornberry MP suggests; and (ii) stressing the point made so well by the Select Committee that

Prescribing of placebos is not consistent with informed patient choice—which the Government claims is very important—as it means patients do not have all the information needed to make choice meaningful.

Beyond ethical issues and the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship, prescribing pure placebos is bad medicine. Their effect is unreliable and unpredictable and cannot form the sole basis of any treatment on the NHS.

I will post the letter at the Post Office before I put it up here.

First, I'd like to know your views...