Wednesday, November 24, 2010

The Big Kerfuffle

There's a big dustup within the skeptical community of late. A large event known as Skepticon was held and the overarching theme was anti-religion. One well known commentator made the point that it seemed to be more of an Atheist event and less of a Skeptical event, and the gloves came off.

See Jeff Wagg's column here

Just for giggles, I'm going to throw my hat into the proverbial ring. While Atheism may well be one of many logical conclusions from Skepticism, it is but one of many. They aren't one and the same. Skepticism is a methodology and an approach to life and understanding. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. Just because one logically leads to another doesn't mean they are one and the same. A Pro-Life rally is not automatically a Republican event, even if it is safe to say that the vast majority of attendees will be registered Republicans.

I'll freely admit that it's largely a PR thing. If I'm fighting to raise public awareness about the safety of vaccines and there's a group of Atheists loudly and proudly proclaiming that Skepticism is all about fighting religion, I know that my message will be heard and trusted by fewer people. It's that simple. Call it accomodationist, call it spineless, I don't care. I'm concerned about getting the message out and helping people learn how to reason for themselves. I'm concerned about people falling for scams that they should have seen coming a mile away. I'm concerned about people visiting Faith Healers and throwing their insulin onto the stage in the belief that they have been cured. I'm concerned about people handing over college funds to psychics who claim to be in contact with a dead husband or wife. I'm concerned about parents forgoing immunizations for fear of causing Autism in their children. I'm concerned for my young niece who spent weeks wheezing and coughing because my sister repeatedly took her to a Naturopath instead of a family doctor or allergist who would have pinned down her dairy sensitivity in days instead of years.

I realize that at least one of my aforementioned concerns deals directly with religious thought and could be theoretically remedied with a good scrubbing of religion from the planet. Here's the thing though; it ain't gonna happen. Religion is pervasive and it will stick around. Humans are stubborn and will dig in their heels when their beliefs are challenged, moreso when the beliefs are strong and closely identified with their personal identity. Read "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)" for a more thorough explanation of this.

If some folks are able to accept that Faith Healers are really just highly successful con artists with immunity from prosecution due to their religious status, they are one step closer to rational thinking. If people can understand the placebo effect and the impossibility of distilled water remembering vibrations from a foreign substance, they may stop spending money with a Homeopath. If people can gain understanding of cold reading and avoid falling victim to psychic fraudsters (redundant, I know), they benefit their families and themselves. These are achievable goals that we should be working on.

Pride is difficult to swallow. Sometimes we need to take a big gulp anyway.

To be VERY CLEAR. In case you are getting ready to post a scathing reply to this post, let me state my position more concisely. I do NOT think that Atheism should be ignored or swept under the rug. I do not think anybody should pretend to be religious if they are not. I suggest no dishonesty or downplaying of (anti)religious status. Just don't conflate Atheism and Skepticism in a way that will confuse those who don't understand the nuance. If you are going to hold an Anti-Homeopathy conference, great. Call it that and I'll be there. Don't call it a "Skeptical" conference. If you are going to have an Anti-Anti-Vax conference, great. I'll be there too. Don't call it a "Skeptical" conference. If you are planning to host an Atheism conference, I'll be there too. Just don't call it Skepticism. Skepticism is much more than just one of its logical conclusions.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

We Don't Need the Pity of Morons

Enraged is the only emotion I can feel when a blithering, knuckle dragging mouth breather like Dean Radin writes a self contradictory column, holds it out as a solid argument, then offers up pity for those who don't buy into his BS. Take your pity sir and shove it far enough in until you can taste it.

1 Example:

Compassion for Skeptics

Just to name 1 jawdroppingly obvious logical fallacy, he completely misses and misunderstands the whole point of James Randi's million dollar prize. Let me explain, and if you are reading this Mr. Radin, read slowly and a few times so that you can put the words together into coherent thoughts before responding with another one of your pathetic straw men.

James Randi FREELY ADMITS that his $1 million prize is a publicity stunt that is not meant to be taken as scientific proof of anything at all. Scientific proof would require replicability, which the prize stunt does not require. Theoretically, you could go in, win the prize on random chance luck, then fail miserably at any sort of replicability thereby failing to prove your hypotheses to the satisfaction of scientists. You'd still get the money, the publicity, and the bragging rights that come with it.

You argue that Mr. Randi freely admits that scientific proof would require replicability, therefore his prize must also. You obviously have not looked into the prize rules, because the standards are not the same as what science would require, yet you somehow twist and turn the words so it seems as if the JREF is requiring far more than it is. The JREF prize asks for a single performance under agreed upon conditions that would eliminate the possibility of chicanery. This isn't science. It's a stunt to raise awareness about how reliable your claims are. Your explanations of why you won't engage in the test are very telling indeed.

Your entire column totalling up the cost of a ridiculously in-depth study of the paranormal (conveniently totalling more than $1 million!) is a laughably silly red herring as well. The JREF does not require anything even remotely close to the kind of proof you have argued would be necessary. In fact, if you WERE to look into the actual rules, you would see that it very clearly states that you and the JREF would come up with an agreed upon result that would prove your contentions under controlled settings. If you meet that result, you win.

You are correct that winning the JREF prize will not prove anything scientifically. It's telling though that you similarly refuse to follow up your questionable studies under controlled settings with a variety of experts, including Skeptics. You seem to crave scientific acceptance above money, so why not actually remove doubt?

Skeptics wait for proof. You haven't provided it to an acceptable degree. We're asking that you provide it. It's not rocket science here. Just do it again under settings that eliminate the possibility of cheating or bias. We're not saying you are wrong! We are saying that you haven't provided acceptable proof to support YOUR CLAIMS! We didn't make a claim. We simply didn't accept yours based on the fact that your methods aren't transparent or convincing.

Understand that history has shown that when true scientific standards are required, any "proof" of paranormal activity disappears. It has happened each and every time, and logic would lead us to believe that it would similarly happen if your studies were exposed to rigorous standards. Prove us wrong. Go ahead, I dare you.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

The Next Great Skeptic?

During my morning drive into work, my brain goes through a creative process that is fun, exciting, and often very bizarre. Ideas pop in and out of my head and by the time I get to work, I usually have a new plan for eradicating poverty, claiming world domination or bedding Salma Hayek. Needless to say, most of these ideas never go anywhere for lack of funding, practicality, and certain middling legal issues. This morning I had an interesting one that may or may not be one of the rare few that I follow up on. At the risk of exposing the dark recesses of my mind, here goes...

We form a loose cooperative agreement with leaders and opinion makers within the skeptical community to perform a search for the Next Great Skeptic. The eventual winner should be intelligent, charismatic, and able to handle his/herself under a media spotlight. We find a new face to publically expouse the benefits of scientific analysis and critical thinking.

I think there are probably many unfound diamonds in the rough. I believe there are businessmen, lawyers, professors, magicians, and plumbers who all have the potential to coherently and clearly express the views that many of us hold in such a way as to make people think twice about unfounded superstitions. Some of these folks might even have that extra something that makes them stand out from the crowd.

As I look around the skeptical community I see many brilliant thinkers and great speakers. I often ask myself though, what makes someone like James Randi or Carl Sagan special? There are many people expressing the same ideas, so why them? In the end, it largely boils down to what entertainment folks call "The X Factor." Randi has it. It's rare, but when you find someone who has that inexplicable ability to earn the rapt attention of their audience, you want to see that person do their thing.

While we have many charismatic folks already in the public eye (Penn Jillette, Richard Wiseman, George Hrab, etc, etc), I'm interested in looking beneath the radar to find the untapped potential. Here's the basic concept.

Stage 1) Get as many current known Skeptics on board including bloggers, podcast hosts, YouTube denizens, etc.

Stage 2) Collectively announce the contest and issue a challenge to any interested participants. A question will be posted somewhere at a certain date and time (ie: why shouldn't we "teach the controversy" about Evolution?).

Stage 3) Participants have 24 hours to upload a personal response to the question to YouTube and submit the link for consideration.

Stage 4) A panel of judges watches the videos and collectively picks the top 10.

Stage 5) A series of challenges are proposed. Interviews on Skeptical podcasts are done with each contestant. They must post blogs with interesting writing. They must secure a speaking gig at some formal event, etc.

Stage 6) The field is whittled down to the top 3 after contestants have been judged on their ability to coherently and charismatically expouse their views under various conditions.

Stage 7) The final 3 get to speak at TAM (?), where the final voting will be done and the winner will be chosen and announced.

Stage 8) Winner gets lots of publicity for his/her writing, podcast, etc. Maybe even a cool T-Shirt?

Well, that's the big pile of creativity that my brain shoveled out onto my lap over my morning coffee on the drive to work. What do you think?

Friday, October 8, 2010

The Carnival Barkers

   vs.

Vince McMahon Jr. (Son of Vince Sr.): Incredibly wealthy show promoter that took over his father's business of providing fictional entertainment to unknowing masses, who largely believed it was real.

Richard Roberts (Son of Oral): Ditto

VM: People mostly caught on to the ruse and the continued claim of legitimacy became embarrassing and unsustainable.

RR: Some people caught onto the ruse. Continued claims of legitimacy were critical, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

VM: Legal authorities started clamping down on loopholes claimed by the company. Steroid abuse allegations are investigated. WWE institutes strict testing procedures when they begin to face legal responsibility.

RR: Legal authorities ignore the frauds and refuse to clamp down on the "ministry" due to fear of voter reprisal and first amendment protections. The ministry continues to rake in tax free dollars, largely based on unsubstantiated miracle healing claims.

VM: WWE now acknowledges the scripted nature of the business. Fans continue to pay for the entertainment.

RR: The ministry continues to claim that miracle healings are real. Fans continue to pay for.... what exactly?

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Monday, September 20, 2010

Friday, September 17, 2010

Skeptical about the skeptical claims of the anti-skeptical skeptics.

There's a group of paranormal folks out there who have banded together (both of them, along with their laptop computer) and have dubbed themselves "SCEPCOP." This is of course an attempt to parody CSICOP (now CSI) with a pro-paranormal agenda. Interestingly, the agenda seems to be to steal back the "Skeptic" label from the "Skeptics." They claim that today's skeptics are not truly skeptical, because they outright dismiss things, yada yada yada....

Feel free to check out the webpage. I can't really be sure if it's for real but if it's a parody, I missed the humor. I did laugh, but not with them. I'll direct you to possibly the saddest and funniest parts, where they claim that Skeptics use straw man arguments against paranormal enthusiasts. I cannot speak for all skeptics, but it's a very normal thing for anybody anywhere to slip into an easy straw man argument, often without noticing it themselves. I don't doubt that some skeptics have done this. I usually have to double check my own critical writings to make sure I haven't committed logical fallacies of this or any other type.

As a quick refresher, a "straw man" argument is an argument whereby you purposely misrepresent what the opposition is stating, so that you can easily refute their argument. It's like setting up a straw man, which you can knock down far more easily than a real man. So here's their explanation:

"For instance, they constantly claim that paranormal supporters advocate that one should believe "everything they hear of every paranormal claim".  That is totally untrue.  NOT ONE paranormal supporter I know advocates such a thing.  Not one.  No one has ever said publicly "We should believe everything we hear" and I challenge anyone to find someone who has said that publicly.  All reasonable paranormal experiencers and researchers believe, just like true skeptics do, that one should consider all explanations first before concluding a paranormal cause.  Any smart human would do the same.  But nevertheless, no matter how many times this is explained to them, pseudoskeptics continue to claim that we advocate believing everything we hear.  It's gotten to the point of dishonesty on their part."


I find it fascinatingly inept and disingenuous that these folks are using a straw man argument against the use of a nonexistent straw man argument. Gentlemen please. Point out to me where any legitimate skeptic (and no, ranting weirdos on random internet forums do not count) has actually made this claim. Please show me where it was said and where it was published or aired. You've set up a really, really bad example of a straw man while arguing against such tactics. Please, get some self respect.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Meet The Skeptics - The Podcast

Stuck into my busy schedule is a new project that I hope you'll sincerely enjoy. Meet The Skeptics is a podcast that will feature an interview with a different prominent Skeptic each week, or however often I get the chance to record and put them up. HOPEFULLY weekly.

The first interview is with The Amazing One himself, James Randi. Recording has been done. I just need to tweak the edits and load that sucker online.

For anyone who didn't already know, he definitely is just as cool as he seems. There was no pretense and no problem setting up the interview. He was friendly, warm, and I felt as though I could have been chatting with an old friend over a cup of coffee.

By the end of day, September 27th, I anticipate the podcast will be available for search on iTunes. Just type in "Meet the Skeptics." Let me know what you think!

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

In Defense of Curmudgeons

I've seen and heard a lot of complaints over the past while about "Science blogging" having devolved into more of an atheistic rant against religion. While this may have some merit, let me explain why it's cool with me.

Firstly, SKLOG is NOT a science blog. It's my little outlet for ranting about whatever the heck I feel like ranting about in a skeptical manner. For example, it was recently suggested to me that I watch the movie "The Fourth Kind" with an open mind to the possibilities. I intend to do that, then I intend to write about it. Since the movie makers have already admitted that the movie wasn't actually based on real events (as was claimed in the promos), I doubt that I'll be converted to believing in demonic aliens based on some cinematic special effects. That's real world skepticism, not science.

Pharyngula on the other hand IS a science blog written by P.Z. Meyers. It has proven to be the pace setter for all science bloggers out there and it often takes on a crotchety, ranty style. Cool by me.

Blogging is not the same as submitting scientific articles for peer review. It's consumer oriented, much like newspapers. Any popular blogs will have daily posts at a minimum. If a blogger posts weekly, most folks lose interest. People want to come by daily to read what's on the mind of the blogger in question. P.Z. happens to be the kind of guy who pulls no punches and throws a hekuva a lot of them. That's fun to read. It's more fun that we can get a new fix daily.

If we expect guys like P.Z. to write about hardcore research on a daily basis, forget about accuracy and watch Dr. Meyers step up to the unemployment line. He has a real job too, and it won't allow for 24 hour blogging. He writes his thoughts and shoots them off to the world. Next, he gets back to work until new thoughts enter his mind. He repeats the process.

I like Pharyngula for what it is and when P.Z. does write about more in depth science, I like that too. Let's understand what science blogging is. It's scientists sharing their thoughts. It's not a forum for serious research publication.

Friday, September 3, 2010

You Just Might Be a Skeptic.....

When people first stumble upon the movement known colloquially as "Skepticism," they often wonder what types of people make up this amalgam of sentient braininess. Hopefully the following list helps people identify if they too are Skeptics.

If your favorite musician is George Hrab even though you have only heard two of his songs, you might just be a Skeptic.

If your child announces that he/she has had a great day at school and you request evidence to support the claim, you might just be a Skeptic.

If your wife catches you sneaking off to the basement computer to surreptitiously watch internet videos of Eugenie Scott speaking before the Texas Board of Ed, you might just be a Skeptic.

If you are at the mall after Thanksgiving and you get incredibly excited for a moment as you mistakenly think the crowds are flocking around James Randi in a red suit, you might just be a Skeptic.

If you name your twin children Derek and Swoopy even though they are both boys, you might just be a Skeptic.

If you think that "skepti" is a legitimate prefix for every word in the English language, you might just be a Skeptic.

If the phrase "irreducible complexity" causes you to unconsciously crush any object you happen to be holding in your hand, you might just be a Skeptic.

If you have a life-sized Wallbanger of Michael Shermer in your bedroom, you might just be a Skeptic.

If one of the destinations on your next trip to California is listed as "Brian Dunning's Hot Tub," you might just be a Skeptic.

If you regularly read more than 13 blogs whose titles all start with "skep," you might just be a Skeptic.

More to come if and when I think of them. Send me off any suggestions if you think of any yourselves.

Suggest

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Sorry in Advance to Phil

Okay, I'm reminded of Phil Plait's "Don't be a Dick" speech at TAM this year, which I applaud wholeheartedly. His message was correct, and I support it fully. I just have one more thing to get off my chest before I fully embrace it. It is in regards to an article called "Creation or Evolution: Which Is More Believable?" at a magazine called "The Good News."

These primordial, mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, dark ages throwbacks deserve as much dickishness as I can possibly muster. My apologies Phil, but I promise this is my big finale before doing the Mr. Nice Guy routine from now on.

While cordial debate is my preferred method of discussion, I can no longer stand by as these piles of monkey tar continue to read a 3rd grade level headline on Evolution, then proclaim themselves fit to debate the issue. Let me be clear. There's no issue to debate. You're idiots and I'm sick and tired of hearing your lame ass attempts to describe Evolution in terms that anyone with a rudimentary background in the science can patently see as ignorant, and simplistically wrong. You are wrong. But hey. Just to be clear, let me point out exactly where you are wrong so there's no issues with vagueness. Get ready to read some logic you shitwads.

If you have the stomach to read the entire steaming pile of elephant splooge, you'll note that there's not a single defensible argument put forth in favor of creationism. Not one. They had to mine the bible all over the place for quotes from various sources that they could angle in such a way so as to make it appear as though the person knew his shit. Nope. They didn't.

"The first man was a son of God by creation (Luke 3:38)." Yeah. We don't even know who the hell wrote Luke you morons. And you're quoting it as a reliable source? It was written ANONYMOUSLY.

"The early chapters of Genesis tell us that Adam was the first human being, and Jesus Christ confirmed that Adam and his wife Eve constituted the first human couple (see Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:6-7). Later Paul affirmed that Adam was the first man (1 Corinthians 15:45). He also restated that "Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Timothy 2:13)." You're quoting people who were quoting the book that you are trying to get us to believe in. Because they parroted what was in Genesis, it adds credibility? From under what illogical rock did you crawl?

I could go on and on with the BS they parade out as proof of Genesis, but it all boils down to selective grabbing of snippets of text from this book or that, then smashing it all together in what they hope looks like a good argument. You know what actually would be a good argument? Just say "Go read the bible and make up your own mind." THAT would be impressive, but it'll never happen. They know full well that if you do read it, you'll understand how batshit crazy these pudding brains actually are.

Here's the fun part though. They actually try to argue against Evolution, and here's what they have to say.

"The atheistic theory of evolution supposes that life evolved by sheer chance." Evolution isn't atheistic. It's scientific. There's a difference. That said, No it doesn't. Evolution is anything but sheer chance. Perhaps the incense is rotting your brains or the mind-numbing sermons are having the intended effect, but no matter how many times you say that evolution is "random chance," you're still wrong. It isn't, but you have to actually read words to understand that.

"Yet evolution cannot provide any meaning and purpose for the presence of human life on planet Earth." So fucking what? Something's wrong because it doesn't give you the answers you were hoping for? Thank Zeus YOU weren't in charge of eradicating Polio.

"Nor can it supply any credible explanation for the amazing intellect and creative capabilities of mankind." Yes it can. We evolved to be this way because it worked to our advantage. That simple enough for you to grasp? It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but I'm trying not to lose you here.


"This erroneous theory provides no hope for the future of our chaotic civilization. It offers no real reason for the cause of all the appalling problems afflicting our age. How can we make awesome technological progress but at the same time not yet understand how to effectively deal with the escalating evils that threaten to overwhelm us?" It doesn't explain why chocolate tastes yummy either. What's your damned point? Your bible doesn't tell me why Salma Hayek's tits look so squeezable, yet they do. Is the bible wrong because it fails to explain something it doesn't purport to explain? No. It's wrong because we have proven it wrong time and time again and because it's so fucking self contradictory that it buries itself without our help.


"And yet, divine creation helps explain everything when we really come to know and understand its many implications. Scientists continue searching in vain for a theory that explains everything—when we already have one!" Yep. And I already have a reason for why teenage boys spend so much time in the shower. They're reciting scripture from memory. I'm just as wrong as you are, but my explanation works too! Therefore, I guess I should go with it since it explains the confusingly long time it takes to wash oneself. Isn't complete ignorance fun!


"Ultimately, only the Bible explains both the origin and meaning of life on earth. Only God's prophetic Word reveals where mankind is really headed as we face an otherwise unknown and increasingly uncertain future. The Bible reveals why humanity exists and the majestic nature of our final destiny. Atheistic evolution, sadly, has no clue and no say!" Back to the teenage boy thing and the thing about the theory not explaining what it doesn't claim to explain... Oh hell. You sicko, ignorant, arrogant douche nozzles can continue on with your fantasyland bullshit all you want. Quit pretending to know shit you haven't studied, and quit trying to get others to bask in the glory of the crap spewing from your gaping pie holes.


Phew! Damn. That felt good. Sorry again Phil. I'll play nice from now on. I promise.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Me on the Radio!

My friend Jim Fitzsimons hosts a weekly internet radio show known as "Dimland Radio." It's usually a one man thing, but he recently invited me on to join in for a segment. If all goes well, the segment may become a regular gig. You can see all his shows and download them here.

Dimland Show Archives

Jim's got some stones I'll tell ya. His radio station (Z-Talk) is more or less all about supernatural stuff. He's surrounded by believers of all sorts of hokum. Jim's the sole voice of reason, so it was an honor to be a part of the show. This time we spoke about The Book of Revelations and we revealed "The Beast." hint, it's not Richard Dawkins.

Enjoy!

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Glenn Beck Converted to This



Honestly folks, I truly understand when someone is born into a belief system and believes it as a result. Glenn Beck actively chose Mormonism over the Catholic faith he was raised in. That's pretty much all I need to know.

The Creation and the Emergence

I challenge P.Z. Meyers, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott (or anybody who actually reads this blog) to prove my new favorite creation story wrong.

The Creation and the Emergence

If they cannot do it to my satisfaction, I intend to lobby the public school boards to teach it alongside Evolution as an alternative view. After all, it's either wrong, or it's right. That puts its odds at 50% for being correct. Shouldn't our kids know about it?

All praise Black Hactcin!

Bad Universe Review, Part 2

Okya, the "Holy Haleakala" bit gets annoying after the 38th time, but otherwise it was a heckuva fun first episode. While I did know that we have the potential of being slammed into by a global killing chunk of space debris at any second with literally no warning, I did not know that people have been playing with ideas on how to avoid said disaster.

Ironically, it seems as though we have a relatively decent chance of technologically averting armageddon from a collision with a comet, while a much smaller meteor collision is more or less game over. It was a tad bit depressing to see that we really have no reasonable hope of surviving or fending off such a scenario with modern technology. 

Can we get a few overgrown kids with deep understanding of chemistry, physics and explodey things to start coming up with bombs that could essentially obliterate the moon? It sounds like that's pretty much our only hope here. 

Monday, August 30, 2010

Holy Haleakala Batman!

Watched the first half of the inaugural episode of Phil Plait's Bad Universe last night. I had previously described it to a friend as "Geek Porn." Given that I only made it halfway through, I supposed the prediction was uncanny.

Sorry. Couldn't resist the cringe joke there. I'll be watching the 2nd half tonight. If it's as good as the first half was, I have a new addition to my top 5 favorites. If you didn't see it, set your DVR to record next week! It's fun, educational, and I think Phil knows of what he speaks. Having not gone through an Astronomy course in college, I'm going to just go with the idea that Phil knows more than I do and I can let him do my astronomical thinking for me while I watch him blow stuff up on by big screen TV.

Oh, by the way. I fell asleep early last night from a long day (not boredom). Just in case anyone was wondering why I didn't stay up through the whole show. I may be a science geek, but I do have limits.

What's your favorite geek show?

Friday, August 27, 2010

Phil Plait vs. P.Z. Myers! The Civil War Ensues! (or is it uncivil?)

Before you read my take, check out PZ's latest entry in Pharyngula.


How Being a Dick Probably Saved My Life


Gotta side with Phil on this one. Following through on commonsense health concerns is not being "dickish." It's being prudent. Telling someone else they are a pathetic idiot if they don't do this IS being a dick, and it will likely cause them to dig in their idiotic heels.

The argument Phil made was in regards to the overall approach of skepticism, in which many skeptics have definitely taken the tone of "if you believe in that BS, you're an idiot." I know that I faced my own previous beliefs when a good friend admitted being an atheist. Instead of acting superior, he asked me to spell out the reasons that I did believe in god. That's when I thought about it and realized on my own how foolish it was. He was opening a friendly conversation. It worked. No dickishness needed.

Yes, if a militant religious fanatic has plans to try to evangelize your child's public school, I'll be the lead asshole in charge of the fight back, no holds barred. If a friend puts a cup of sand on her windowsill every night to ward off witches, I'll be a friend and ask her to think about why she does it, and why she believes it's necessary. That's all Phil was saying.

Friday, August 20, 2010

Miracles & The Benevolent Dolphin



What's a miracle? The word seems to be thrown around a lot and the above video shows a curious way in which we tend to read miracles into just about anything we want. In cases like this, it's an obvious logical error that allows people to pick out the tiny good snippets and blow them out of proportion. What about benevolent dolphins?

We've all heard stories of stranded swimmers who were about to drown in the ocean when a miracle happened. A dolphin came to the surface and nudged the swimmer up and toward the shore. He continued to do this until the swimmer was close enough to walk out on his own strength.

A miracle, right? No tragedy being ignored here, is there?

While it's incredibly easy to read intention into the dolphin's motives, let's stop and consider another possible explanation. What about sadistic dolphins? Why don't we ever hear of the swimmer who had almost made it to shore when an evil dolphin was sent by the devil to consistently nudge him further out to sea until he drowned? If this ever happened, how would we know about it? The swimmer would have died and nobody would have known of the true circumstances.

We hear of the benevolent miracle dolphins because they are the ones whose survivors live to tell about it. Perhaps there actually is some sort of altruistic sense that dolphins use to help people. Perhaps they have some sense that people belong on land, and land is over there, and I should help out here. Perhaps. We really can't be sure. We CAN be sure that accepting the story of the benevolent dolphin as an unassailable miracle is not logically feasible. If I ever get stranded out at sea though, I do hope I'm wrong on this.

-Chris

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Creation Myths

Here's a fun little game you can play next time you end up in a discussion/debate/argument/catfight over creationism vs. evolution. Just look blankly at the person and inquire as to which creation story they believe so you know which one you need to argue against.

Most folks don't realize the pure variety and sheer entertainment value of the huge number of stories at our disposal. As an example, I shall hereby direct you toward the story of Poqanghoya, Palongawhoya and Spider Woman.

I'm not kidding. This is a true example of a creation story of the Hopi people of Northern Arizona. Enjoy! I sure did.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Biofield Saving Bracelets!

Okay, if you're reading this, you are likely a skeptic already. That said, I'm calling for a day where we skeptics shut this company down (at least make a nice dent in their profits). How about this? We all agree to call this company based on the infomercial on an agreed upon date. Ask the salespeople a couple dozen weird questions until they lose total patience, then tell them we need to think about the purchase a little bit longer. I can't know how many salespeople they might have on staff, but if we clog up the phone lines and monopolize the time of the salespeople without buying anything, we might just make the company suffer a bit. What do you say? If you're with me, write me here. E-Mail Me


Followup: I checked out their website. The company doesn't actually even have a real site. It's a few really bad pages that barely qualify. I would feel sorry for them if they weren't a bunch of shameless snake oil peddlers.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Ned Lamont Sucks (and so do lots of other political assholes)

There was a point in my life when politics fascinated me. I read books, listened to talk radio, watched debates, and tried to ferret out the good from the bad. As the fall elections near, I realize there's not a whole lot of good to ferret out.

One example from CT:

Ned Lamont (AKA The Human Tucks Pad) has launched an ad against his Democratic rival for the party nomination for Governor. As primaries are this week, each of the candidates is blasting their opponent for whatever they can make up that sounds really bad. In the case of Ned Lamont, he decided to essentially call Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy a criminal. Proof? None. He just laid out a series of allegations which raise ethical questions. Believe it or not, the 30 second ad wasn't quite enough to go into the necessary detail, so we're left with the impression that Mayor Malloy has been taking kickbacks, etc. An investigation was done and no wrongdoing was found. In fact, the investigation turned up nothing but proof that everything was above board. Is Mayor Malloy a criminal? I have no clue. I only know that Ned Lamont's ad is the latest in a string of excruciatingly condescending, arrogant crap designed to fool us into thinking he's the only good guy left. Here's a thought Ned. Before you level allegations, offer up proof. If you have it, make it available to prosecutors who would actually follow CT law and go after the criminal in question. If you don't have it, quit trying to pull a 3 Card Monte on the very people you want to lead.

Oh, and here's the kicker: Ned Lamont ran an ad deploring exactly this kind of BS just a few years ago when he tried to oust Joe Lieberman as CT Senator. Check it out:

Lamont Ad

Politics is the worst form of woo woo, and we skeptics need to stay honest when assessing candidates. In my experience, 98% of political ads are horribly misleading. Whether a candidate supports positions we like or not, let's hold their feet to the fire and require honesty and integrity. We have a lot of candidates for biggest political asshole out here in our lovely state. I decided to pick on Ned because he is a unique type of shit head, but he's by no means alone in the category. I think this time I may just go vote for whoever seems to actually be the most honest in their dealings with the voters. It's possibly the only way to really change the system. Anyone with me? Anyone?

Friday, July 30, 2010

NOT ON STRIKE!

I just didn't want anyone to think I was neglecting my self appointed duties here. I'm enjoying the beautiful weather of Western Canada while visiting with 100 plus relatives. I'll be tapping out new posts on my iPhone as soon as I get over the jet lag.

Enjoy your week everyone!

-Chris

Sunday, July 25, 2010

The Creationists' ASS-umptions.

It's often fun sport to make fun of the claims of creationists, but every now and then they come up with a pile of convoluted drivel that is designed specifically to confuse people into listening. The approach seems to be "let's make it so confusing and throw in so many scientific terms that we'll trick people into thinking it's really science."

Dating The Earth's Age

The article linked above is exactly what I'm talking about. Read it if you dare, but allow me the indulgence of sharing their glaring sleight of hand.

Their argument is all about radioactive decay and its use in dating rocks. We know how fast certain elements decay, so we can measure how much of the elements have decayed in certain rocks and we can come up with a reasonable date as to when the rock was formed. This has been a solid and respectable science for quite a while now, but the creationists have come up with what they seem to think is the achilles heel.

How do we know that radioactive decay has remained constant over the years? They argue that we are making a huge assumption and a leap of faith when we assume that the rates of decay are the same now as they always have been. In fact, they argue that the rates of decay have actually slowed significantly and that they were much, much faster in the past. Because of this, our dating of the rocks has given the rocks an artificially old age.

Put aside the fact that we can see stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away (meaning that the light that we see was necessarily emitted hundreds of millions of years ago). Nevermind that we can use tree rings to date areas of the earth to far, far older than the 10,000 year maximum age that creationists cling to desperately. Nevermind that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to carve out. Nevermind that the Sumerians were brewing beer more than 10,000 years ago. Nevermind that creationists argue for a beginning of the earth right about the same time that their precious book was being written. Nevermind that plate tectonics reveals a gradual drifting apart of the continents that would have taken millions of years. Nevermind that we don't find fossils of modern day animals in any older deposits. Nevermind that pretty much all scientists in the world who have studied and worked in areas relating to Geology, Evolution, Biology or Paleontology agree on the 4.5 billion year old estimate. Nevermind that DNA evidence has shown that humans and chimpanzees split off the same evolutionary tree branch millions of years ago and that all DNA evidence has already put the nail in the coffin of anti-evolutionists claims. Nevermind that EVERYTHING WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE SUPPORTS A 4.5 BILLION YEAR OLD EARTH!

Nevermind all that. No, you see the creationists have revealed that the major flaw in our reasoning is that we make the assumption that radioactive rates of decay have remained constant and we didn't consider that maybe they were really, really fast before Noah's flood but slowed down to modern speeds afterward, sometime before we figured out how to measure them.

Okay, I'll grant that we make this assumption. It's an assumption based on the FACT THAT WE HAVE SEEN THAT RATES OF DECAY REMAIN CONSTANT OVER TIME, but it's an assumption nonetheless. Nevermind that we also "assume" that the far side of the moon isn't covered in cheese doodles. Nevermind that we "assume" that worms don't gamble in tiny underground casinos. Let me ask the creationists this question though. If rates of decay have actually changed over the years, why do you assume they've slowed down? I feel like assuming that they actually sped up and the earth is really more like 300 gazillion years old. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Study Time

A pet project has been researching the biblical Book of Revelations. It's a fascinating work that has had religious and historical scholars enthralled for many years. Many people have already died due to the interpretations of the book by some. Who wouldn't want to understand what would drive people to such extreme and ludicrous actions?

Here's the thing though, it has been a while since I actually read the text of the book. I'm now going to do just that, then write my thoughts. Stay tuned!

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Jesus Interrupted


One of my favorite authors on the historicity of the New Testament.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

In Fact: The Bloop

Brian once again clearly demonstrates that the best scientific answer is simply "I don't know." There's no shame in not having an answer to a mystery.

Very Cool Fish

Check out this great MSN Video: Catching Dinosaur Fish

To steal a title from a great musician/blogger/podcaster/comedian/tweeter by the name of George Hrab. This definitely falls under the heading "Interesting..........Fauna."

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Religious Lesson Plan

“The world is something we apprehend but cannot comprehend and it is that inability to comprehend which makes us human."

This quote probably sums up my divergence from organized religion. While seemingly innocuous on the surface, it encourages us toward the idea that we cannot comprehend the world around us. In other words, the pursuit of understanding is fruitless so instead, open your hearts and minds to God.

Science seeks to explore, learn, develop, invent, etc. Originally it was stone tools. Lately, it's things like remote robotic surgery that would allow a highly specialized physician in New York City to literally operate on a patient in Bankok via a high speed web hookup and a robot on the other side. These are the things that comprehension and the pursuit of knowledge give us.

50 years ago, children with Autism were institutionalized. The pursuit of comprehension and knowledge gave us better understanding and tools for progress. When I think of the joy that my autistic son brings our family and I think of where he would be had he been born 50 years ago, I'm hard pressed to hold back a tear. Thank you science.

My other child is allergic to peanuts. It also wouldn't have been too long ago that he would have not survived past a relatively early birthday. He's 11 now and has an incredible future ahead of him. I cannot wait to see what he decides to do with that future. Thanks to science, I actually will get a chance to see it.

As we're told in the book of Genesis, Adam and Eve were placed in a paradise and they had but one rule to follow. Do not partake of the tree of knowledge. Do not learn. Do not seek to understand. Remain in the garden, ignorant and happy. As I do not believe in the literal truth of this story, I seek to understand the lesson that was intended for those who read it. The only thing I come away with is that we are not to learn, nor are we to seek understanding and comprehension.

I for one am very glad that so many people choose not to live by the lessons imparted in Genesis, even if they don't realize it.

Holy cow. Really?



This is possibly the most jaw droppingly stupid argument I have ever heard against the theory of Evolution. I'm actually not sure if it's a joke or not, so I feel like a complete idiot even commenting, but here goes.

I do realize that many readers of this blog will come from many different backgrounds, and not all will be well versed on the theory of Evolution. That's cool. Let me just explain why this video misses horribly.

Evolution does not address the issue of life's origins, plain and simple. The creationists can scream this drivel all they want, but it's a straw man argument that is reprehensibly misleading.

Evolution would argue the following.

1) Take a large, sterile room and fill it with peanut butter.
2) Introduce a single strain of microscopic life that can survive on peanut butter.
3) Close door and let the microbes do their thing until all the peanut butter is gone.
4) Check the microbes on a genetic level and compare to frozen samples of the original microbes that were introduced.

If the time interval was long enough, you will see distinct, noticeable changes in the genetic makeup of the microbes from the end of the experiment as compared to the beginning.

Claiming that Evolution is wrong because sealed peanut butter jars don't sprout new life forms is like claiming Gravity is wrong because chocolate tastes good. The argument makes no sense and it glaringly reveals the ignorance of the one making it.

Entertaining with Brainpower

I love it when kids show other kids that it's cool and fun to be smart. It just doesn't happen enough, does it?

Get Listed!

Do you have a Skeptical Group that is not yet listed as a "Skeptics in The Pub" group? Send over your info.

Click HERE to list your group.

Click HERE to see a list of current groups.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Temple Grandin

Watched some moving video about Temple Grandin tonight with my autistic son. Actually, he technically falls short of officially being labeled autistic, but obviously has many of the difficulties, symptoms and characteristics. He's 9, but understands that he has what he refers to as "a little bit of autism." I'll tell you something. Sitting him down and explaining what autism is and how it affects him has been an incredible step forward for him and for his happiness. He knew he was different, but didn't know how. Now he understands why he needs an aid in class, why the fire alarm scares him in ways that clearly don't matter to the other kids, and why he has a hard time expressing himself.

Now with Temple Grandin, he also realizes that he could very well end up very successful and happy in life, if only he works for it.

Carl, I hardly knew ya.

Reposted from The Road, which had reposted from Pharyngula. Great video. True brilliance never goes out of style.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

The Devil Potato



I took this picture in a friend's garden last night during a barbecue/pool party. It's a simple red potato popping out of the ground, ready to be harvested. We nicknamed it "The Devil Potato," though we should have probably called it "The Jesus Potato" and auctioned it off on eBay. Pretty freaky, huh?

The truth is, I'm the only one who noticed that it looks just like a face halfway out of the ground when you look at it from a very specific angle. The covering of the other face "half" with soil only adds to the illusion, and our minds fill in the blanks reinforcing the face image. When I took the picture with my iPhone and showed it to some friends, they were floored and didn't believe it wasn't photoshopped. I took them to the potato still in the ground and pretty soon the entire gathering of friends were crouded in the garden staring at this spud.

Next time you see a picture of the devil, or Jesus, or The Virgin Mary, or Elvis that was taken in a cloud of smoke just remember this little potato. Our minds can play some pretty cool tricks on us.

Arguing with Creationists



For anyone who has never engaged in this sport I highly recommend it, but only for the mental workout and exercise in self restraint that you must endure. You are not going to change the mind of a creationist overnight. Perhaps you'll plant a tiny bug in his/her ear (figuratively speaking). Perhaps you'll simply chuckle at the responses you receive. My personal favorites are along the lines of "All science has conclusively proven that The Bible is 100% accurate, yet you atheists refuse to accept God so you make up this evolution garbage as a way to avoid accountability."

I really don't have any solid advice for you if you decide to engage in a debate with a creationist, but I'll share my own humble view. Put the onus on them. Every time they make a broadly sweeping comment, ask them to back it up with science. When they claim that it's a matter of faith, force them to admit that they have no physical proof (which they shouldn't have a problem doing). Since there are a myriad of scientific proofs for evolution, pick about 3 or 4 and lay them out in exceptional detail and ask the person to explain it away. My experience is that they will undoubtedly make up an explanation on the spot. Call them out on it and ask how they could argue when they don't know the specifics of that case study. If they say "I don't have a good answer as I don't know the specifics," give credit where it's due. That's a fair comeback and it shows a hint of rationality. Then direct them toward the resources and issue a friendly challenge to examine the studies.

When someone is arguing from passion and not facts, they will often make factual claims with no actual truth to them. If you call them out on each and every one of those, they will have no choice but to recognize what they are doing. It's a small step, but it's a step in the right direction. Don't point out the error in their arguments. Let them figure it out on their own.

Friday, July 16, 2010

The Amazing Kreskin?

I had been told that Kreskin was an "old school" mentalist who walked the line between being an entertainer and claiming true psychic powers. I never knew the answer and I hadn't really thought of the guy in many years. I don't know why, but I thought of him again recently and looked up some of his videos on YouTube. I was depressed to find that he has actually pretty solidly gone over to the dark side by claiming real psychic ability.

A friend of mine has done quite well for himself financially. He is also a huge baseball fan and attended the Yankees Camp a few years back (which you need to be pretty well off to attend). Some old timers from the Yankees come play with the attendees and show them proper technique, etc. It's a week long adult camp full of baseball and meeting the guys you watched when you were a kid. His reaction to meeting his childhood hero? Depression. The guy was "as dumb as a hat full of screwdrivers."

Another friend works in the Professional Wrestling business. He has similarly met all the guys he watched as we grew up. Some are cool and level headed. Some are miserable, sad caricatures that were used as the model for Mickey Rourke's character in "The Wrestler." He was depressed to see this.

As I watched Kreskin in the old video clips, my heart sank. The tricks were obvious and almost amateurish to anyone who has studied mentalism a bit. I'm nowhere near good enough to do shows like he did (does), but I can see what he's doing and how he does it. I was depressed, but for different reasons than my friends.

Kreskin was never a hero or idol of mine. He was just a guy who I found entertaining. I enjoyed wondering about whether or not he was truly psychic. Now as I watch, I shake my head and wonder how anybody can be fooled. If you want to know how this trick below is done. just write me an email. Trust me though. You'll be disappointed.


SCIENCE

I must confess that I got this from my friend Jay Novella over at The Skeptics Guide. The title "SCIENCE" is similarly borrowed. I couldn't have summed it up better. Thanks Jay.

Test Post via iPhone.

Just curious to see if I can post an entry with my iPhone. Of you're reading this, you should be able to deduce whether or not it worked

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

SKLOG is now at Blogger

I've been neglectful. As I sat at work watching my Facebook friends enjoy themselves at TAM8, I sat back and pouted about my inability to join in the fun and debate. Then I remembered that I have my very own personal way of spouting my opinion via the web. It's this blog thingy.

Skeptics in the Pub is a website that I created for many reasons, but SKLOG is my outlet for venting and/or initiating conversation. They were all created on iWeb, which is basically "Web Design for Dummies." The only problem with iWeb is that it's pretty cumbersome to make changes to a website and/or blog. This has kept me from regularly posting. NO MORE!

Since I can write to blogger from pretty much anywhere I want, here I go. This takes things and makes them so much easier, I no longer have an excuse. Stay tuned!

-Chris

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Into the Lion's Den

I recently had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of Jim “Dr. Dim” Fitzsimons. One of the things I enjoy most about being a part of the burgeoning skeptical movement is making new friends and acquaintances, regardless of whether they are real friends or “Facebook Friends.” Having like minded folks out there is a comfort no matter who you are or what you think.


Jim touched base after seeing this website and we got to e-mailing. Turns out, we’re both regular working joes just finding outlets for expressing our thoughts and opinions about skepticism, reality, and in my case boobs (though I imagine Jim’s a fan as well). There are two major differences however. In my case, I write this blog. This means that I can write, edit, rewrite, re-edit, and so on until I arrive at something that is approximately intelligible and makes the point I want to make.


Jim doesn’t write, he talks. He has a live radio show that goes out to the world every Saturday night at approximately the same time that I’m slipping into the deepest recesses of REM sleep just as my 9 year old nudges me and asks if it’s okay to get a a glass of water. Oh, Jim draws too. He’s a cartoonist in addition to a radio show host and a “guy with a real job too.”


The other big difference? Jim’s a skeptical radio show host on a radio station full of paranormal, supernatural type shows. He’s basically the sole voice of reason in a sea of woo woo. That takes stones.


I’m under no serious delusions that someone will be a firm believer in fill in your silly belief of choice here, and will find my site, see the light, and convert thereby setting off a chain reaction of rationalism throughout the world overnight. If you’re reading this, I have calculated that there’s a 97.624% chance that you’re a skeptic too. Jim ain’t preaching to the choir. He’s talking to the folks that are not reading this column.


So, just curious... How many of you spend time actually talking to supernatural believers in a serious way? What approach has helped you break down barriers? I think we can all agree that preaching to the choir isn’t as productive as we’d all hope. In addition, calling someone an ignoramus tends to alienate as well. What’s the balance? How can we open eyes, ears and minds to the realities of the world? I don’t know the answer, but I do know this. Guys like Jim are out there trying to find that answer. Are you?

Monday, May 24, 2010

Is Your Water Clustered and Ionized?

If not, expect that the skin on the backs of your hands will mysteriously thin out as you get older, revealing more of the veins and bones within. In addition, your agility and speed will reduce, mental cognition will fade, and you will be prone to bouts of gas and lost TV remote controls. Yes ladies and gentlemen, all these horrible things and more will happen to you if you are not drinking clustered, ionized water.


Don’t believe me? Well just look around! The proof is everywhere. Did you know that we once lived on a planet that was full of vibrant, happy people living hundreds of years of disease free existence because the water was naturally clustered and ionized? Yes, it’s true. Water molecules were once more likely to lump together into smaller “clusters” of only a few molecules vs. the large clusters of molecules we now have. Right about the same time that commercial agriculture was being developed, water underwent a serious catastrophic change in the molecular energy of its ionized, magnetic potential for locomotive protuberances. The result is chunky water full of molecules that more closely resemble H2000O1000. Do you really want to be cramming your body full of those giant toxic water chunks? Are you nuts?!


Scientists all over the world have known for years of the existence of a top secret water de-chunkificator that provides them with the blissful existence of our ancient ancestors, who largely laid next to waterfalls while being fanned and fed grapes by a legion of servant lemurs. These scientists hung around in lab coats drinking the improved water and wringing their hands while laughing maniacally at the fate of innocent people like you! They knew that they had the secret, and you did not. They guarded it closely.


But now the secret is out! Out of the sheer goodness of his saintlike heart, Dr. Masuro Emoto has made this scientific sounding system available to everybody! In fact, the under-sink unit is available for a low, low price of ONLY $2,495.95 (plus $6.95 S&H). For a lifetime of orgasmic, chocolate flavored bliss, isn’t this a small price to pay? In addition, the unit comes with a cool screen that flashes various numbers which change when you press any of the equally cool buttons on the side.


QUICK!!! you need to order NOW as Dr. Emoto is being hunted by a team of evil scientists who are out to destroy civilization, shut down the release of this revolutionary technology, and populate the world with slime creatures who like to crawl up your pant legs and cause major skeeviness. These scientists will stop at nothing to shut down the selfless generosity shown by Dr. Emoto. Only YOU can take control by buying three or four of these units to give away to friends whose lives you want to improve. Just think of how much they’ll love you when you present them with a gift of a Dr. Emoto Water Ionization Clusterer Whizbang 1000! You’ll be the toast of the neighborhood! Everybody will love you for improving their lives, saving civilization, and stopping the slime creatures. Order now!


But WAIT! There’s more! Because we have been drinking this magic water, we have developed psychic abilities that allow us to determine that YOU (yes you, don’t look around the room) are the kind of person who is capable of and deserving to make giant, obscene piles of money. Don’t you deserve happiness and health? How would you like to make the world a better place, improve the health, happiness, and hair texture of all your friends, AND get richer than Bill Gates?


For a limited time, for only $1,000 extra, YOU can become and exclusive dealer of Dr. Emoto’s Super Duper Water system! Simply send in an extra $1,000 and you’ll get as many units as you’d like (minimum 50) for only $1,495 apiece! Simply re-sell the units to people who you care about for the standard $2,495.95 and earn $1,000.95 for yourself! Some quick math shows that you could literally earn 50million dollars in only 1 month.


What are you waiting for! Your new life awaits. Act now! Click HERE.