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.
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.
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 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 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 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
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."
"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.
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.
"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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)