27 February 2010
22 February 2010
What's the harm?
It's important not to confuse anecdotes with evidence. When your friend tells you that he has personally seen a ghost, this is not a datum: it is an unverifiable, subjective experience that when you dig deep will almost certainly fall afoul of the argument from ignorance: "I can't explain what I experienced, therefore it was a ghost." When an acquaintance tells you that her sister was diagnosed with Guallain-Barré syndrome after receiving an influenza vaccine, you are not justified in claiming that vaccines are Big Pharma's way of keeping us sick.
But, as Tim Farley has said many times, anecdotes can be useful. (That's why they're so popular with all manner of hucksters!) Most people find it more easy to identify with a personal story. I am reminded of the ever popular quotation, "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic," often attributed (erroneously, perhaps) to Joseph Stalin.
And some anecdotes benefit from extensive documentation, which helps. Like this one:
Wow. Feel that impact? A two-year conditional discharge? She "could not be blamed"? How about practicing medicine without a license? The substance was banned, after all! Can't something be done?
Okay. So how about this:
See the difference? The first is an anecdote, the second, data. Both involve personal injury due to fraudulent medical practices, and the second involves more people (one of whom punctured an eardrum—more interested now?). But it's "just a statistic".
Perhaps anecdotes can prove useful when dealing with quacks and other purveyors of woo—so long as they are examples backed by the evidence.
What do you think?
Tip o' the rubber ducky to Ben Goldacre.
But, as Tim Farley has said many times, anecdotes can be useful. (That's why they're so popular with all manner of hucksters!) Most people find it more easy to identify with a personal story. I am reminded of the ever popular quotation, "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic," often attributed (erroneously, perhaps) to Joseph Stalin.
And some anecdotes benefit from extensive documentation, which helps. Like this one:
You might have read the case of Ying Wu this week: a fully qualified traditional chinese medicine doctor operating out of a shop in Chelmsford who for several years prescribed high doses of a dangerous banned substance to treat the acne of senior civil servant Patricia Booth, 58, reassuring her that the pills were as safe as Coca-Cola. Following this her patient has lost both kidneys, developed urinary tract cancer, had a heart attack, and is now on dialysis three times a week. Judge Jeremy Roberts gave Wu a two-year conditional discharge, saying she did not know the pills were dangerous and could not be blamed, because the practise of traditional Chinese medicine is totally unregulated in Britain, a situation which he suggests should be remedied.
Wow. Feel that impact? A two-year conditional discharge? She "could not be blamed"? How about practicing medicine without a license? The substance was banned, after all! Can't something be done?
Okay. So how about this:
A survey of 122 otolaryngologists identified 21 ear injuries resulting from ear candle use.
See the difference? The first is an anecdote, the second, data. Both involve personal injury due to fraudulent medical practices, and the second involves more people (one of whom punctured an eardrum—more interested now?). But it's "just a statistic".
Perhaps anecdotes can prove useful when dealing with quacks and other purveyors of woo—so long as they are examples backed by the evidence.
What do you think?
Tip o' the rubber ducky to Ben Goldacre.
21 February 2010
Cash for Christ
That was the front-page headline of the Winnipeg Sun that caught my eye the other day, causing me to actually buy a newspaper for the first time in several years. (And I guess that's the headline writers' job.)
If you live in Winnipeg, and you've read the paper or listened to the radio lately, you know that the city council's Executive Policy Committee (chaired by His Worship Mayor Sam Katz; yup, Canada being a member of the Commonwealth, that's the guy's title) voted unanimously on Wednesday to give 2.6 million dollars (plus a $500,000 land grant) to the evangelical youth outreach organisation Youth for Christ. The final vote on this matter will occur next Wednesday, 24 February 2010, so time is short.
You can read coverage of the issue here and here and here. You can find Youth for Christ's website here.
I encourage my fellow Winnipeggers to email the City Council (if you don't know who your Councillor is, look here) and tell them how you feel. If you're concerned by the funding, say so. If you think it's a-okay, tell them that!
I've enclosed my email to City Councillor Harvey Smith below.
Greetings!
I hope that this email finds you well. I wanted to contact you and voice my concern over the proposed taxpayer funding of the Youth for Christ youth centre.
I'm aware that Canada has no constitutional separation of church and state, and the federal and provincial governments may in fact use Clause 33 to opt out of any portion of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms dealing with equality or many of our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, association, religion, or freedom of the press. However, it remains true that the charter does guarantee these freedoms to all citizens, and the so-called "not withstanding" clause does not apply to municipal governments. [Edit: And, to be clear, I don't think it to be a pernicious clause that ought not to apply to any branch of government.] That in mind, I feel that our government has a responsibility to uphold the freedom of conscience and religion as laid out in the charter, and to avoid what MP Pat Martin has described as "taxpayer-funded proselytization". And there are many Winnipeggers who agree with him.
I quote from Youth for Christ Winnipeg's website (http://yfcwinnipeg.com/about/core-values/):
Although Mr. Martin has been criticized by some for his comments, it is clear that Youth for Christ is an evangelical organisation dedicated to (among other things, certainly) proselytising to youth when they are at their most vulnerable. I agree with YfC executive director John Courtney when he says that the facility would be open to youths of all faiths, but that misses the point: would the hypothetical downtrodden Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, atheist, etc. patrons of the facility feel comfortable in a place so clearly opposed to their worldview? Do we feel comfortable using our tax dollars to endorse the Christian religion? I certainly don't.
Like Pat Martin, I have no problem with religious organisations providing much needed social services—but I am convinced that when an organisation is funded by the public, it ought to bear additional responsibilities. I am fully in favour of helping at-risk youth, but outreach and evangelism are two very different things, and we commingle them at our peril.
And so I hope that you, as a representative all citizens in our area, will vote against the proposed funding for this youth centre on Wednesday—unless you believe that evangelism is the government's business.
I am grateful for your attention in this matter.
Gem Newman
I think that my favourite comment on this issue comes from Vic Toews (here, in case you missed it):
Wow. Can you say false dichotomy?
To be clear, I want to emphasise that I understand that at-risk youth benefit from mentoring programs. Private citizens are free (and encouraged!) to donate to the programs of their choice—but if our government is going to fund any such programs out of the public coffers, the religious content of those programs should fall to the lowest common denominator: none at all.
I want to finish by congratulating Manitoba's NDP government for denying the project any provincial funding. Let's hope that City Council will do the same.
Update: We lost. But, it wasn't unanimous, and it garnered some excellent discussion among members of the Winnipeg Skeptics. And, if it's any consolation, Harvey Smith was one of four Councillors who voted against the motion. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
If you live in Winnipeg, and you've read the paper or listened to the radio lately, you know that the city council's Executive Policy Committee (chaired by His Worship Mayor Sam Katz; yup, Canada being a member of the Commonwealth, that's the guy's title) voted unanimously on Wednesday to give 2.6 million dollars (plus a $500,000 land grant) to the evangelical youth outreach organisation Youth for Christ. The final vote on this matter will occur next Wednesday, 24 February 2010, so time is short.
You can read coverage of the issue here and here and here. You can find Youth for Christ's website here.
I encourage my fellow Winnipeggers to email the City Council (if you don't know who your Councillor is, look here) and tell them how you feel. If you're concerned by the funding, say so. If you think it's a-okay, tell them that!
I've enclosed my email to City Councillor Harvey Smith below.
Greetings!
I hope that this email finds you well. I wanted to contact you and voice my concern over the proposed taxpayer funding of the Youth for Christ youth centre.
I'm aware that Canada has no constitutional separation of church and state, and the federal and provincial governments may in fact use Clause 33 to opt out of any portion of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms dealing with equality or many of our fundamental freedoms, including freedom of speech, association, religion, or freedom of the press. However, it remains true that the charter does guarantee these freedoms to all citizens, and the so-called "not withstanding" clause does not apply to municipal governments. [Edit: And, to be clear, I don't think it to be a pernicious clause that ought not to apply to any branch of government.] That in mind, I feel that our government has a responsibility to uphold the freedom of conscience and religion as laid out in the charter, and to avoid what MP Pat Martin has described as "taxpayer-funded proselytization". And there are many Winnipeggers who agree with him.
I quote from Youth for Christ Winnipeg's website (http://yfcwinnipeg.com/about/core-values/):
We value prayer as the foundation for ministry success
Therefore, we promote individual and corporate prayer and we seek to develop prayer partners for all the staff and ministries of YFC.
We value effective, culturally relevant evangelism of teens
Therefore, we encourage creativity in our programming and strategies.
. . .
We practice living within our means, debt-free.
Therefore, we share our strengths and ministry resources with others, endeavoring to work together in the common goal of responsible youth evangelism and discipleship.
[Emphasis mine.]
Although Mr. Martin has been criticized by some for his comments, it is clear that Youth for Christ is an evangelical organisation dedicated to (among other things, certainly) proselytising to youth when they are at their most vulnerable. I agree with YfC executive director John Courtney when he says that the facility would be open to youths of all faiths, but that misses the point: would the hypothetical downtrodden Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, atheist, etc. patrons of the facility feel comfortable in a place so clearly opposed to their worldview? Do we feel comfortable using our tax dollars to endorse the Christian religion? I certainly don't.
Like Pat Martin, I have no problem with religious organisations providing much needed social services—but I am convinced that when an organisation is funded by the public, it ought to bear additional responsibilities. I am fully in favour of helping at-risk youth, but outreach and evangelism are two very different things, and we commingle them at our peril.
And so I hope that you, as a representative all citizens in our area, will vote against the proposed funding for this youth centre on Wednesday—unless you believe that evangelism is the government's business.
I am grateful for your attention in this matter.
Gem Newman
I think that my favourite comment on this issue comes from Vic Toews (here, in case you missed it):
Senior Manitoba Conservative MP Vic Toews, who is currently Public Safety Minister in Prime Minister Harper's cabinet, told the Free Press that MP Martin has his priorities mixed up and seems to prefer recruitment by inner-city gangs to programming by a religious group.
"It appears to me Pat Martin doesn't have a problem with allowing gangs to recruit in his riding, but when it comes to Youth For Christ offering programs, he suddenly has a problem with it," Toews said.
[Emphasis mine.]
Wow. Can you say false dichotomy?
To be clear, I want to emphasise that I understand that at-risk youth benefit from mentoring programs. Private citizens are free (and encouraged!) to donate to the programs of their choice—but if our government is going to fund any such programs out of the public coffers, the religious content of those programs should fall to the lowest common denominator: none at all.
I want to finish by congratulating Manitoba's NDP government for denying the project any provincial funding. Let's hope that City Council will do the same.
Update: We lost. But, it wasn't unanimous, and it garnered some excellent discussion among members of the Winnipeg Skeptics. And, if it's any consolation, Harvey Smith was one of four Councillors who voted against the motion. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
15 February 2010
Atheist or Agnostic?
Are you an atheist or an agnostic? Depending on the definitions used, this can be a difficult question to answer, or it can be downright fallacious.
Imagine, if you will, that I've flipped a coin. The result is hidden from you, but you know that either the coin shows "heads" or it shows "tails". If I were to ask you, "Do you believe that the result is 'heads'?" what would you respond? What if I asked the same about "tails"? In this instance, many people might simply respond with, "I don't know." There is a problem here, however: that answer does not, in point of fact, address my question. I didn't ask about knowledge; I asked about belief.
In this situation, I would have to admit that I do not believe that the result was "heads". But—and this is very important—that does not mean that I believe that the result was "tails". In fact, I would also admit that I do not believe that the result was "tails", either.
Not believing that a statement is true does not mean believing that the same statement is false.
Atheism and agnosticism actually address different issues. Many people believe that there is a spectrum of belief that looks something like this:
No.
The truth is that atheism and agnosticism do not fall on the same spectrum at all. Atheism deals with belief, as discussed above; agnosticism deals with knowledge. Let's go to back to our definitions.
The term "agnostic" was reportedly coined by T.H. Huxley ("Darwin's Bulldog") in 1869. It is also derived from the Greek, meaning "without knowledge". Put simply, knowledge and belief are interrelated, but it is possible to believe something without knowing, and it is even possible to know something without believing.
I am an agnostic atheist: I don't know that no gods exist, but I don't believe that any do. I'm also an anti-theist: I happen to believe that no gods exist—certainly no gods as defined by the traditional three omnis. But, my knowledge being imperfect, I cannot say that I know.
It is a straw man to declare that atheists claim (to either know or believe) that there is/are no god(s), and thus attempt to shift the burden of proof. An atheist is not making a claim: he or she is simply unconvinced.
This is a problem in communication: we struggle constantly to strike the proper balance between clarity and haste. When I tell you that I own a cat, I don't generally take the time to specify that it is of the domesticated Felis sylvestis catus variety; it's safe to assume that although you may be picturing a tabby when in fact I own a calico, you're unlikely to jump to the conclusion that I have a pet jaguar or mountain lion. That level of specificity is, under most circumstances, uncalled for.
But other entities are not so well-defined. What of deities? It's fair to say that both Hindus and Jews believe in gods, but do they both believe in the existence of gods in the same way that they both believe in the existence of grasshoppers? One might argue that their conceptions of the latter would be more consistent than their conceptions of the former. When one person says "god", it is often difficult to know precisely what he or she means. When discussing certain abstract concepts, some measure of increased clarity is called for.
And so to the current definitional problem. There are actually several disparate paradigms that can be used to disambiguate atheism from agnosticism. The way it's commonly understood, atheism is a belief that there is no god, theism is a belief that there exist one or more such things, and agnosticism is smack-dab in the middle.
This is incorrect.
I enjoy etymology, and I like my definitions to be etymologically correct. The word "atheist" comes from the Greek "atheos", literally "without god". Alternatively, if you just want to break it down the way the word is structured today, "theism" means "belief in the existence of a god or gods", with the prefix "a-" meaning "without". Now here's where most people get tripped up: properly understood, atheism isn't a belief the way theism is; an atheist does not believe in any gods, however he or she does not necessarily believe that those gods don't exist.
This is a sticky point, so allow me to clarify by analogy.
Imagine, if you will, that I've flipped a coin. The result is hidden from you, but you know that either the coin shows "heads" or it shows "tails". If I were to ask you, "Do you believe that the result is 'heads'?" what would you respond? What if I asked the same about "tails"? In this instance, many people might simply respond with, "I don't know." There is a problem here, however: that answer does not, in point of fact, address my question. I didn't ask about knowledge; I asked about belief.
In this situation, I would have to admit that I do not believe that the result was "heads". But—and this is very important—that does not mean that I believe that the result was "tails". In fact, I would also admit that I do not believe that the result was "tails", either.
Not believing that a statement is true does not mean believing that the same statement is false.
Atheism and agnosticism actually address different issues. Many people believe that there is a spectrum of belief that looks something like this:
ATHEISM ←→ AGNOSTICISM ←→ THEISM
The truth is that atheism and agnosticism do not fall on the same spectrum at all. Atheism deals with belief, as discussed above; agnosticism deals with knowledge. Let's go to back to our definitions.
The term "agnostic" was reportedly coined by T.H. Huxley ("Darwin's Bulldog") in 1869. It is also derived from the Greek, meaning "without knowledge". Put simply, knowledge and belief are interrelated, but it is possible to believe something without knowing, and it is even possible to know something without believing.
I am an agnostic atheist: I don't know that no gods exist, but I don't believe that any do. I'm also an anti-theist: I happen to believe that no gods exist—certainly no gods as defined by the traditional three omnis. But, my knowledge being imperfect, I cannot say that I know.
It is a straw man to declare that atheists claim (to either know or believe) that there is/are no god(s), and thus attempt to shift the burden of proof. An atheist is not making a claim: he or she is simply unconvinced.
Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.
14 February 2010
The Winnipeg Skeptics' Meetup Group
Winnipeg now has a Meetup Group for Skeptics! It's currently free to join, so if you're local to Winnipeg and interested in skepticism, head on over!
http://www.meetup.com/WinnipegSkeptics/
I have not yet scheduled the first meeting, but am soliciting input. I hope that you're as excited as I am!
http://www.meetup.com/WinnipegSkeptics/
I have not yet scheduled the first meeting, but am soliciting input. I hope that you're as excited as I am!
Adventures in Sex City
One of the joys of living in Canada is that our government doesn't do everything in its power to prevent students from learning about human sexuality. I'm sure that some parents are now, more than ever, wishing that it did.
So, the Middlesex-London Health Unit in Ontario has put together a computer game that aims to teach high school kids about safe sex. As we are all no doubt aware, educational computer games tend to suck (classics like Number Munchers and Crosscountry Canada aside). Also, adults seem to have a difficult time relating to younger audiences—often hilariously so. But this takes the cake. It is called Adventures in Sex City.
The Characters
In this educational game (designed with high school kids in mind, remember), you play as one of four members of the elite Sex Squad: Wonder Vag ("promotes abstinence until marriage"), Willie the Kid ("massive rock hard strength"), Power Pap ("a strong believer in getting tested"), or Captain Condom ("when used correctly is 98 percent effective"). Your adversary? The Sperminator, a flying burly white guy in a Speedo and Mexican wrestling mask, with two giant penises* for arms. His stated goal is to "infect everyone with his evil sperm".
Gameplay
This is a quiz game. Each round, you are asked a true-or-false question. If you get the answer wrong, The Sperminator spews STI-infected sperm onto your character, causing your character to utter phrases such as "Eww, that's sticky!" or "Aagh, right in the face!". Again, I can't stress this enough: I am not joking.
Let's be clear: I'm not against a game like this in theory. Games can be wonderful learning tools. That said, this isn't really a game. It's a true-or-false sex-ed exam with a really bizarre hook. I'm sure that's the point: the designers want it to be so over-the-top ridiculous that people are clamouring to play it even though it's a terrible game—and in playing it, these people might actually learn something. As terrible as the game is, I'm convinced that it will likely accomplish its goal.
But still.
In case you missed the link above, the game is embedded in an article here, and here is a direct link to the .SWF file.
* I maintain that the etymologically correct plural of "penis" is "penes". (Similarly, "gymnasia" and "octopodes". Yes, I'm a pedant.) I use the more common "penises" here so that the verbiage won't distract you from the main point: the guy has genitalia for arms!
Edit: I feel like I should have titled this post something like Sex Ed WIN? Ah, well. Happy Valentine's Day, everyone!
Edit: Blag Hag also has some interesting thoughts on, among other things, the subject of vilifying those infected with STIs. Check it out!
So, the Middlesex-London Health Unit in Ontario has put together a computer game that aims to teach high school kids about safe sex. As we are all no doubt aware, educational computer games tend to suck (classics like Number Munchers and Crosscountry Canada aside). Also, adults seem to have a difficult time relating to younger audiences—often hilariously so. But this takes the cake. It is called Adventures in Sex City.
The Characters
In this educational game (designed with high school kids in mind, remember), you play as one of four members of the elite Sex Squad: Wonder Vag ("promotes abstinence until marriage"), Willie the Kid ("massive rock hard strength"), Power Pap ("a strong believer in getting tested"), or Captain Condom ("when used correctly is 98 percent effective"). Your adversary? The Sperminator, a flying burly white guy in a Speedo and Mexican wrestling mask, with two giant penises* for arms. His stated goal is to "infect everyone with his evil sperm".
Gameplay
This is a quiz game. Each round, you are asked a true-or-false question. If you get the answer wrong, The Sperminator spews STI-infected sperm onto your character, causing your character to utter phrases such as "Eww, that's sticky!" or "Aagh, right in the face!". Again, I can't stress this enough: I am not joking.
It doesn't look like Captain Condom will prepare his prophylactic in time.
Let's be clear: I'm not against a game like this in theory. Games can be wonderful learning tools. That said, this isn't really a game. It's a true-or-false sex-ed exam with a really bizarre hook. I'm sure that's the point: the designers want it to be so over-the-top ridiculous that people are clamouring to play it even though it's a terrible game—and in playing it, these people might actually learn something. As terrible as the game is, I'm convinced that it will likely accomplish its goal.
But still.
Me too, big guy. Me too.
In case you missed the link above, the game is embedded in an article here, and here is a direct link to the .SWF file.
* I maintain that the etymologically correct plural of "penis" is "penes". (Similarly, "gymnasia" and "octopodes". Yes, I'm a pedant.) I use the more common "penises" here so that the verbiage won't distract you from the main point: the guy has genitalia for arms!
Edit: I feel like I should have titled this post something like Sex Ed WIN? Ah, well. Happy Valentine's Day, everyone!
Edit: Blag Hag also has some interesting thoughts on, among other things, the subject of vilifying those infected with STIs. Check it out!
04 February 2010
What, exactly, would qualify as a "relevant subject"?
Tip of the personal vegetarian minimum health standard to Ben Goldacre, whom I quote frequently: "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)