During a phone interview last week, Sylvia Browne told the Free Press that on top of her lecture, she'll be able to deliver psychic messages to as many as 300 audience members whe she appears at Pantages Playhouse Theatre on Thursday night.
Gem Newman has his doubts -- which is why he plans to be at the theatre well before the crowds start pouring in.
No, Newman is not a super fan hoping to intercept his idol and score a private reading.
The 26-year-old computer scientist is founder of the Winnipeg Skeptics, a group for people interested in the "investigation and critical examination of extraordinary claims."
And if anyone provides grist for that mill, he says, it's Browne and her infamously inaccurate predictions about missing and murdered children.
Newman says he and his cohorts plan to show up outside Pantages before the show simply to offer some food for critical thought to ticket holders who paid up to $96 to hear the self-proclaimed psychic and medium lecture about the afterlife and relay messages from dead relatives and spirit guides.
"A few of us are just going to hand out pamphlets to passersby, explaining how they, too, can appear to be psychic by using some common methods like cold reading," the animated redhead says over morning coffee at a downtown eatery.
Newman, who is wearing a T-shirt that reads (once you solve the mathematical equation) "Nerds Forever," stresses that the Sylvia Browne Awareness Campaign is not a protest and skeptics will not be getting in people's faces.
"Our intention is not to be intrusive or offensive, it's to educate. A lot of people see these shows and think they're pretty impressive -- and they are if you don't know what to look for."
For context, here's the
equation
expression she's talking about:
(Incidentally, you can find that shirt for sale here, in my Zazzle store.)
As an aside, I've discovered that I have a lot of trouble smiling in pictures. I was under the distinct impression that I was grinning as hard as I could for that shot.
In addition to online discussions, monthly Drinking Skeptically nights at the King's Head Pub and an annual SkeptiCamp (a free, day-long "conference for the sharing of ideas"), members also go on field trips. To date, they've visited a psychic fair and Winnipeg's own creation museum. (Christian Evidences Museum is located in the basement of Oxford Bible Church, at 621 Oxford St.)
Scott Carnegie, a 37-year-old television producer, says joining the Winnipeg Skeptics gave him back the sense of community and support he lost when he stopped going to church a few years ago.
"Anybody is who is interested in how the world really works would probably get something out of it," Carnegie says.
"It can be a real challenge to look at your beliefs and positions and ask yourself if they're true. That's a skill I don't think many people have."
Carolin Vesely, the reporter who interviewed me, managed to make our two-hour, meandering conversation somewhat coherent. She ended the article with the most important idea that I tried to express during the interview:
"To me, everything is provisional; it's always open for re-examination."
The article even features an excellent sidebar on Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World (which was at the top of my list when the reporter asked for skeptical literature)!
All in all, I think that the piece is a definite skeptical win.
Edit: I've added a scan from my hard-copy of the article. It was at once both startling and humbling to have my image set next to that of Carl Sagan.
Is my religious madness really all that much more out there than my faith that the Minnesota Vikings will win the Super Bowl someday?
Lindsay's response?
Umm yeah the idea that some guy that’s the son of God but is also God who died 2000 years ago is going to come back to life and bring everyone up to heaven with him is kinda way more out there than the possibility that the Vikings will win the Super Bowl. Go Vikings!
Theodore Beale, who writes under the pseudonym "Vox Day", is very full of crazy. He also has some pretty terrifying ideas about women's rights. Because I don't want to waste a whole bunch of time on this guy, I'll just quote from Wikipedia:
Beale has argued that ... the right to work outside the home has led to an economic situation in which such secular employment is necessary... Beale has labeled "women's rights" a "disease that should be eradicated". With regard to abortion specifically, he has stated that ... "calling a feminist a feminazi is an insult to National Socialism" and that "even Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot are second-rate killers in comparison with Ms. Sanger, Ms. Friedan and Ms. Steinem." Beale has also written that the Judeo-Christian ethic offers better protection to women than other worldviews. Using the example of rape, Beale states that while, according to this ethic, "only a woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man can be considered a wholly innocent victim", rape is nevertheless believed to be a sin... "There may be a genuine moral argument against rape to be made outside of the Judeo-Christian ethic, but I have yet to hear it."
Beale obviously doesn't know the first thing about ethics.
I tried to fairly condense some of his positions, but there are plenty of ellipses there, so I'd recommend that you check out the entry yourself.
And Lindsay? As amusing as it was to read your comments, I'm not sure that it's worth putting yourself through that.
Speaking of that second time, the Uniter has been kind enough to print my letter regarding Mr. Kornelsen's assertion that atheism requires faith. You can find it here.
Alain Beaudry, some dude I don't know (but who seems to have a head on his shoulders), also objected to the article on faith. You'll find his letter here.
Winnipeg Skeptics member and president of the University of Winnipeg's Atheist Student Alliance Robert McGregor also had a (rather lengthier) response to Kornelsen's article printed in the Uniter.
[Edit: Fixed.] Winnipeg Skeptics and University of Winnipeg Atheist Student Association member Robert McGregor also had a (rather lengthier) response to Kornelsen's article printed in the Uniter.
Needless to say, I'm on the everyone-but-Jeff-Wagg side.
Skepticism ≠ Atheism
Jeff Wagg makes this point several times, and I agree!
But similarly:
rectangle ≠ square
oval ≠ circle
human ≠ mammal
Many people arrive at their atheism as a result of their skepticism, and I would contend that atheism is a skeptical position. In most cases, atheism is a subset of skepticism, as squares are subsets of rectangles.
Can Skepticism Address Religious Claims?
Jeff Wagg's position seems to be a (qualified) "no":
I believe that if you equate skepticism with anything other than science, you've missed the point. As for Christianity, skepticism has nothing to say except about testable claims associated therein. Bleeding statues? Yes, skepticism comes into play. Jesus rose and is in heaven? Seems unlikely, but there's not a lot more to say.
But evidence is not the only thing in our skeptical toolbox. As I've explained before, we look for many things, including (but not limited to):
Plausibility: How well does this idea fit with what we currently know about how the universe functions?
Falsifiability: Is the claim well and rigorously defined? Is there a way to prove it false, at least in principle?
Evidence: Has the claim been previously investigated? If so, what were the results of the investigation?
Sound Reasoning: Does the claim rest upon logical fallacies or cognitive biases?
But to those of us who came to atheism through skeptical analysis of religion, it was literally inconceivable how skeptics couldn't be atheists. The only explanation the panelists could think of for this current debate was that it was based on public relations, not intellectual merit - that yes, skepticism leads to atheism, but please hush about it so we don't scare away the religious members. Yet there's another explanation often given - that you can't directly test the God hypothesis, therefore please hush about it.
And that's where I must call bullshit.
Agreed! I'll just quote something that you've probably seenbefore:
In cases where no unambiguous evidence is forthcoming, the burden of proof dictates the default position. There are two possible default positions for belief in a proposition when evidence is absent: (1) believe every proposition until proven false; or (2) withhold belief until propositions are proven true.
The problem with the first option is that it is logically inconsistent. I'll illustrate by way of example.
Proposition 1: "Leprechauns place a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow."
Proposition 2: "Leprechauns do not exist."
With no evidence forthcoming, option (1) forces you to accept both propositions, even though they are mutually inconsistent.
For this reason, we accept option (2), and conclude that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. If you claim that a deity exists and it created the universe, you bear the burden of proof.
The Skeptical Litmus Test
Jeff sez:
I'm convinced that a litmus test over who's a skeptic and who isn't based on religious belief is harmful to both movements.
Sigh.
No one said there should be a skeptical litmus test. Well, maybe someone has, but if so that person is an idiot. Imposing such a test would be very counterproductive, indeed inimical to the freedom of expression for which the skeptical community strives.
Of course you can be religious and still be a skeptic. But you can also believe that homeopathy works and still be a skeptic. You can believe that George W. Bush is a reptoid alien and still be a skeptic. You're just not universally applying your skepticism. We're probably all guilty of this from time to time—we probably all have our sacred cows—but, as skeptics, we should try really hard to recognise these tendencies in ourselves and eliminate them where we find them.
Freedom of Thought and Expression
Although I disagree with Jen when she says that "[r]eligion is one of, if not the most important issue [sic] people should be skeptical about". I think that alt-med probably wins out—but it's debatable. That said, I'm of the opinion that religion is probably the most interesting topics that we can discuss.
It seems to me that this is mostly a public relations issue. People probably want skepticism to keep its hands off of religion because religion is the superstition of choice 'round these parts. In trying to grow the skeptical movement, many vocal skeptics don't want to offend the public's deeply held convictions, because it will make us less popular.
And I can understand that.
But I think that the idea that all propositions are open to question is fundamental to skepticism. Freedom of expression is important. Regardless of whether or not they have come to the same conclusions, I think that it behoves skeptics to be open to questioning these sorts of ideas.
The Winnipeg Skeptics is not an atheist organisation. In an email exchange that I had with John Feakes of Winnipeg's creation museum a few months ago, I had to clarify this:
The Winnipeg Skeptics is not an atheist organisation. It is dedicated to a method of inquiry, not to any conclusions. The reason that it has the "atheist" Meetup tag attached to it is that it's the sort of organisation that appeals to many (but not all) atheists, and many skeptics find it via Meetup's search functions. Although it's true that the majority of our members are atheist, deists and even Christians have attended our meetups in the past and are always welcome. There is no skeptical litmus test that one must pass to be a member.
Jon Kornelsen (who has previously asserted that atheism requires faith), recently had a new letter published in the Uniter. Because I'm a cantankerous bastard, I have responded. Feel free to jump on the comment thread.
I'll post my comments here:
In his response to Keterina Tefft's article, "Religion is no basis for morality", Jon Kornelsen makes the following statement:
[T]hese faith-communities take the Bible seriously... Therefore, we adhere to all of its doctrines – even the ones that offend modern sensibilities.
If Mr. Kornelsen isn't making a jest, I would ask if he has ever read the Bible.
Lapidation (that is to say, stoning) is the prescribed punishment for those who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9), apostates (Deuteronomy 13:6–10), adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), homosexual men (Leviticus 20:13), and virgins who are betrothed, raped, and don't scream loud enough (Leviticus 22:23–24), among others.
Also forbidden are tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), trimming the sides of your head or beard (Leviticus 19:27), and wearing garments woven of both linen and wool (Deuteronomy 22:11).
Or [will] Mr. Kornelsen will play the ever-popular Get Out of the Old Testament Free Card?
In Matthew 5:17–18, during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
To better illustrate the absurdity of attempting to actually live by Biblical law, I would recommend A.J. Jacobs' wonderful book, The Year of Living Biblically.
But Kornelsen continues:
After all, if a moral law does exist for humanity (as she implies, and I certainly agree), from where does it originate? Science and rationality may describe morality, but they cannot create it.
In his new book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, author and neuroscientist Sam Harris would probably beg to differ. Although I think that he overplays his hand a little, I agree with much of what he has to say.
Regardless, Kornelsen seems woefully ignorant of the entire field of normative ethics. I would recommend that he begin his education here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics
In other words, the existence of a moral law requires the existence of a moral lawgiver.
I would humbly direct Mr. Kornelsen to Plato's Euthyphro dialogue, which asks the question: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
In the first case, God is merely a messenger who is relating a descriptive law of the universe, and God's existence is not necessary for the existence of such a moral law.
In the second case, God is the source of the moral law, which is prescriptive. However, this also makes the moral law arbitrary. If God were the source of morality, and God commanded (or carried out) the slaughter of innocent children (as he does several times in the book of Numbers, for example), that would be by definition moral.
To conflate descriptive and prescriptive laws (to argue, for example, that the law of gravitation requires a lawgiver) is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.
To quote Sam Harris: "In the best case religion gives people bad reasons to be good where good reasons are actually available, and in the worst case it separates moral thinking from the actual details of human and animal suffering."
There are far finer moral systems available than the arbitrary, authoritarian ethics offered by religious dogma.
The National Center for Transgender Equality has a summary of important information about the new TSA procedures and how it affects transgendered people.
It's frustrating when creationists claim that humans came from monkeys, or that evolution tells us that we are monkeys. Humans are not monkeys (they're in a separate infraorder or parvorder, depending on which monkeys you're talking about).
But I hear skeptics who aren't quite as careful as they should be roundly declare that humans are not apes, when, in point of fact, we are.
Another member of our parvorder, an immensely cute infant stump-tailed macaque.
Here's roughly where humans fall:
Order:Primates, which contains Prosimians (lemurs, etc.) and Simians (monkeys and apes). Infraorder:Simiiformes (simians), which contains Platyrrhini (New World monkeys) and Catarrhini (Old World monkeys and apes). Parvorder:Catarrhini, which contains Cercopithecoidea (Old World monkeys) and Hominoidea (apes). Superfamily:Hominoidea (apes), which contains Hylobatidae (gibbons) and Hominidae (great apes). Family:Hominidae (great apes), which contains Pongo (orangutans), Gorilla (gorillas), Pan (chimpanzees), and Homo (humans). Genus:Homo (humans). That's us!
The Skeptologists, a pilot project by Brian Dunning and Ryan Johnson that involves skeptical investigations into paranormal claims (the light-side version of Ghost Hunters), has become The Edge, and is being retooled as a proposal for PBS.
[I]f you are a teacher and you would use content like The Edge – essentially scientists exploring critical thinking and the evidence as it pertains to specific claims – then send an e-mail to Pamela Gay (starstryder@gmail.com) with a letter, addressed to her and Brian Dunning, that says you would use the content in your class.
...
Anyone with a science/skeptical student’s group or other organization can also e-mail a letter saying they would use the content.
There is a good chance we can get some hard hitting skepticism in the mainstream media, but we have to use the strength of our community to make it happy. So thanks ahead of time for your help.
After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the pontiff will end the Catholic Church's absolute ban on the use of condoms.
He will say that it is acceptable to use a prophylactic when the sole intention is to "reduce the risk of infection" from Aids.
...
Asked whether "the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms," he replies: "It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution.
This is a step in the right direction. Agreed. Perhaps, when the word gets out, this can finally stem the HIV epidemic in Africa.
But. This seems to simply be, yet again, an example of secular societal pressure dragging religion kicking and screaming away from their wholehearted embrace of dangerous dogma.
And the cynic in me can't help but think that perhaps the pontiff is throwing us a bone (as it were) to distract us from the other horrific things with which he's been involved. I'm happy about this decision—I'm ecstatic that lives will be saved!—but Ratzinger still doesn't get a pass on covering up child-rape.
Jeff Olsson, President of the Humanist Association of Manitoba, was just five minutes ago on Winnipeg radio station CJOB discussing this very issue. Two very misinformed callers just brought up the "fact" that HIV travels through the pores in latex condoms. Even after the Ratzinger flip-flops on condoms, the organised Catholic campaign of misinformation is still doing damage.
Tip o' the... you know... to Jen McCreight at Blag Hag and Jeffrey Olsson at HAM.
About a week and a half ago, I posted a letter from Simon Singh, which urged interested parties to sign a petition for British libel reform.
A commenter by the name of "betty" had something to add:
Genetically modified food is our future. Actually, we already eat a lot of it. Is it safe?
"- Media are invited to join Monsanto and other industry stakeholders for the official Grand Opening of the new, state-of-the-art Monsanto Canada Breeding Centre, located adjacent to Monsanto’s existing Canadian Head Office at the University of Manitoba’s Smartpark.Tues, November 23, 201010:30 am to 1:00 pm (lunch provided)"
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Monsanto-Canada-Breeding-Centre-Grand-Opening-1354370.htm
Um… I’d skip the lunch.
GMO crops are the main contributing factor in Colony Collapse Disorder which is decimating bee populations worldwide. We’re in for a future of eating gruel if we don’t do something fast. The mainstream media, big business and governments must stop whitewashing GMO science. http://www.energygrid.com/ecology/2010/03po-colonycollapse.html
Somebody from the media needs to crash this party and ask the tough questions!
Need motivation? Check these out:
American Academy of Environmental Medicine calls for immediate moratorium: http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
The World According to Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8hFuuDAZjk
David vs. Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E42ndfjnP1g&feature=fvst
The Future of Food: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Y_QH_c70s
This comment was flagged for moderation, and I duly marked it as spam because it didn't actually address anything in the post to which it was appended. Either WordPress made an error or one of my fellow Winnipeg Skeptics bloggers disagreed, approving it for publication. Although the comment wouldn't pass muster on my blog (it is in violation of several sections of the comment policy), far be it from me to start a fight over something so trivial.
So if you were hoping for a post on the subject of the Winnipeg Skeptics' recent trip to Winnipeg's Creation Museum, then I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. You have "betty" to blame for derailing me, because I'm going to briefly address a few of the points that she makes in her comment.
Genetically modified food is our future. Actually, we already eat a lot of it. Is it safe?
It certainly seems to be. Are you asserting that it is not? Oh, goody!
“- Media are invited to join Monsanto and other industry stakeholders for the official Grand Opening of the new, state-of-the-art Monsanto Canada Breeding Centre, located adjacent to Monsanto’s existing Canadian Head Office at the University of Manitoba’s Smartpark.Tues, November 23, 201010:30 am to 1:00 pm (lunch provided)”
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/Monsanto-Canada-Breeding-Centre-Grand-Opening-1354370.htm
Um… I’d skip the lunch.
That is, of course, your prerogative. I work just across the street: if I had a media pass, I'd stop by for a bite.
To be clear, I'm no huge fan of Monsanto. Based on some of the actions that they've taken in the past, I'm of the very tentative view that they're a bunch of bastards. But that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not genetically engineered foodstuffs are safe.
GMO crops are the main contributing factor in Colony Collapse Disorder which is decimating bee populations worldwide. We’re in for a future of eating gruel if we don’t do something fast. The mainstream media, big business and governments must stop whitewashing GMO science. http://www.energygrid.com/ecology/2010/03po-colonycollapse.html
FAIL.
This was at one time thought to be a potential cause of Colony Collapse Disorder, however no credible research has demonstrated such a link.
For honey bees, the concerns involved the potential lethality of insecticidal transgenic proteins, the sublethal effects of these proteins on insect behavior, physiology, and reproduction and the economic effects of transgenic pollen as a contaminant of honey. Malone and Pham-Delègue (2001) reviewed the small literature on this topic and concluded that, in some cases, there are negative but sublethal effects attributable to consumption of transgenic pollens. These effects varied with the identity of the transgene and the amount of its expression but in no case have any effects of transgenic crops on honey bee populations been documented. [Emphasis added.]
Honey bees are not a target species for Bt toxin, however it is not implausible that they may be affected in some way. The alternative to Bt strains would be to revert to using traditional pesticides in larger doses, which could pose similar problems—especially if those pesticides were organic, in which case they could pose additional risks.
First, the endotoxins currently expressed in Bt corn (Cry 1 types against caterpillars; Cry 3 types against beetles) are not active against hymenopteran insects such as the honey bee, nor do the CCD symptoms resemble those expected in Bt intoxicated organisms. Yes, the increase in bee loss has somewhat paralleled the increase in Bt crops in the U.S., but severe bee losses have occurred in Europe and in areas of Canada where Bt crops were not grown.
It seems very likely that this is a case of correlation (and weak correlation, at that) rather than causation. Wikipedia has a fairly excellent and well-referenced entry on Colony Collapse Disorder, including suggested causes.
But back to "betty":
Somebody from the media needs to crash this party and ask the tough questions!
Sure. By all means. The press release indicates that several key spokespeople will be available to take questions from the media. That's why they have these events.
Now that you have the science, let's take at look at the link that "betty" provided. And I quote:
We know that fractality is medically defined as the quality in your heart (HRV) which statistically predicts how long you will survive.
We now know this principle of measuring HARMONIC INCLUSIVENESS — is the way fractality can be measured in EVERY LIVING THING — TO PREDICT ITS SURVIVAL:
AND BY EXTENSION — it follows that harmonic inclusiveness — measuring FRACTALITY — can be used accurately, scientifically — to predict the viability / survival of EVERY LIVING THING ( atoms, babies, galaxies, .. the Dodeca — Universe etc etc..)
SO — now lets apply that to DNA.
Do you know what would be the DEATHLY OPPOSITE of harmonic inclusiveness or FRACTALITY in DNA?
THAT… would be… MONOCULTURE — A PHILOSOPHY OF DEATH FOR SELF-ORGANIZATION in all of DNA.
Winter then goes on to prove that Monsanto is evil by searching Google for "monsanto+evil" and reporting the hit count. He uses the same technique to prove that aspartame is poison (I think that there should be a Godwin-style internet law about this one). I appreciate that among the four or five items that fit into the category of "EVERY LIVING THING", only one is actually alive. Also, what the hell is a dodeca-universe? A universe with twelve sides? The crazy is strong with this one.
To be fair, that's just the foreword. The actual article is written by someone who could actually rub two words together to make a fire. (What? What does that even mean?)
Unfortunately, the actual arguments that he uses to state his case are tenuous hypotheticals (which are, in my opinion, adequately addressed by the papers that I quoted above), bolstered by claims that some scientists have incorrectly characterised the uses or efficacy of genetically engineered foods (which is not relevant).
Need motivation? Check these out:
American Academy of Environmental Medicine calls for immediate moratorium: http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
The World According to Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8hFuuDAZjk
David vs. Monsanto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E42ndfjnP1g&feature=fvst
The Future of Food: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Y_QH_c70s
I have a long-standing policy of not wasting my time on YouTube videos: although the rhetoric can be persuasive, video presentations are notorious for not citing their sources, making them incredibily difficult and time-consuming to fact-check. They're also a lot harder to quote! I'll take a scientific paper over a video any day.
The article in question quotes a 1999 study which purportedly "revealed clear links" between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. I managed to track down what appears to be that very study on PubMed. Although I have access only to the abstract, the conclusion stresses that among herbicides MCPA was most strongly associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma—RoundUp (glyphosate), a completely different chemical compound, was not listed at all.
However, when pooled with a second Swedish study, exposure to glyphosate was associated with a significant increase in risk of NHL.
Although there has been little consistent evidence of genotoxicity or carcinogenicity from in vitro and animal studies, a few epidemiologic reports have indicated potential health effects of glyphosate.
...
Glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall or with most of the cancer subtypes we studied. There was a suggested association with multiple myeloma incidence that should be followed up as more cases occur in the AHS.
This prospective cohort study had 57,311 participants (roughly 30 times as many as the Swedish studies). So it looks like there may be an effect here. Then again, there may not. But it's important to remember that the (potential) increase in cancer risk is only seen in people who handle the raw herbicides directly, and not in consumers of the foodstuffs.
Also, this is a gigantic tangent with little to do with genetically engineered agricultural products. Sigh.
SkepticNorth has a great new article that deals with the biological effects of so-called "dirty electricity" (which I have previously discussed here and here).
The article responds to a paper written by B. Blake Levitt and Henry Lai that was published in the Canadian National Research Council publication Environmental Reviews. Some snippets:
The failure by Levitt & Lai to provide a balanced assessment is an exercise in alarmism designed to bamboozle the public and is totally contrary to an objective scientific approach. The public is not equipped to understand hundreds of highly technical studies. The public health authorities are constantly reviewing the scientific literature looking at all new studies. In fact Health Canada recently released a statement about the Levitt & Lai article saying that "No new data is presented" and "...the conclusions made by the authors are not based on a full examination of the scientific evidence".
...
First, as has already been pointed out, the poorly done studies quoted by Levitt & Lai have been roundly rejected by mainstream scientists. If harmful biological effects from EMF do not exist, it seems impossible for this to cause EHS symptoms. Second, virtually all double blind studies that been conducted on individuals who claim to be electrosensitive have shown that EMF does not cause any symptoms. Rubin et al have done a systematic overview of all (46) double blind studies. They consistently show negative results. Levitt & Lai are honest enough to mention a few of these double blind studies, and not a single one supports their electrosensitivity claims. Double blind testing is the gold standard of evidence in science.
Yet somehow Levitt & Lai manage to ignore the obvious conclusions of these key studies and insist that the beliefs of EHS individuals cannot be wrong. They cite a number of non double blind studies such as surveys of people living near cell phone towers. These "studies" amount to little more than opinion polls of people who associate their EHS symptoms with their proximity to these towers. They state: "It makes little sense to keep denying health symptoms that are being reported in good faith". This is the illogic of the children’s fable about the sky is falling where Chicken Little whips up the populace into a state of mass hysteria. This is not science.
...
An excellent recent example of this was a recent flair up in Barrie Ontario, where a group of parents alleged that their kids where getting sick in school due to the presence of WiFi. This included all the usual non specific EHS symptoms such as heart palpitations. This got carried to the point where Rodney Palmer, a spokesman for the parents, in testimony before a Canadian Parliamentary hearing, claimed that a couple of children had suffered "heart attacks" due to WiFi in their schools. He cited a recent "study" written by Dr. Magda Havas, one of the leading alarmists to back up his claim. The Havas study is so fatally flawed that a first year medical student could debunk it.
...
Full and ongoing assessments of the scientific literature for any possible threats to public health are the responsibility of publicly appointed health science bodies throughout the world. Virtually all these bodies are unanimous in their conclusion that EMF within current limits poses no threat to health. When the public and politicians start paying attention to charlatans with a pseudoscientific agenda while ignoring their own science experts, we are treading on dangerous ground.
Bug Girl talks about the new TSA scanners, which take nude pictures of your body using ionizing radiation and store them for an undisclosed amount of time. It's a very good read.
Although sometimes I think he's a little too paranoid, going to tentatively side with Cory Doctorow on this one. (If you haven't read Little Brother, by the way, I highly recommend it.)
To be clear, I agree that the TSA are within their rights to require passengers to submit to these scans if they so choose: I don't think that anyone has classified flying as a universal human right. Although I've been through the machines before, I think that next time I'm going to opt for having my testicles fondled instead. But I'm also disturbed by the fact that in some cases travelers opting out of screenings have not been allowed to simply walk away from their flight, but have instead been threatened with fines or detainment.
I find this whole "illusion of security" that's been shoved down our throats over the last nine years troubling. The restriction on liquid thing really bothers me, because it is so transparently useless. Does anyone think that's anything more than an inconvenience? How could that possibly stop terrorism?
It seems to me that the TSA shouldn't be misleading travelers as to the efficacy, risks, or uses of their scanning devices. I also think that they have a responsibility to the public to be accountable for their decisions, and those decisions should be founded on sound research. The bottom line is that there's no evidence (that I've been able to find) that the scanners are effective in countering terrorism, the TSA has lied repeatedly about whether they store and transmit the scans (hint: they do), and it's always a good idea to minimise one's exposure to ionizing radiation (reports vary with regard to safety).
And hey, what's a little testicular cupping between complete strangers?
Edit: There's a new article up at the Wall Street Journal Online with some bearing on the matter. Here's a snippet:
It's the same kind of trade-off TSA implicitly provided when it ordered us to take off our sneakers (to stop shoe bombs) and to chuck our water bottles (to prevent liquid explosives). Security guru Bruce Schneier, a plaintiff in the scanner suit, calls this "magical thinking . . . Descend on what the terrorists happened to do last time, and we'll all be safe. As if they won't think of something else." Which, of course, they invariably do. Attackers are already starting to smuggle weapons in body cavities, going where even the most adroit body scanners do not tread. No wonder that the Israelis, known for the world's most stringent airport security, have so far passed on the scanners.
"As the TSA agent was frisking plaintiff, the agent pulled the plaintiff's blouse completely down, exposing plaintiffs' breasts to everyone in the area," the lawsuit said. "As would be expected, plaintiff was extremely embarrassed and humiliated."
The suit said the woman filed an administrative claim against the TSA, but the agency never responded, sparking the lawsuit.
...
"One male TSA employee expressed to the plaintiff that he wished he would have been there when she came through the first time and that 'he would just have to watch the video,'" the suit said.
Tip o' the hat to Shunjie Lau.
Best Edit Ever: According to an article in the UK's Daily Mail, the full body scanners are just as likely to kill you as a terrorist:
Peter Rez, from Arizona State University, said the probability of dying from radiation from a body scanner and that of being killed in a terror attack are both about one in 30 million.
He said: 'The thing that worries me the most, is not what happens if the machine works as advertised, but what happens if it doesn't.[']
A potential malfunction could increase the radiation dose, he said.
Hat tip to Brendan Curran-Johnson, who remarked that it was bizarre that we accept thousands of deaths each year in Canada alone from motor vehicle collisions, while the only acceptable death-rate for air travel is zero.
Another Edit: Back in 2002, Penn Jillette also had something to say on the subject of airport groping:
He reached around while he was behind me and grabbed around my front pocket. I guess he was going for my flashlight, but the area could have loosely been called "crotch." I said, "You have to ask me before you touch me or it's assault."
He said, "Once you cross that line, I can do whatever I want."
Penn, of course, objected. He is an Objectivist, after all.
I've attached the audio of the talk here, along with a slightly compressed version of what I meant to say (no guarantees that it's what I actually said). During Q&A I found myself trying to explain that being culturally relative wasn't really cultural relativism. It had been a long day, and it may have been an epic logic fail. Judge for yourself!
The slides are hosted on WordPress, so they may disappear in the future. Get 'em while you can!
I'm a skeptic. But what does that mean? It means a couple of things. First off, it means that I'm a grouch.
As humanists well know, atheism isn't enough—not for me, anyway. The Raelians are atheists, for crying out loud. And so we have skepticism. To my mind, what I don't believe is more important than what I do. Not because I'm a negative person, but because it seems to me that what I don't believe is more indicative of the way that I go about figuring things out. And, if you attended SkeptiCamp last month, you know that I'm just mad for figuring things out.
It's common to think of skepticism simply as doubt—and as far as one-word definitions go, that's fine—but it's not quite as simple as that. Are those who "doubt evolution" skeptics? Are those who doubt that the astronauts of Apollo 11 landed on the moon skeptics? Are those who doubt the germ theory of disease skeptics? I don't think so.
Skepticism is not a position: it's a method. It's a method of critically examining and analysing claims, to sort those that are probably true from those that are probably not.
What should I look for?
So when we're examining a claim, what do we look for?
Plausibility: How well does this idea fit with what we currently know about how the universe functions?
Falsifiability: Is the claim well and rigorously defined? Is there a way to prove it false, at least in principle?
Evidence: Has the claim been previously investigated? If so, what were the results of the investigation?
Sound Reasoning: Does the claim rest upon logical fallacies or cognitive biases?
Logical Fallacies
We'll start off with examples of some of the more common logical fallacies.
Appeal to Nature: This is when one claims that since a thing is natural, it is therefore desirable or good (or, conversely, when one claims that since a thing is unnatural, it is undesirable or bad). This is a subset of Hume's classic is-ought problem.
Example: "Genetic engineering is unnatural, so you should eat only organic food."
Affirming the Consequent: This is a converse error which assumes that the premises of a condition are true if the conclusion is true. It generally takes this form:
P → Q
Q
∴ P
Example: "If it is raining, the sidewalk is wet. Since the sidewalk is wet, it must be raining."
Fallacy of the Perfect Solution: This occurs when one claims that a solution to a problem ought to be rejected because it is imperfect or will not solve all instances of the problem.
Example: "You shouldn’t use chemotherapy to treat your cancer, because the therapy is toxic and some people die even after being treated."
I'm no fan of big pharma, and the multinational corporations who control the pharmaceutical industry certainly aren't perfect. Unfortunately, I don't have a better solution to the problem of funding research and supplying real medicine to people. In my opinion, regulation is certainly in order.
Straw Man: This involves mischaracterising an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. This is very popular.
Example: "If evolution were true, we’d see cats giving birth to dogs. Since we don’t, evolution is false!" The "crocoduck" presented by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron also falls into this category.
I actually want to talk to you real quick about a trope in media that really bothers me. It's the Straw Vulcan. Anyone know what I'm talking about?
It's a straw man attack against logic itself. It's when Mr. Spock tries to apply logic to solve a problem, fails spectacularly, and human emotion saves the day, and you're left screaming at your television, "That's not logic! You fail logic forever!"
I'm just going to quote directly from the TV Tropes page, because they get it so right:
Fiction often mixes up logical with other concepts... For one thing, authors sometimes say "illogical" when what they appear to mean is "counter-intuitive." Correct logic is very often counter-intuitive ... which is to be expected, as logic is meant to prevent errors caused by relying on intuition. As such it has more in common with mathematics than with Common Sense.
The term Straw Vulcan originates (of course) with Star Trek. A particularly glaring instance of Gene Roddenberry's epic logic fail occurs in "The Galileo Seven". Spock and Kirk are stranded in a shuttlecraft with insufficient fuel to return them to the Enterprise. Spock is forced to commit an "emotional" act by igniting their remaining fuel supply and hope that the Enterprise notices their makeshift beacon. It's either burn the fuel in which case you might live, or just carrying on, in which case you certainly don't. Even so, the act of igniting the fuel is labeled "illogical".
This is really run-of-the-mill. The misportrayal of "cold logic" in just about every entertainment medium is endemic. And it bugs me.
Moving on.
Begging the Question: This is also called circular reasoning, and it occurs when one attempts to demonstrate that a conclusion is true by means of premises that already assume the conclusion is true.
Example: "God exists, because he inspired those who wrote the Bible, and the Bible testifies to his greatness."
Argumentum ad Hominem: This is Latin for "argument to the man". It is when one attacks the person, rather than the argument he or she is making.
Example: "You shouldn't listen to what Darwin had to say because he was a racist."
An aside about the ad hominem. If I say John Edward is an asshat, or Charlie Sheen is a moron, or Ray Comfort is a raving loon, that's not a logical fallacy. The ad hominem only becomes a logical fallacy if I say Charlie Sheen's claims that 9/11 was in inside job are false because he's an moron. Similarly, it would be a logical fallacy if I claimed that the banana does not prove God's existence because Ray Comfort is a raving loon. That's not to say that the two must be unrelated, of course. Instead, I say Ray Comfort is a raving loon because he believes that the banana proves God's existence.
Tu Quoque: This subset of the ad hominem attack is Latin for "you too". It involves appealing to one's opponent's hypocrisy in failing to act in accordance to his or her own position.
Example: "Climate change isn’t real, because Al Gore, its most vocal proponent, has a huge mansion and drives a big car."
Argumentum ad Populum: Latin for "argument to the people", to commit this fallacy is to argue that a proposition is true on the basis that many (or most) believe it to be true.
Example: "200,000 Canadians can’t be wrong! Q-Ray. Find out what they know!"
Argumentum ad Consequentiam: Also called the argument from final consequences, this is Latin for "argument to the consequences". This is when one argues that a proposition is true or false based upon the whether accepting the proposition leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.
Example: "If God did not exist, life would have no ultimate meaning."
These are just a few of the many logical pitfalls that plague human thinking.
It's important to remember that even if an argument is perfectly valid in structure and bereft of any logical fallacies, there are still cases in which it should not be persuasive. If the premises of an argument are false, the conclusion is unsupported regardless of the ironclad logic of the syllogism. "Garbage in, garbage out", as we software developers like to say.
Cognitive Biases
Now I want to talk quickly about some of the more common cognitive biases.
Confirmation Bias: This is our propensity to favour information that confirms positions that we already hold and to ignore evidence contrary to our own opinion. This often results in one-sided hypothesis testing and "cargo cult science".
To quote Randall Munroe, creator of xkcd, the best webcomic in the known universe (yes, I just called you out, fans of SMBC): "You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right."
Selective Recall: This is a subset of confirmation bias which describes our propensity to remember the hits and forget the misses. It is relied upon by psychics and snake-oil salesmen to convince you that stuff is real when it's not.
Inattentional Blindness: The inability to perceive things that are in plain sight as a result of distraction or focus elsewhere.
Change Blindness: The failure to detect major changes in a scene due to visual disruption (saccade, obstruction, etc.).
So by now, I reckon you should be absolutely terrified by the very concept of eyewitness testimony. I know that I am.
Falsifiability
Falsifiability: This is the logical possibility that a proposition could be shown to be false, at least in principle. It is a very important principle in science and philosophy. It's important to note that "falsifiable" does not mean "false".
For example, which of these statements is falsifiable?
Does that set of statements differ in any meaningful way from this set of statements?
"The gods abide at the summit of Mount Olympus."
"God dwells extradimensionally, outside of space and time, and cannot be observed save by His direct permission."
I would propose that for a proposition to be useful, it has to be falsifiable.
Jesus is Magic
Can the "God Question" be properly addressed by skepticism?
You first have to pick a god. They tend to have different properties. The Mormon god, for example, lives on the planet Kolob (or on a planet revolving around the star Kolob—interpretations vary). Deepak Chopra's god, on the other hand, seems to involve abusing quantum mechanics to make money. (Or perhaps that's a straw man?)
Let's check our work:
Plausibility
Falsifiability
Evidence
Sound Reasoning
I don't believe in any gods, because they tend to fail in all four of the categories I outlined above. They're unfalsifiable (or the tend to retreat into unfalsifiability—gone are the times when a simple trip to the summit of Mount Olympus would have done the trick); they're implausible (at the very least, we've never encountered anything remotely like them); there is no unambiguous evidence for their existence; and the rationale used to argue for their existence is laden with poor logic.
I think that the God Question can be addressed by skepticism, but I recognise that taking that position does not put me in the overwhelming majority. Addressing religion tends to make people very uncomfortable—religious people, that is. But at the same time, addressing homeopathy tends to make homeopaths and their devotees very uncomfortable. Addressing spiritualism tends to make psychics and their enthusiasts very uncomfortable.
The problem is that people tend to identify themselves with their beliefs, and if their beliefs are threatened they feel like you're insensitively attacking them.
So that's the first lesson: I highly recommend that you don't get personally invested in your beliefs. It's surprisingly difficult, but it's manageable. Instead, I identify with the process by which I arrive at my beliefs. My goal is that when the evidence changes, my mind changes with it.
Here's where I really think that religion can be addressed by skepticism.
The Burden of Proof
If you make an assertion, it is not the other guy's job to prove you wrong.
In the absence of unambiguous evidence, there are two possible default positions for belief: either believe proposition until it's proven false or withhold belief until propositions are proven true.
People will often try to wriggle out of this choice, trying to claims some imaginary middle ground which simply doesn't exist. You either believe a proposition or you don't believe it. Given the proposition, "There is a dead body in the trunk of my car," which works better? Do you assume that's true until proven otherwise? The law certainly doesn't, and neither should sane individuals.
The real problem with believing all propositions until they are proven false is that it is logically inconsistent.
By way of example, take these two propositions:
"Leprechauns place a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow."
"Leprechauns do not exist."
Absent any evidence for or against either proposition, one would be forced to accept both, even though they are mutually contradictory.
For this reason, if you make an assertion, it is your responsibility to provide evidence.
It is common practice among the intellectually dishonest to attempt to shift the burden of proof. I'm sure that we've all been asked to "Prove that God doesn’t exist!" This is similar to C.S. Lewis' classic "liar, lunatic, lord" trichotomy. Not only is it an example of a false dilemma, if you assert that it is your opponent's job to prove that Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof.
I hear religious people frequently talk about "appreciating the mystery of life, the mystery of all of creation", and I just want to scream, "You're doing it wrong!" Yes, life is full of mysteries, and that's a fine thing. But to speak of these great mysteries with such fulsome appreciation and to just stop there... that's madness! That's like admiring a fresh mocha cheesecake with Oreo crumbs on top, and saying: "What a delicious-looking cheesecake. I would wager that it tastes simply divine! Don't you agree? It would appear to be just scrumptious!" Take a bite, why don't you? Investigate the mystery. Saying "it's a mystery" isn't really appreciating the mystery at all!
Julian Begini expressed this quite well, I think: "It is arguable that humanism has a better grip on life's mysteries than religion. For example, I'm genuinely in the dark about how the universe started, whereas plenty of religious believers have that hole in their understanding plugged by their deity."
Story Time!
I'm going to tell you three stories, and I swear to you that they are true.
I used to work at a local dinner theatre. Several years ago (probably four or five by now), I was sitting with a friend of mine in the audience after the show, carrying on a conversation, when suddenly I froze. We both turned and looked toward the stage, which was approximately ten metres away, to my left and to her right. We turned back to face each other, and made to resume our conversation, when suddenly she asked me, "Did you just see something?" "Yes," I replied. "I thought that I saw a blonde woman walking along the stage out of the corner of my eye, but when I turned to look, she was gone!" "Was she wearing a red dress?" my companion asked me. I thought back. "Yes," I replied, "she was. I thought it was the stage manager." It was then that our stage manager walked up from the booth, on the opposite side of the room, and asked what was wrong. It couldn't have been her, I thought. She was on the other side of the room, and she's not wearing red.
When I was fifteen, I stayed a few months with a rich friend of mine in his parents' home, which could only be described as a mansion. It was a very old, very beautiful thing of red brick. It even had turrets! We would spend many an afternoon playing on the sloped roofs, to his parents' considerable alarm. It also had a separate stairway that paralleled the main set of steps, made for servants (of which he had none). One day, I recall mounting the servants' stairway on my way up from the basement, which was cavernous and somewhat frightening, even for a fifteen-year-old boy, when I thought that I heard something. I stopped, and listened, and I thought that I heard a cool voice, which I'd characterise paradoxically as entirely without character, say my name. Appropriately, I bolted.
I have one final tale, probably the most convincing for those who have a taste for anecdotes of this sort. I now live with my lovely and very supportive wife, but five years ago I lived alone. I was preparing a photo album for Laura, as she was going away for six months to visit Brazil. It was very late, and I was watching Star Trek: Deep Space Nine while I cut and sorted photographs. The paper-cutter that I was using slipped, and nearly took off my finger, and as it did I heard the remote control tumble to the floor. I cursed, and went searching for it, and came up empty-handed. I sighed and lifted the couch, and found only little balls of dust, and a stray pencil or two. I slowly and methodically cleared the photo-paper trimmings from the couch, removed the cushions and gave all of its cavities a search thorough enough to make the Department of Homeland Security proud. Nothing. I sighed again and went back to the photographs.
I spent much of my free time, over the next few days, searching for the remote. After about a week I finally despaired of ever finding it, and bought a "universal" one (for those of you who've tried to program one of these, you know why I put that word in air-quotes). A few days later, I was staring wistfully at a photograph of Laura (now on the other side of the world), when the telephone rang. I went to fetch it, and as I did I placed the photograph face down on the middle shelf of a white, three-tiered little stand that I believe was originally intended as a bedside table. When I returned for the photograph, it was gone.
Thinking of my lost remote, my consternation growing by the minute, I gave the area a good search. Then, convinced that my mind was playing some sort of cruel trick, I picked up every item on each tier of the stand, one by one, and asked myself, "Is this the photograph?" before placing it on the floor and moving on to the next. Nothing. Then, as the stand was white and I'd placed the photograph face-down, I ran my hands over every surface. Finding nothing, I finally picked the thing up and shook it. But to no avail. I finally sat down and wept with frustration and disappointment. "I just want my stuff back," I moaned. A sat there a while before finally cleaning myself up and going about my day.
The next morning, I was groggily walking about, on my way to brush my teeth, when I happened to glance into a mirror on my wall. I let out a little (and somewhat emasculating, I must admit) shriek, for reflected in it was the little, three-tiered stand, and on the middle level, face-down, was my photograph.
A few weeks later, I found the remote. Although I still seem to remember the clunk that it made as it fell to the floor, it was buried in the couch. I found it quite accidentally: I terrified some friends who were over to play video games, as when I pulled it out of the couch I once again shrieked and tossed it across the room, where it bounced off the fireplace, eventually landing in someone's lap.
I remember these things, and I swear to you that those stories are true. I have not made them up. These things happened to me. I remember these events as clearly as I remember the day that I met my wife or the first time I kissed a girl. (Incidentally, I don't remember the first time I kissed a guy very well. I guess when something happens that many times it all kind of blends together... And now my wife looks rather alarmed. Moving on!)
I've probably put many of you in a fairly uncomfortable position. So, what the hell, let's make it even more uncomfortable.
When I tell you these stories, how many of you believe me? Come on, I promise not to be offended—I'm actually rather difficult to offend.
Are you calling me a liar?
Well, that's a little awkward. This is personal. I'm sure that most of you don't want to call me a liar.
But what am I asking you, when I ask "Do you believe me?" Am I saying, "Do you believe that I was plagued by spirits?" Am I saying, "Do you believe that these things happened to me?" Or am I simply saying, "Do you believe that I remember these things happening to me, and this is how I remember them?" It's not a simple question.
So. How many of you believe that this is how I remember the events?
And how many believe that these things happened to me, as I have told them?
And finally, how many of you believe that I was the victim of a haunting of some sort?
These things happened to me. I remember them happening to me. But I know better than to trust those memories. Things may well have happened differently. So let's get out the skeptical toolbox.
"Spirits" may seem to be the simplest explanation for my experiences, but as an explanation it leaves much to be desired. While it purports to explain, however, it begets many more questions than it answers: the idea of disembodied spirits present even more complications than the idea of those still bound by their fleshy trappings.
How does the spirit communicate with the brain?
What functions does it perform that the brain cannot account for alone? (If souls exist, they would seem to be at the very least almost completely redundant.)
Why does the spirit seems to be impaired in so many ways by brain injury and the like?
Lacking sensory organs, how does an immaterial spirit perceive the material world? (If it can perceive the material world, why is physical blindness a hindrance at all?) Even if ghosts did have invisible eyes, invisible eyes wouldn't work. If we are to see, light needs to strike our retina. If it passes through the retina, or around it, as it would if the retina were invisible, we would not be able to observe it. (With that in mind, I think that a certain member of the Fantastic Four has some explaining to do.)
How does an immaterial spirit interact with or affect the material world? (If it can affect the material world, why does an embodied spirit control its host via the brain? Why not control its appendages directly?)
If spirits do exist, why have none of them, particularly the scientifically-minded ones, attempted to communicate in such a way that it could be empirically verified? Surely Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, et al could take some time off from exploring Andromeda and Triangulum to help push our scientific understanding further!
There's another problem that I caught, too. Although I repeated the first tale faithfully, I realise that there is a glaring error in this version of it. The blonde woman in the red dress whom I putatively saw was in the periphery of my vision. Peripheral vision is provided predominantly by rod cells, rather than cones, and rods are useless for distinguishing colour; this makes colour vision in the periphery nigh on impossible (as can be demonstrated experimentally with cue-cards of differing hues). All the same, my memory is quite clear: the "ghost" was wearing a red dress.
I've heard it said also that ghosts are not souls (that's ridiculous), but are instead "recordings" or "memories" or "resonances" of events and people past. But in what medium are such things recorded? How do they play out? How can such afterimages affect the physical world (which they must, if they generate sound or light, or even if they trick our brains into thinking that they do)?
On the balance, it seems much more likely that either I misremember my experiences or was in some way deceived, either by intent or by the failings of my own brain; but, as always, there may be another explanation. The thing is, I have memories of things that I know didn't happen. I also don't have memories of things that I know did happen!
Have you ever been telling a story to a large audience, only to catch a glimpse of your spouse looking puzzled out of the corner of your eye? She's heard the story before, and you've told it dozens of times, but this isn't quite the story that she remembers. Stories change in the telling. Not intentionally—not always—but they do change. When you tell a story, you change it, little by little.
Why Skepticism?
What’s the harm in believing? Go to www.whatstheharm.net. They're anecdotes. But they're good anecdotes.
We can all be duped, and skepticism isn't a cure. I think of it more like a vaccine: it won't work for everyone every time, but there's hope that one day we can achieve herd immunity.
If you get duped, it's not because you're stupid. Dr. Steve Novella summed it up like this:
It is easy for anyone to be overwhelmed by an organized campaign of misinformation. I know very bright people who were blown away by Loose Change when they first saw it. I know otherwise intelligent people who just cannot handle the systematic lies and distortions of the creationists – they don’t have the background and the volumes of information it would take to tackle each false claim and logical fallacy.
The same is true of the alternative medicine and anti-vaccine movement – they have a highly developed package of propaganda, misinformation, and subtle distortions – wrapped in a feel-good and empowering philosophy, that can easily overwhelm even an intelligent person.
So what can you do? Be intellectually honest. Confront the evidence, and if you're wrong, admit it and change your mind. We all have our sacred cows, I'm sure, and we can do no more than examine our beliefs as reasonably as we can, and stand ready to abandon them when it is pointed out to us that our positions are untenable.
This is what one of the Novella brothers suggested: try not to be emotionally attached to your beliefs; strive instead to identify with the skeptical process by which you arrive at them. Although it is far from easy, it is something toward which we ought to strive.
"All men are fools, and he who does not wish to see them must remain in his chamber and break his looking-glass."
—Marquis de Sade
Women get a pass on that one, apparently.
Advice
Remember to check your work:
Plausibility
Falsifiability
Evidence
Sound Reasoning
Don't forget Ray Hyman's Categorical Imperitive: Don't try to explain a phenomenon until you've determined that it actually exists. A good example of an explanation in search of a phenomenon is King Tut's "Curse".
Let no question remain unasked because it is deemed impolite. Obviously there is a time and a place for everything, but don't forget that you have a right to question everything. Freedom of expression is terribly important, as this is how the best ideas rise to the top.
I'm often accused of being closed-minded. Skepticism is not about being closed-minded—it's actually about being open-minded. It's about being open to having your mind changed. It's about evaluating evidence and using that evidence as the basis for your beliefs. Admitting that we're all capable of making gross mistakes about the world is being fairly open-minded, I'd say.
I'm going to let Tim Minchin have more-or-less the last word.
I'll finish up with some startling things that I don't believe in:
Although I had some problems with that article, I think that it was more or less fair and well-intentioned. Those are not descriptors that I would apply to this article, however. To paraphrase Alec Guinness, "You will never find a more wretched hive of straw men and villainy. We must be cautious."
However, contrary to what appears to be popular belief, it is not simply "religious" (a term I use reluctantly) types like myself nor even the vague "spiritual" seekers who exercise faith. Rather, we all do – even those who identify as atheist, agnostic, or skeptic.
Take, if you will, the notion of origins. Where did the universe come from in the first place? A "religious" person will likely tell you that, according to faith, it was created by an external, supernatural agent (as much as they may disagree about the nature of this agent).
Many atheists – or perhaps a fairer term would be naturalists – will shrug off such an assertion as unscientific and opt instead for a purely "rational" (a term I use under deep suspicion here) approach to the matter.
Oooh, that reeks of scathing condescension. Do go on!
Often, naturalists counter such religious beliefs by explaining that the universe is the product of time and chance. Since the existence of an external, supernatural agent cannot be proven rationally, it must be discounted.
Thus, the world is apparently split between two types of people: those who exercise faith to support their worldview, and those who do not.
This dichotomy is false, through and through.
After all, who out of us, from the most ardent religious apologist to the most die-hard naturalist, was there at the beginning of time? Who actually saw what happened?
Since the answer is clearly no one, any assertions made about such fundamental origins are necessarily products of faith.
I have faith that the natural world was birthed from the supernatural. A naturalist has faith that the universe (that is, the "natural" world) came into being of its own accord.
Ah, what a delicious example of false equivalence!
Which of these beliefs is the more rational one? Let us consider, for a moment, what preceded the moment of creation (or Big Bang, if you prefer). As a Christian, it is my belief that before the universe came into being, God "was."
A naturalist, however, runs into a distinct difficulty here: Logic (not to mention the most fundamental laws of science) dictates that some sort of pre-existing physical matter must have been present in order to give rise to the Big Bang. Yet, where this matter came from is unclear.
"Logic"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. You probably mean "common sense". As TVTropes.org might say, you fail logic forever.
This ambiguity has all too often been dismissed by naturalists as merely fodder for the philosophers, even though it is an absurd mistake to do so.
Physical matter, however rudimentary, requires causation – it cannot arise out of nothing. To suggest otherwise is to commit scientific suicide and throw one's credibility to the wind.
...and, in waxing poetic for a moment, he immediately jumps the shark.
In his article "Making the Leap" what Jon Kornelsen neglected to mention is the burden of proof.
In cases where no unambiguous evidence is forthcoming, the burden of proof dictates the default position. There are two possible default positions for belief in a proposition when evidence is absent: (1) believe every proposition until proven false; or (2) withhold belief until propositions are proven true.
The problem with the first option is that it is logically inconsistent. I'll illustrate by way of example.
Proposition 1: "Leprechauns place a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow."
Proposition 2: "Leprechauns do not exist."
With no evidence forthcoming, option (1) forces you to accept both propositions, even though they are mutually inconsistent.
For this reason, we accept option (2), and conclude that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. If you claim that a deity exists and it created the universe, you bear the burden of proof.
I do not have "faith" that the universe came into being of its own accord. As philosopher Julian Baggini said, "I'm genuinely in the dark about how the universe started, whereas plenty of religious believers have that hole in their understanding plugged by their deity."
To say "I don't see how the universe could possibly have begun other than by divine decree" is simply absurd. It is an argument from ignorance, and a logical fallacy. Saying "I don't know" is always more intellectually honest than pretending that you do.
Gem Newman,
The Winnipeg Skeptics
Tip o' the cosmological argument to Robert McGregor for the link.
Most of the time, I’d argue it’s pretty much a scam to pay someone to remove viruses from your PC anyway: if you have a Mac, it’s a non-issue, and there’s enough free virus scanners out there that there’s no real reason to pay.
Still, if you were going to pay someone to remove viruses from your computer, how much would it be worth to you? Fifty bucks? One hundred bucks? But surely no one sane would you pay twenty million bucks, right?
Wrong. Since 2004, composer Roger Davidson has been paying Datalink Computer Products owner Vickram Bedi and employee Helga Ivarsdottir to keep his computer clear of viruses.
...
Apparently, these viruses were not only so powerful as to damage machines in the repair shop that were simply in the vicinity of Davidson’s PC, but that the virus was born on a hard drive in a remote village of Honduras, created as part of a plot to infiltrate the United States government by Polish priests linked to Opus Dei. Worse? Davidson’s life was in danger.
Tip o' the insane international conspiracy to Shunjie Lau.
And so do I! English libel laws are as absurd as they are far-reaching. I'll let Simon explain.
This week is the first anniversary of the report Free Speech is Not for Sale, which highlighted the oppressive nature of English libel law. In short, the law is extremely hostile to writers, while being unreasonably friendly towards powerful corporations and individuals who want to silence critics.
The English libel law is particular dangerous for bloggers, who are generally not backed by publishers, and who can end up being sued in London regardless of where the blog was posted. The internet allows bloggers to reach a global audience, but it also allows the High Court in London to have a global reach.
You can read more about the peculiar and grossly unfair nature of English libel law at the website of the Libel Reform Campaign. You will see that the campaign is not calling for the removal of libel law, but for a libel law that is fair and which would allow writers a reasonable opportunity to express their opinion and then defend it.
The good news is that the British Government has made a commitment to draft a bill that will reform libel, but it is essential that bloggers and their readers send a strong signal to politicians so that they follow through on this promise. You can do this by joining me and over 50,000 others who have signed the libel reform petition at http://www.libelreform.org/sign
Remember, you can sign the petition whatever your nationality and wherever you live. Indeed, signatories from overseas remind British politicians that the English libel law is out of step with the rest of the free world.
If you have already signed the petition, then please encourage friends, family and colleagues to sign up. Moreover, if you have your own blog, you can join hundreds of other bloggers by posting this blog on your own site. There is a real chance that bloggers could help change the most censorious libel law in the democratic world.
As aforementioned, we're taking a little trip to Winnipeg's very own creation museum this weekend. The Winnipeg Skeptics had a preparatory meeting last week at which we discussed some of the claims made by the museum in detail. I'll post my (very abridged) notes below, which briefly address some of the claims found on the museum's website.
The Paluxy Footprints
Many of the footprints are only vaguely hominid.
Some appear to have been intentionally altered to appear more human.
Many are clear cases of therapod metatarsal footprints with backfilled or eroded phalanges impressions.
There is no evidence that the "London Artifact", a hammer encrusted with calcium carbonate, is more than a few decades old.
The Meister Print is not actually a boot- or sandal-print: it is a spall pattern.
There is no evidence that an iron cup was actually found in a lump of coal: it was reported decades after the fact, and inaccurately. Would the same credence be given to the many stories of living frogs found encased in stone?
Living frogs encased in stone (similar in circumstance to the iron cup encased in coal) at Skeptoid.
Human Evolution
Most of these arguments attack the fact that science changes its views based on the evidence at hand. This is a strength of science. When evidence challenges a major scientific theory, both the evidence and the theory are closely examined.
The giant axe head on display was almost certainly ceremonial, and is not evidence that human beings used to be giants. Sigh.
The caption for one of the Neanderthal images here suggests that since humans used to live many hundreds of years, Neanderthals are actually just old, old dudes. False premise aside, we have examples of young Neanderthals, and Neanderthals display greater bone density than modern humans, rather than less (as would be expected of aged individuals).
Let's take a quick break. I'll quote in full the segment of the site describing the skull of Homo Sapiens Sapiens:
Homo Sapiens Sapiens Skull
This is the skull of the typical person alive today (though many variations exist). Scientists refer to this species as Homo (Man) Sapien Sapien [sic] (wise, wise). In other words, we today are the wise, wise men. We don't think so. Anyone spending all their free time digging in the dirt looking for "missing links" is a fool professing to be wise (Romans 1:22 says, "professing to be wise, they became fools…").
Fossils and geological layers are not actually sorted hydrologically or by density.
Many of the claims made are "irreducible complexity" standards, which can be explained by scaffolding, co-opting, etc. Go read a book by just about any evolutionary biologist.
The evolution of the giraffe is trotted out as irreducibly complex—I suppose the complexity of the eye was too thoroughly refuted—even though Darwin himself addressed this claim, too!
I find it amusing that giraffes are used to prove design, when their recurrent laryngeal nerve is actually excellent evidence for evolution. While it only needs to travel a few inches, in a giraffe it is often more than 12 feet long.
Recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes at Wikipedia.
I'm currently putting the finishing touches on a talk that I'm presenting to the Humanist Association of Manitoba the same day as the museum trip, and I'm already writing my presentation for the next SkeptiCamp Winnipeg (this one's on free will!), so I'm fairly busy—but I imagine that there will be a follow-up post sometime next week.
