26 December 2010
24 December 2010
Power Balance Apologises for Misleading the Public
Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.
From the official Power Balance Australia website:
Congratulations to Richard Saunders and everyone else who has been tirelessly skeptical of such pseudoscientific magic trinkets.
From the official Power Balance Australia website:
CORRECTIVE ADVERTISEMENT
POWER BALANCE WRISTBANDS
In our advertising we stated that Power Balance wristbands improved your strength, balance and flexibility.
We admit that there is no credible scientific evidence that supports our claims and therefore we engaged in misleading conduct in breach of s52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974. [Emphasis added.]
If you feel you have been misled by our promotions, we wish to unreservedly apologise and offer a full refund.
To obtain a refund please visit our website www.powerbalance.com.au or contact us toll-free on 1800 733 436
This offer will be available until 30th June 2011. To be eligible for a refund, together with return postage, you will need to return a genuine Power Balance product along with proof of purchase (including credit card records, store barcodes and receipts) from an authorised reseller in Australia.
This Corrective Notice has been paid for by Power Balance Australia Pty Ltd and placed pursuant to an undertaking to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission given under section 87B of the Trade Practices Act, 1974.
Congratulations to Richard Saunders and everyone else who has been tirelessly skeptical of such pseudoscientific magic trinkets.
21 December 2010
Myth of the Month: Positive Thinking, Part 2
I ran across an amusing ad recently, and because it's Positive Thinking Month here at Startled Disbelief, I decided to click on it rather than ignoring it as is my wont.
It took me here, to the site of "Dr." Joe Vitale*, who apparently co-starred in the film version of The Secret. (Watch out: there's an annoying video that starts playing as soon as the site loads.)
Vitale tells us that... well, I'll let him speak for himself. From the video:
This is possibly the best thing ever.
Hey, Joe: I'm also wondering why sometimes my coin stubbornly insists on coming up "tails" when I command it to come up heads.
Luckily, I actually know this one. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, because you're not properly applying confirmation bias. If you take note of the hits and discard the misses ('cause you weren't doing it quite right), then it will work every time!
But maybe Joe has a different answer.
Good point. The Secret doesn't spend enough time talking about the other laws of the universe. I recommend starting here.
Yeah, they're exactly the same! One is a vague ipse dixit rule of thumb which claims that a person's internal psychological state can and does have a dramatic and direct effect on the day-to-day operation of the cosmos at a macroscopic level, and the other is a scientific theory that describes the interaction between massive bodies due to the curvature of space-time and is a foundational principle of modern physics.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's because magic isn't real. Just sayin'.
Wait, did he say "it could be an old program"? Oh, no! Gaius, fire up the detector: I think that we might have a Cylon on our hands!
Okay, perhaps I'm laying the snark on a little thick.
Enough with the video. Let's take a brief look at the actual text of Vitale's website. And I quote:
Honestly? I think that the greatest travesty here is that he used various combinations of boldface, italics, underlining, block capitals, and the colour red to make his point.
But... who is Joe Vitale? Well, according to the <title> tag on his website, "Joe Vitale of The Secret DVD is Law of Attraction expert and Life Coach".
That image sort of makes him look like Satan, and calling himself "Mr. Fire" certainly doesn't help.
From his "about" page:
Apparently he's a P.T. Barnum devotee (appropriate), a "Chun Kung Healer" (what?), and has a "Doctors degree [sic] in Metaphysical Science" (awesome).
Although I couldn't find his alma mater listed anywhere, but I would bet money that he got his "Doctors degree" from the University of Metaphysical Sciences. Although you might assume that this is an unaccredited diploma-mill, you would be wrong: it is accredited by both the American Association of Drugless Practitioners and the American Alternative Medical Association. But I recommend reading the fine print, because if you don't you'll miss this hilarious disclaimer:
Excellent.
Well, we went farther down that particular rabbit hole than originally intended. Tune in next time, when I hope to discuss either The Secret or perhaps even negative thinking.
* Although I make a concerted effort to avoid making "not a real doctor" claims (despite accusations to the contrary), it is easy to find examples of people who have misled the public with regard to their academic credentials. (Examples include "Dr." Kent Hovind and "Dr." Gillian McKeith.) Although I have not been able to determine conclusively where "Dr." Joe Vitale studied, I have my doubts that it was a properly accredited institution.
It took me here, to the site of "Dr." Joe Vitale*, who apparently co-starred in the film version of The Secret. (Watch out: there's an annoying video that starts playing as soon as the site loads.)
Vitale tells us that... well, I'll let him speak for himself. From the video:
If you've read about the Law of Attraction, maybe you're wondering why sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work.
This is possibly the best thing ever.
Hey, Joe: I'm also wondering why sometimes my coin stubbornly insists on coming up "tails" when I command it to come up heads.
Luckily, I actually know this one. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, because you're not properly applying confirmation bias. If you take note of the hits and discard the misses ('cause you weren't doing it quite right), then it will work every time!
But maybe Joe has a different answer.
See, the movie just introduces the idea of the Law of Attraction; it doesn't explain the Law of Attraction, nor does it explain all the other elements and all the other laws that are out there in the universe that you need to know to create the life that you'd like to have.
Good point. The Secret doesn't spend enough time talking about the other laws of the universe. I recommend starting here.
The Law of Attraction is a law, it's like the Law of Gravity, it's working all the time.
Yeah, they're exactly the same! One is a vague ipse dixit rule of thumb which claims that a person's internal psychological state can and does have a dramatic and direct effect on the day-to-day operation of the cosmos at a macroscopic level, and the other is a scientific theory that describes the interaction between massive bodies due to the curvature of space-time and is a foundational principle of modern physics.
You see, there's something called counter-intentions in your life. You can consciously declare that you'd like to have, do, or be something, but if it doesn't happen it's most likely because you have an opposing belief, you have a counter-thought within you.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's because magic isn't real. Just sayin'.
It could be a negative thought, it could be a limiting thought, it could be an old program...
Wait, did he say "it could be an old program"? Oh, no! Gaius, fire up the detector: I think that we might have a Cylon on our hands!
Okay, perhaps I'm laying the snark on a little thick.
Enough with the video. Let's take a brief look at the actual text of Vitale's website. And I quote:
Getting some of what you want in life... but not ALL of it?
What Are You THINKING?
You CAN attract the things you want into your life. But ONLY when your subconscious thoughts MATCH your conscious desires.
ALIGN THEM NOW… with the powerful "Missing Secret" that will:
- Identify, isolate, and ELIMINATE your hidden counter-intentions
- Harmonize your true intentions with the Law of Attraction, and
- Bring you what you really want every time, instead of just sometimes
Honestly? I think that the greatest travesty here is that he used various combinations of boldface, italics, underlining, block capitals, and the colour red to make his point.
But... who is Joe Vitale? Well, according to the <title> tag on his website, "Joe Vitale of The Secret DVD is Law of Attraction expert and Life Coach".
That image sort of makes him look like Satan, and calling himself "Mr. Fire" certainly doesn't help.
From his "about" page:
Some of his accomplishments you should be aware of:
To name a few….
- President of Hypnotic Marketing Institute
- #1 Best Selling book – Spiritual Marketing
- Best Selling e-Book – Hypnotic Writing
- The Power of Outrageous Marketing (Best Selling Audio Set)
- There's A Customer Born Every Minute (All about PT Barnum)
- Ecode:47 Secrets for Making Money Online – Instantly
- The Hypnotic Writing Wizard (Magically writes your materials)
- The 7 Lost Secrets of Success (The real story of Bruce Barton)
- The A.M.A. Complete Guide To Small Business Advertising
- The Greatest Money Making Secret in History
- Tape set with Nightingale-Conant
- Doctors degree in Metaphysical Science
- Certified Hypnotherapist
- Chun Kung Healer
Apparently he's a P.T. Barnum devotee (appropriate), a "Chun Kung Healer" (what?), and has a "Doctors degree [sic] in Metaphysical Science" (awesome).
Although I couldn't find his alma mater listed anywhere, but I would bet money that he got his "Doctors degree" from the University of Metaphysical Sciences. Although you might assume that this is an unaccredited diploma-mill, you would be wrong: it is accredited by both the American Association of Drugless Practitioners and the American Alternative Medical Association. But I recommend reading the fine print, because if you don't you'll miss this hilarious disclaimer:
NOTE: This is spiritual accreditation, not secular accreditation. (Secular means "non-spiritual"). Education at UMS is not a substitute for education at traditional or secular colleges. ... Your degree at University of Metaphysical Sciences is not transferable for credit at secular universities and is strictly religious in nature. ... You cannot attend UMS for the purpose of transferring credits among traditional secular colleges or for the purpose of getting federal grants or loans because the AADP and the AAMA are not recognized by the US Department of Education for that purpose.
...
Most people in spiritual markets don't even know what accreditation is, let alone require it in someone who they are taking a spiritual class from or getting spiritual counseling from. Even a spiritually focused job at a retreat center or church is not going to require that your degree be accredited. Accreditation is completely unnecessary if you plan on working in the spiritual field.
Excellent.
Well, we went farther down that particular rabbit hole than originally intended. Tune in next time, when I hope to discuss either The Secret or perhaps even negative thinking.
* Although I make a concerted effort to avoid making "not a real doctor" claims (despite accusations to the contrary), it is easy to find examples of people who have misled the public with regard to their academic credentials. (Examples include "Dr." Kent Hovind and "Dr." Gillian McKeith.) Although I have not been able to determine conclusively where "Dr." Joe Vitale studied, I have my doubts that it was a properly accredited institution.
Myth of the Month: Positive Thinking, Part 1
If you Google "positive thinking", the first hit is SuccessConsciousness.com. With one of the first articles on the site labelled "The Law of Attraction", I was not optimistic.
The so-called "Law of Attraction" states that like attracts like, and is applied very broadly in the New Thought movement. The idea is that if you think, "I want to be happy," the universe will provide you with more reasons to want to be happy—but if you think to yourself, "I am happy," the universe will provide you with actual happiness. Or whatever.
How the "Law of Attraction" allows the universe to grant wishes in this way is anyone's guess, and the reason that the universe nitpicks one's wording likewise remains a mystery. I assume that it's because God is a monumental pedantic dick. In any event, this fake-it-'til-you-make-it philosophy has certainly proved successful for Rhonda Byrne, who has apparently sold six million copies of The Secret (in book and DVD form). But I digress.
Here's what Remez Sasson, proprietor of SuccessConsciousness.com, has to say about this ipse dixit law:
Sure. But as I continued reading, I was in for a bit of a surprise.
I wish that someone would tell Rhonda Byrne that.
It turns out that the article is actually just a sales-pitch for one of the author's books. All the same, it's not terrible. I'm still not sold on the so-called "Law of Attraction", but at the very least this fellow isn't your garden variety positive thinking nutjob. (Am I letting my biases show a little, here?) The problem with diluting the message this way, however, is that things start to seem very wishy-washy very quickly. Is this really "The Law of Attraction"? or is it simply keeping your eyes out for opportunities?
The so-called "Law of Attraction" states that like attracts like, and is applied very broadly in the New Thought movement. The idea is that if you think, "I want to be happy," the universe will provide you with more reasons to want to be happy—but if you think to yourself, "I am happy," the universe will provide you with actual happiness. Or whatever.
How the "Law of Attraction" allows the universe to grant wishes in this way is anyone's guess, and the reason that the universe nitpicks one's wording likewise remains a mystery. I assume that it's because God is a monumental pedantic dick. In any event, this fake-it-'til-you-make-it philosophy has certainly proved successful for Rhonda Byrne, who has apparently sold six million copies of The Secret (in book and DVD form). But I digress.
Here's what Remez Sasson, proprietor of SuccessConsciousness.com, has to say about this ipse dixit law:
The message of all these books is that if you keep thinking upon a certain subject, you will ultimately attract it into your life. Thoughts, mental images and feelings can move the subconscious mind and the Universal Mind to act on your behalf and manifest your desires.
Sure. But as I continued reading, I was in for a bit of a surprise.
This is a most inspiring and elating idea, but inspiration and feelings of elation are not enough. You need to know what to do and how to proceed; otherwise you will get no results. You need to do more than just daydream for a few moments, once in a while, about what you wish to get or achieve.
...
It is not enough just to visualize a few times, and then wait for miracles to happen.
- You need to have a strong desire and motivation, and the commitment to do whatever is necessary to achieve your goal.
- You need persistence, concentration, the ability to visualize, and at least some degree of self-discipline.
- You need to learn to recognize opportunity when it appears, and to be willing and ready to take and use this opportunity.
- You need to be willing to act and take the required steps whenever needed, and not just wait for your desires to materialize from thin air or suddenly drop on you from the sky.
I wish that someone would tell Rhonda Byrne that.
It turns out that the article is actually just a sales-pitch for one of the author's books. All the same, it's not terrible. I'm still not sold on the so-called "Law of Attraction", but at the very least this fellow isn't your garden variety positive thinking nutjob. (Am I letting my biases show a little, here?) The problem with diluting the message this way, however, is that things start to seem very wishy-washy very quickly. Is this really "The Law of Attraction"? or is it simply keeping your eyes out for opportunities?
19 December 2010
"Think Again" Again
Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog.
Last month I gave a presentation to the Humanist Association of Manitoba on the subject of skepticism. It apparently garnered some negative feedback from a small Steinbach newspaper.
Skeptical of skepticism? Really? See, that's not a good way to start us off.
Not so-called by me! I didn't mention "radical skepticism"; I briefly touched upon philosophical solipsism, and I didn't reject it as false: I rejected it on the grounds that such speculation is not useful. Regardless of whether we live in the Matrix or are enthralled by a djinni, the universe certainly behaves in a fairly regular fashion, and our fellow human beings certainly seem to think that they're real. It could all be a fiction—but if so, who cares? If a real universe is indistinguishable from a glorious fiction that is perfect to the last detail, what does it matter? As Tracie Harris once quipped: "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... then why would you assert it's a god disguised as a duck, rather than a duck?"
Ooh, ouch!
Actually, if you look at the slides, I said that I mostly rejected cultural relativism. Really, I should have said moral relativism (again, with the "mostly" caveat), because I do believe that people's actions should be understood in their greater cultural context—but I believe that slavery, for example, is wrong even where it is culturally acceptable. Although Zwaagstra's definition of cultural relativism as "the belief that no one culture is superior to any other" is also a little rough, so whatever.
Before the real fireworks begin, I should mention that the cultural relativism comment was a one-bullet-point remark on a list of things in which I disbelieved, which was located on the last slide of the presentation. When I was putting the talk together, I intentionally placed some contentious items onto this list in order to generate discussion afterward. Success!
Cultural relativism was actually the one that I was shakiest on, and the item on which I could probably most easily have my viewpoint swayed. So bring it on, Michael!
Although I readily admit that I did meander a bit in my response to his question, I think that my main point was fairly clear: if you agree upon a value set (we should strive to minimise human suffering and maximise human happiness, for example), then you don't need cultural relativism, because you can evaluate the ethical character of practices objectively—although we may never reach objective morality, as we don't have a system in place to quantify moral actions, we can at the very least approach it. Although Zwaagstra accuses me of begging the question, here, finding moral premises on which (almost) everyone agrees is as simple as the finding lowest common denominator in their value set: we want to avoid pain and seek pleasure.
It is, of course, possible that I am a moral relativist by Mr. Zwaagstra's definition. But I don't think so. I'm simply stating that in order to make objective moral evaluations, we first need to agree on the premises of the argument in order to demonstrate the conclusion. For example, this is a logically valid syllogism:
Like all valid syllogisms, if you agree to the premises, you must agree to the conclusion. But, unlike the supposedly objective Christian ethical system, a consequentialist ethical system can use evidence to support its positions, and will reject positions that are found to be unsupported. Why should we strive to avoid actions that cause suffering? Because it makes for a more productive, healthy, and happy society.
Clearly.
I disagree that contortions of logic are required, but let's assume that they are! Let's say that atheists have no way of judging right from wrong. Does that make Christianity true? That would be an argument from final consequences, which I happened to discuss in the talk! (And let's ignore for the moment his implicit assertion that upholding the equality of women is a desirable thing; of course I agree that it is! You can even find support in the Bible, if you cherry-pick hard enough! But the misogynistic passages far outweigh those that are egalitarian.)
I find his assertion that the God of the Bible has decreed right from wrong to be hilarious, and his argument with respect to "thou shalt not murder" absurd. The statement is not an objective moral statement at all, because it is entirely dependant upon context: it is equivalent to saying "sometimes, you shouldn't kill people". Irrespective of the fairly persuasive arguments that the original phrase in Hebrew was simply "thou shalt not kill", it requires each person to differentiate murder from other types of killing. If the "supreme moral lawgiver" has provided clear grounds for objectively distinguishing murder from non-murder, I would love to hear it. Clearly, some killings are justified and some are not. Can you objectively tell the one from the other? How?
Ah, excellent: ending with a Bible quotation that says that everyone who is afraid of your particular god is therefore wise. I love the quotation game!
Hey, he started it!
Honestly, I'm somewhat startled that Mr. Zwaagstra spent more than half of his editorial harping on cultural relativism, as it had very little to do with my actual presentation.
But I'd certainly be interested in your thoughts, dear reader. Am I wrong in rejecting moral relativism?
Hat tip to Helen Friesen, who sent me a copy of the article.
Addendum (16 August 2011): Although I have a (very minor) quibble with Sam Harris about morality*, I think that his TED Talk on The Moral Landscape does an excellent job of addressing the problem of an objective, secular ethical system.
Bravo.
* I agree with him on just about everything that he says. However, I think that before we start evaluating moral claims objectively, we must first agree upon a set of values. He seems to select "maximal well-being" (for humans, other animals, etc.) as his primary value, and I have no problem with that. I just think that it's important to distinguish between values (what we're trying to accomplish) and ethics (how we go about accomplishing them), and I think that this distinction could have been defined a little more clearly. Given a common set of values, it is possible to evaluate ethics objectively.
But, as I said, that is the most minor of disagreements.
Last month I gave a presentation to the Humanist Association of Manitoba on the subject of skepticism. It apparently garnered some negative feedback from a small Steinbach newspaper.
"Think Again"
Michael Zwaagstra
Being skeptical of skepticism
Skeptical of skepticism? Really? See, that's not a good way to start us off.
Earlier this year, I wrote about my visit to a Manitoba Humanist Association event in Winnipeg. Last Saturday, I decided to attend another event to find out more about their ideas. The keynote speaker at this forum was Gem Newman, founder of the Winnipeg Skeptics Group. Newman spoke for approximately an hour about what it means to think skeptically.
Much of his presentation was solidly argued. He explained skepticism does not mean doubting everything nor should it create an impossible standard that cannot ever be met. Newman was quick to reject so-called "radical" skepticism, whereby our very existence is called into question.
Not so-called by me! I didn't mention "radical skepticism"; I briefly touched upon philosophical solipsism, and I didn't reject it as false: I rejected it on the grounds that such speculation is not useful. Regardless of whether we live in the Matrix or are enthralled by a djinni, the universe certainly behaves in a fairly regular fashion, and our fellow human beings certainly seem to think that they're real. It could all be a fiction—but if so, who cares? If a real universe is indistinguishable from a glorious fiction that is perfect to the last detail, what does it matter? As Tracie Harris once quipped: "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... then why would you assert it's a god disguised as a duck, rather than a duck?"
Newman suggested we should look for plausibility, falsifiability, evidence and sound reasoning in all ideas. If any idea fails to meet these criteria, then skeptics should withhold belief until it is satisfactorily proven. Newman also emphasized the need to avoid logical fallacies such as attacking a straw man, engaging in ad hominem attacks and begging the question.
Given these points, it was unfortunate that Newman did not do a better job himself of avoiding the logical fallacies that he identified.
Ooh, ouch!
For example, Newman stated he rejects cultural relativism (the belief that no one culture is superior to any other). He gave the example of female genital mutilation, which is still practiced in many countries around the world, and stated that this practice was morally wrong regardless of the cultural beliefs of those performing the mutilation.
Actually, if you look at the slides, I said that I mostly rejected cultural relativism. Really, I should have said moral relativism (again, with the "mostly" caveat), because I do believe that people's actions should be understood in their greater cultural context—but I believe that slavery, for example, is wrong even where it is culturally acceptable. Although Zwaagstra's definition of cultural relativism as "the belief that no one culture is superior to any other" is also a little rough, so whatever.
Before the real fireworks begin, I should mention that the cultural relativism comment was a one-bullet-point remark on a list of things in which I disbelieved, which was located on the last slide of the presentation. When I was putting the talk together, I intentionally placed some contentious items onto this list in order to generate discussion afterward. Success!
Cultural relativism was actually the one that I was shakiest on, and the item on which I could probably most easily have my viewpoint swayed. So bring it on, Michael!
During the question and answer period, I asked Newman whether his rejection of cultural relativism meant that he believed in moral absolutes and, if so, what he based those moral absolutes on. Instead of a straightforward response, Newman gave a convoluted answer in which he argued that rejecting cultural relativism does not necessarily lead to moral absolutes. He then engaged in the logical fallacy of attacking a straw man by stating that the “Thou shalt not murder” commandment of the Bible was not a moral absolute since God ordered the Israelites to kill the Canaanites.
However, this was a mischaracterization of what the Bible says since it makes a clear distinction between the unjust taking of a human life (murder) and killing someone during a battle or in self-defence. All murder is killing but not all killing is murder. The Bible never condones murder but it does allow for circumstances where it is justified to take someone’s life.
Although I readily admit that I did meander a bit in my response to his question, I think that my main point was fairly clear: if you agree upon a value set (we should strive to minimise human suffering and maximise human happiness, for example), then you don't need cultural relativism, because you can evaluate the ethical character of practices objectively—although we may never reach objective morality, as we don't have a system in place to quantify moral actions, we can at the very least approach it. Although Zwaagstra accuses me of begging the question, here, finding moral premises on which (almost) everyone agrees is as simple as the finding lowest common denominator in their value set: we want to avoid pain and seek pleasure.
It is, of course, possible that I am a moral relativist by Mr. Zwaagstra's definition. But I don't think so. I'm simply stating that in order to make objective moral evaluations, we first need to agree on the premises of the argument in order to demonstrate the conclusion. For example, this is a logically valid syllogism:
Human beings should strive to avoid actions that cause suffering.
Genital mutilation is an action that causes suffering.
Therefore, human beings should strive to avoid genital mutilation.
Like all valid syllogisms, if you agree to the premises, you must agree to the conclusion. But, unlike the supposedly objective Christian ethical system, a consequentialist ethical system can use evidence to support its positions, and will reject positions that are found to be unsupported. Why should we strive to avoid actions that cause suffering? Because it makes for a more productive, healthy, and happy society.
When I pressed Newman further on how he can reject moral absolutes without accepting cultural relativism, he stated we can only make moral judgments if everyone agrees on the fundamental premises behind them. Of course, this was a classic example of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Since people in other cultures reject the premises of Newman’s morality, how can he possibly make a moral judgment about their behaviour?
By the end of our dialogue, Newman came close to acknowledging he really is a cultural relativist since his entire basis for judging the moral values of other people rests upon the need for everyone to accept the same moral premises as his.
Clearly, atheists such as Gem Newman are forced into contortions of logic when trying to explain how it is cultures that condone spousal abuse are inferior to those that uphold the equality of men and women. In contrast, Christians have no difficulty rejecting cultural relativism since God, as the supreme moral lawgiver, has decreed what is right and wrong.
Clearly.
I disagree that contortions of logic are required, but let's assume that they are! Let's say that atheists have no way of judging right from wrong. Does that make Christianity true? That would be an argument from final consequences, which I happened to discuss in the talk! (And let's ignore for the moment his implicit assertion that upholding the equality of women is a desirable thing; of course I agree that it is! You can even find support in the Bible, if you cherry-pick hard enough! But the misogynistic passages far outweigh those that are egalitarian.)
I find his assertion that the God of the Bible has decreed right from wrong to be hilarious, and his argument with respect to "thou shalt not murder" absurd. The statement is not an objective moral statement at all, because it is entirely dependant upon context: it is equivalent to saying "sometimes, you shouldn't kill people". Irrespective of the fairly persuasive arguments that the original phrase in Hebrew was simply "thou shalt not kill", it requires each person to differentiate murder from other types of killing. If the "supreme moral lawgiver" has provided clear grounds for objectively distinguishing murder from non-murder, I would love to hear it. Clearly, some killings are justified and some are not. Can you objectively tell the one from the other? How?
Perhaps the psalmist really was on to something when he stated, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all those who practice it have a good understanding." (Psalm 111:10)
Ah, excellent: ending with a Bible quotation that says that everyone who is afraid of your particular god is therefore wise. I love the quotation game!
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. (Deuteronomy 13:6–10, KJV)
Hey, he started it!
Honestly, I'm somewhat startled that Mr. Zwaagstra spent more than half of his editorial harping on cultural relativism, as it had very little to do with my actual presentation.
But I'd certainly be interested in your thoughts, dear reader. Am I wrong in rejecting moral relativism?
Hat tip to Helen Friesen, who sent me a copy of the article.
Addendum (16 August 2011): Although I have a (very minor) quibble with Sam Harris about morality*, I think that his TED Talk on The Moral Landscape does an excellent job of addressing the problem of an objective, secular ethical system.
Bravo.
* I agree with him on just about everything that he says. However, I think that before we start evaluating moral claims objectively, we must first agree upon a set of values. He seems to select "maximal well-being" (for humans, other animals, etc.) as his primary value, and I have no problem with that. I just think that it's important to distinguish between values (what we're trying to accomplish) and ethics (how we go about accomplishing them), and I think that this distinction could have been defined a little more clearly. Given a common set of values, it is possible to evaluate ethics objectively.
But, as I said, that is the most minor of disagreements.
18 December 2010
Level-Up Your Reading!
Jen at BlagHag pointed me toward this nifty new feature that Google has made available: you can filter your search results by reading level! Following in Jen's august footsteps, let's take a look at some results:
BlagHag
The Winnipeg Skeptics Blog
Startled Disbelief
Neurologica
PubMed
So apparently my writing isn't as "accessible" as Jen's.
Honestly, though? Reader comments probably factor heavily into these ratings, and mine are sparser than most, so we're pulling from a much smaller sample set. (This assumes that reader comments are accessible to Google's webcrawler; Blogger's are, but BlagHag's Disqus comment system doesn't seem to be. Interesting.)
It's good fun, though! You can find instructions here!
BlagHag
The Winnipeg Skeptics Blog
Startled Disbelief
Neurologica
PubMed
So apparently my writing isn't as "accessible" as Jen's.
Honestly, though? Reader comments probably factor heavily into these ratings, and mine are sparser than most, so we're pulling from a much smaller sample set. (This assumes that reader comments are accessible to Google's webcrawler; Blogger's are, but BlagHag's Disqus comment system doesn't seem to be. Interesting.)
It's good fun, though! You can find instructions here!
16 December 2010
Happy/Merry SaturHanuNewtoKwanzaaChristoFestivus!
It'll probably be fairly quiet around Startled Disbelief and the Winnipeg Skeptics blog over the next few weeks, as everyone prepares for Hanukkah, Saturnalia, Newtonmas, Kwanzaa, Festivus, Christmas, etc. Aren't familiar with some of those holidays? Well, you're in luck! I happen to have some explanations handy.
Happy Holidays, everyone!
Image from Wagner, where you can buy your own Festivus Pole!
- Hanukka: a Jewish celebration of, as Jon Stewart put it, "oil that burned quite slowly".
- Saturnalia: a Roman celebration of the god Saturn, involving reversal of social roles, feasting, and general merriment; often identified as the festival on which the later Christmas was modelled.
- Newtonmas: a celebration of the birth of a seventeenth-century alchemist who may or may not have invented the cat flap; celebrated on the same day as Christmas.
- Kwanzaa: a North American celebration of African heritage and culture.
- Festivus: a holiday created by writer Dan O'Keefe and popularised by Seinfeld; includes erecting an undecorated aluminum "Festivus pole", the "Airing of Grievances", "Feats of Strength", and the declaration of fairly commonplace events as "Festivus Miracles".
- Christmas: a celebration of the virgin birth of the son of the god Yahweh, who also happened to be Yahweh, who was fated to be brutally tortured and killed as the final blood sacrifice to Yahweh to atone for the transgressions of men against rules initially set up by Yahweh, who (being omniscient) must have had foresight that this would be the eventual result of said rules.
Happy Holidays, everyone!
14 December 2010
Crispian Jago and a Comment Policy Reminder
Aside from Dennis Markuze/David Mabus and some corporate spam, I rarely have to remove comments from the blog. I like to keep things unmoderated, but Blogger's new spam-filter has auto-moderated several non-spam posts. It seems like the sensitivity is good, it's just the specificity of the thing that's out of whack. (Get to work on those type one errors, Blogger!)
I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone of the comment policy here at Startled Disbelief. If you're interested in the comment policy's origin story, you need look no further than Dennis Markuze.
Crispian Jago has more!
I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone of the comment policy here at Startled Disbelief. If you're interested in the comment policy's origin story, you need look no further than Dennis Markuze.
Crispian Jago has more!
08 December 2010
Skeptical Investigations: The Creation Museum
Cross-posted from the Winnipeg Skeptics blog!
On 13 November 2010, Ashlyn Noble of the Winnipeg Skeptics organised a visit to Winnipeg's very own Creation Museum. An article detailing the trip appeared in the Uniter (discussed here), and prior to the trip several of us met to discuss the specific claims outlined on the museum's website (notes on specific claims can be found here). What follows is an account of the trip itself.
The museum is just around the corner from my house, so I walked. It was fairly chilly. I remember feeling relieved, as I'd just finished preparing for a talk that I was presenting later that evening, and I was looking forward to a bit of light fun. I was not to be disappointed.
When I arrived, several skeptics were loitering outside. We were a little early, and the University of Winnipeg's Atheist Student Association was touring the facility, so we stood around and gawked at the sign. It was vaguely reminiscent of Kent Hovind's—or, to give his full academic title: Mr. Kent Hovind's—dinosaur-themed plywood monstrosity of miseducation. This is probably because Kids Like Dinosaurs. Get 'em while they're young, right?
We were soon ushered inside and downstairs. In the basement we found a fair sized gymnasium, with a small side-room which contained the museum itself. Before being shown the exhibits by museum curator John Feakes, his assistant presented to us a slideshow which purported to highlight the main problems with atheism in general and evolution in specific (if you don't consider evolution to be a subdivision of atheism, well... then you're a rational person).
Before the slideshow began, I was personally presented with two items: a creationist textbook (In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Eighth Edition, by Walt Brown, Ph.D., a mechanical engineer) and a compact disc, which contained the PowerPoint slides that we were about to see and a summary of the evidences found in the museum, along with citations where appropriate.
I'll make the museum notes and PowerPoint presentation available here; I think that the commentary that I'm providing constitutes fair use, and given my conversations with Mr. Feakes, I'm certain that he wouldn't mind. If it turns out that I'm mistaken, I will remove them. The entire text of In the Beginning is (apparently) available for free online here.
Museum Notes
PowerPoint Presentation
My overwhelming impression was that these people were genuinely open to discussion on the topic. I don't think that they were interested in having their minds changed, but, in stark contrast to Ray Comfort et al., I did not get the impression that they were being intellectually dishonest. Rather, I think that they were honestly mistaken—they had accepted several false (or unsupported) premises along the way, and now they were stuck.
I won't discuss the slideshow in detail, as it actually had very little to do with evolutionary theory, but it was very full of hilarity. A small sample:
FAIL.
The buoyancy of tugboats and the process by which moustaches grow are also unaccounted for by atheism. Atheism is a single position on a single topic. I'm not going to waste my time on these, because they are completely unrelated to the topic at hand. There are plenty of fairly good naturalistic explanations for the existence of these three concepts. If you want to learn about reason, science, and morality, I recommend you start by looking them up on Wikipedia.
Most of the claims that were made during the tour were actually dealt with in the post that I threw together before we went to the museum. I'd recommend checking it out. In the meantime, let's move on to the museum proper.
We started out with the blatant falsehood (sarcasm) that is the geologic column. Feakes repeated several of the claims from his website, we challenged them, etc., etc. ad nauseam. We were in a good position, as the eighteen (or so) of us were fairly well-versed in the theory of evolution. We were also lucky enough to have several specialists in the crowd, including students of both archaeology and biology and a biblical scholar. When the discussion moved past my (fairly broad but admittedly shallow) knowledge of the subject, these folks were all too happy to leap into the breach.
I noticed that the creationists evinced a bizarre (but not uncommon) tendency to conflate evolution, abiogenesis, and cosmogeny. I explained repeatedly that the theory of evolution only describes the origins of biodiversity after life first arose (although chemical evolution could probably carry us further back), while Feakes countered that he'd heard astronomers refer to stellar evolution. This seemed to be a sticky point for him, which it shouldn't be. I told him that whether evolution applies to stars depends on what is meant by "evolution": the word can be applied generally to refer to any sort of change over time or it can signify the biological theory which his museum purports to refute. To use both meanings at once is to be guilty of an fallacy of equivocation. The theory of evolution does not deal with the origins of life or of the cosmos. It's that simple.
I think that everyone maintained a fairly congenial demeanour throughout what quickly became a frustrating experience. Unfortunately, because we were pressed for time, we frequently had to curtail the debate and move on.
Over the course of the tour, Feakes made use of several arguments against evolution that even Answers in Genesis has repudiated. He acknowledged this fact with impressive forthrightness. His response? "When I start working for Answers in Genesis, I'll stop using these arguments." He seemed oblivious to the reason that AiG doesn't want him to use these arguments: they are absurd.
As the tour wore on, I grew increasingly annoyed by John Feakes' dogged insistence that these purported anomalies in the geological record falsified evolution. In exasperation, I pointed out that while evolution is at least in principle falsifiable, creationism is not.
"What do you mean?" he asked.
"Any set of evidences would be consistent with the work of an all-powerful creator deity. If you assume a God who can do anything, then anything that happens is consistent with your hypothesis!"
John disagreed, stating that he wasn't simply a creationist: he was a "Christian Creationist"—to falsify his position, one simply needed to falsify Jesus.
Oh, is that all? See, falsification is problematic when you're dealing with historical, rather than scientific, propositions.
Later, I pointed out that not only were there no contemporary, extrabiblical accounts of Jesus in history (and one could be forgiven for supposing that there should be, considering that he was magic), but that there was no reason to believe that the Gospels themselves were eyewitness accounts. Rather than being aghast at the suggestion that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John might not have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, I was amused to see that Feakes was more perplexed than anything. "What do you mean?" he asked. "John was one of the apostles and Mark was St. Peter's secretary." I found his innocence startling and a little sad. Yes, I know that's who John and Peter were supposed to be. But those attributions are almost entirely discredited by the textual critics who study the works in question.
During the section on human evolution, we spent some time discussing the complexity of DNA. Feakes spent a lot of time on arguments that just came down to the oft-refuted irreducible complexity. He also argued that the efficiency of information storage in DNA was evidence for design. I indicated that I found this puzzling, as DNA does not actually store information very efficiently at all. "What are you talking about?" Feakes asked. "DNA is basically double-coded binary. You're a computer guy, you know about binary!"
(Yes, he said "double-coded binary". I remember that exact term, because it was so weird. I guess he meant base-4, which would be more-or-less right.)
The thing is, as bases get smaller, efficiency drops. Binary is basically as inefficient as you can get in terms of information storage. Anyone who makes the smallest effort to understand the math knows that! Storing information in base-4 is the third-least efficient method that a creator deity might have used!
Mr. Feakes asked if I agreed that redundancy could be a sign of design. I easily granted him the premise that good design often had in-built redundancy: better to have two kidneys than just one, for example. John didn't really take this argument anywhere, though, and I found it amusing that he claimed both redundancy and efficiency as evidence of design.
A creationist oncologist (now if that isn't a terrifying combination of adjectives, I don't know what is) showed up at one point, and asked me for a single example of observed evolution. Off the top of my head, I mentioned the (aerobic) metabolism of citrate in E. coli bacteria. This was, of course, unacceptable, because it was only "microevolution".
I find this defence hilarious, as they admit that "microevolution" occurs while discounting so-called macroevolution. I was happy to point out that young-Earthers actually believe in a much faster, more powerful version of evolution than "evilutionists": since they have roughly 4,500 years since the flood to explain biodiversity, originating from a (relative) handful of "kinds", they have to posit some sort of "super evolution", while simultaneously denying that small changes can add up to large ones.
See? Hilarious.
(That's not to say that rapid evolution has not been observed to occur: Robert points us to the example of the Italian Wall Lizard.)
This creationist oncologist fellow maintained that I still had no proof of evolution, and he responded with incredulity when I told him that "proof" isn't a scientific concept. I waited for his spluttering to die down before I said that proof is a philosophical, logical, and mathematical concept.
I went on to chat about the pseudogene that used to code for production of vitamin C. Because talkorigins.org has an excellent description of this research, prepare for some copy-pasta!
An excellent example of a prediction made by evolutionary theory and later validated by scientists.
After the main tour through the museum, we were treated to a Q&A session. It was apparently recorded by Feakes, however I don't have a copy. I'll try to summarise.
The Kalam cosmological argument was advanced. I pointed out the compositional fallacy involved in stating that since everything in the cosmos had a cause, therefore the cosmos itself had a cause. The end.
At one point, Feakes mentioned that God spoke to him. I was a little concerned by this, but the assembled creationists seemed surprised and offended when I asked if he actually heard God's voice audibly. Given what we'd seen and heard that afternoon, and that the man had just said that God spoke to him, I thought that it was a legitimate question.
Before we left, a church elder made the argument from prophecy. He said that the Jews had returned to reclaim Israel, which was somehow magical because they had been driven from their land, met with severe oppression and violence at every turn, with multiple attempts made to destroy their culture, all while remaining a distinct and identifiable people, before finally being given back their home.
The elder challenged us to name another group that had been systematically persecuted and nearly wiped out, but had survived as a distinct group with a unique culture. Without pause, I said, "Off the top of my head, American Aboriginals?" He blinked, then said: "But they haven't been systematically persecuted or wiped out!" At this point, the assembled skeptics erupted in derisive laughter.
But even if there weren't another group that fit his description, it's irrelevant. He's taking a description of what happened to the Jews and pretending that it was part of the prophecy, when (as far as I know), it wasn't (a kind of sharpshooter fallacy). It's not unlikely that there may have been Christian Zionists actively working toward this goal, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or, it could be just one of those things that happens.
I'll quote from Iron Chariots:
Isn't it odd that every generation seems to claim that they are living in the final days before Armageddon?
For the most part, the museum boiled down to Christian Presuppositionalism, arguments from ignorance, irreducible complexity, and the idea that because some scientists had purportedly falsified data, the sciences of geology and archaeology could safely be dismissed. There was also, of course, a double-helping of anomaly hunting. (For more on anomaly hunting, I recommend these articles by Steve Novella.)
If you were there and you'd like to provide your take on the experience in comments, please do!
On 13 November 2010, Ashlyn Noble of the Winnipeg Skeptics organised a visit to Winnipeg's very own Creation Museum. An article detailing the trip appeared in the Uniter (discussed here), and prior to the trip several of us met to discuss the specific claims outlined on the museum's website (notes on specific claims can be found here). What follows is an account of the trip itself.
The museum is just around the corner from my house, so I walked. It was fairly chilly. I remember feeling relieved, as I'd just finished preparing for a talk that I was presenting later that evening, and I was looking forward to a bit of light fun. I was not to be disappointed.
When I arrived, several skeptics were loitering outside. We were a little early, and the University of Winnipeg's Atheist Student Association was touring the facility, so we stood around and gawked at the sign. It was vaguely reminiscent of Kent Hovind's—or, to give his full academic title: Mr. Kent Hovind's—dinosaur-themed plywood monstrosity of miseducation. This is probably because Kids Like Dinosaurs. Get 'em while they're young, right?
We were soon ushered inside and downstairs. In the basement we found a fair sized gymnasium, with a small side-room which contained the museum itself. Before being shown the exhibits by museum curator John Feakes, his assistant presented to us a slideshow which purported to highlight the main problems with atheism in general and evolution in specific (if you don't consider evolution to be a subdivision of atheism, well... then you're a rational person).
Before the slideshow began, I was personally presented with two items: a creationist textbook (In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Eighth Edition, by Walt Brown, Ph.D., a mechanical engineer) and a compact disc, which contained the PowerPoint slides that we were about to see and a summary of the evidences found in the museum, along with citations where appropriate.
I'll make the museum notes and PowerPoint presentation available here; I think that the commentary that I'm providing constitutes fair use, and given my conversations with Mr. Feakes, I'm certain that he wouldn't mind. If it turns out that I'm mistaken, I will remove them. The entire text of In the Beginning is (apparently) available for free online here.
Museum Notes
PowerPoint Presentation
My overwhelming impression was that these people were genuinely open to discussion on the topic. I don't think that they were interested in having their minds changed, but, in stark contrast to Ray Comfort et al., I did not get the impression that they were being intellectually dishonest. Rather, I think that they were honestly mistaken—they had accepted several false (or unsupported) premises along the way, and now they were stuck.
I won't discuss the slideshow in detail, as it actually had very little to do with evolutionary theory, but it was very full of hilarity. A small sample:
Reason
Science
Morality
All unaccounted for by the atheist
FAIL.
The buoyancy of tugboats and the process by which moustaches grow are also unaccounted for by atheism. Atheism is a single position on a single topic. I'm not going to waste my time on these, because they are completely unrelated to the topic at hand. There are plenty of fairly good naturalistic explanations for the existence of these three concepts. If you want to learn about reason, science, and morality, I recommend you start by looking them up on Wikipedia.
Most of the claims that were made during the tour were actually dealt with in the post that I threw together before we went to the museum. I'd recommend checking it out. In the meantime, let's move on to the museum proper.
We started out with the blatant falsehood (sarcasm) that is the geologic column. Feakes repeated several of the claims from his website, we challenged them, etc., etc. ad nauseam. We were in a good position, as the eighteen (or so) of us were fairly well-versed in the theory of evolution. We were also lucky enough to have several specialists in the crowd, including students of both archaeology and biology and a biblical scholar. When the discussion moved past my (fairly broad but admittedly shallow) knowledge of the subject, these folks were all too happy to leap into the breach.
I noticed that the creationists evinced a bizarre (but not uncommon) tendency to conflate evolution, abiogenesis, and cosmogeny. I explained repeatedly that the theory of evolution only describes the origins of biodiversity after life first arose (although chemical evolution could probably carry us further back), while Feakes countered that he'd heard astronomers refer to stellar evolution. This seemed to be a sticky point for him, which it shouldn't be. I told him that whether evolution applies to stars depends on what is meant by "evolution": the word can be applied generally to refer to any sort of change over time or it can signify the biological theory which his museum purports to refute. To use both meanings at once is to be guilty of an fallacy of equivocation. The theory of evolution does not deal with the origins of life or of the cosmos. It's that simple.
I think that everyone maintained a fairly congenial demeanour throughout what quickly became a frustrating experience. Unfortunately, because we were pressed for time, we frequently had to curtail the debate and move on.
Over the course of the tour, Feakes made use of several arguments against evolution that even Answers in Genesis has repudiated. He acknowledged this fact with impressive forthrightness. His response? "When I start working for Answers in Genesis, I'll stop using these arguments." He seemed oblivious to the reason that AiG doesn't want him to use these arguments: they are absurd.
As the tour wore on, I grew increasingly annoyed by John Feakes' dogged insistence that these purported anomalies in the geological record falsified evolution. In exasperation, I pointed out that while evolution is at least in principle falsifiable, creationism is not.
"What do you mean?" he asked.
"Any set of evidences would be consistent with the work of an all-powerful creator deity. If you assume a God who can do anything, then anything that happens is consistent with your hypothesis!"
John disagreed, stating that he wasn't simply a creationist: he was a "Christian Creationist"—to falsify his position, one simply needed to falsify Jesus.
Oh, is that all? See, falsification is problematic when you're dealing with historical, rather than scientific, propositions.
Later, I pointed out that not only were there no contemporary, extrabiblical accounts of Jesus in history (and one could be forgiven for supposing that there should be, considering that he was magic), but that there was no reason to believe that the Gospels themselves were eyewitness accounts. Rather than being aghast at the suggestion that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John might not have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, I was amused to see that Feakes was more perplexed than anything. "What do you mean?" he asked. "John was one of the apostles and Mark was St. Peter's secretary." I found his innocence startling and a little sad. Yes, I know that's who John and Peter were supposed to be. But those attributions are almost entirely discredited by the textual critics who study the works in question.
During the section on human evolution, we spent some time discussing the complexity of DNA. Feakes spent a lot of time on arguments that just came down to the oft-refuted irreducible complexity. He also argued that the efficiency of information storage in DNA was evidence for design. I indicated that I found this puzzling, as DNA does not actually store information very efficiently at all. "What are you talking about?" Feakes asked. "DNA is basically double-coded binary. You're a computer guy, you know about binary!"
(Yes, he said "double-coded binary". I remember that exact term, because it was so weird. I guess he meant base-4, which would be more-or-less right.)
The thing is, as bases get smaller, efficiency drops. Binary is basically as inefficient as you can get in terms of information storage. Anyone who makes the smallest effort to understand the math knows that! Storing information in base-4 is the third-least efficient method that a creator deity might have used!
Mr. Feakes asked if I agreed that redundancy could be a sign of design. I easily granted him the premise that good design often had in-built redundancy: better to have two kidneys than just one, for example. John didn't really take this argument anywhere, though, and I found it amusing that he claimed both redundancy and efficiency as evidence of design.
Em examines reproductions of art that depicts either a stegosaurus or any other generic animal. You decide!
A creationist oncologist (now if that isn't a terrifying combination of adjectives, I don't know what is) showed up at one point, and asked me for a single example of observed evolution. Off the top of my head, I mentioned the (aerobic) metabolism of citrate in E. coli bacteria. This was, of course, unacceptable, because it was only "microevolution".
I find this defence hilarious, as they admit that "microevolution" occurs while discounting so-called macroevolution. I was happy to point out that young-Earthers actually believe in a much faster, more powerful version of evolution than "evilutionists": since they have roughly 4,500 years since the flood to explain biodiversity, originating from a (relative) handful of "kinds", they have to posit some sort of "super evolution", while simultaneously denying that small changes can add up to large ones.
See? Hilarious.
(That's not to say that rapid evolution has not been observed to occur: Robert points us to the example of the Italian Wall Lizard.)
This creationist oncologist fellow maintained that I still had no proof of evolution, and he responded with incredulity when I told him that "proof" isn't a scientific concept. I waited for his spluttering to die down before I said that proof is a philosophical, logical, and mathematical concept.
I went on to chat about the pseudogene that used to code for production of vitamin C. Because talkorigins.org has an excellent description of this research, prepare for some copy-pasta!
Recently, the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994). It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning (see prediction 4.4 for more about pseudogenes). In fact, since this was originally written the vitamin C pseudogene has been found in other primates, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999).
An excellent example of a prediction made by evolutionary theory and later validated by scientists.
Ashlyn captioned this photo: "Gem – logicing the pants off the creationists."
After the main tour through the museum, we were treated to a Q&A session. It was apparently recorded by Feakes, however I don't have a copy. I'll try to summarise.
The Kalam cosmological argument was advanced. I pointed out the compositional fallacy involved in stating that since everything in the cosmos had a cause, therefore the cosmos itself had a cause. The end.
At one point, Feakes mentioned that God spoke to him. I was a little concerned by this, but the assembled creationists seemed surprised and offended when I asked if he actually heard God's voice audibly. Given what we'd seen and heard that afternoon, and that the man had just said that God spoke to him, I thought that it was a legitimate question.
Before we left, a church elder made the argument from prophecy. He said that the Jews had returned to reclaim Israel, which was somehow magical because they had been driven from their land, met with severe oppression and violence at every turn, with multiple attempts made to destroy their culture, all while remaining a distinct and identifiable people, before finally being given back their home.
The elder challenged us to name another group that had been systematically persecuted and nearly wiped out, but had survived as a distinct group with a unique culture. Without pause, I said, "Off the top of my head, American Aboriginals?" He blinked, then said: "But they haven't been systematically persecuted or wiped out!" At this point, the assembled skeptics erupted in derisive laughter.
But even if there weren't another group that fit his description, it's irrelevant. He's taking a description of what happened to the Jews and pretending that it was part of the prophecy, when (as far as I know), it wasn't (a kind of sharpshooter fallacy). It's not unlikely that there may have been Christian Zionists actively working toward this goal, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or, it could be just one of those things that happens.
I'll quote from Iron Chariots:
The Bible (specifically Daniel) predicts that the nation of Israel would be reborn, and its creation in 1948 is often taken as the fulfillment of that prophecy. But of course this happened because people worked to make it happen, in part because of the prophecy. Most scholars believe the Israel that was "predicted" (Daniel was written after the fact) was the Israel created under the Maccabees.
Isn't it odd that every generation seems to claim that they are living in the final days before Armageddon?
For the most part, the museum boiled down to Christian Presuppositionalism, arguments from ignorance, irreducible complexity, and the idea that because some scientists had purportedly falsified data, the sciences of geology and archaeology could safely be dismissed. There was also, of course, a double-helping of anomaly hunting. (For more on anomaly hunting, I recommend these articles by Steve Novella.)
If you were there and you'd like to provide your take on the experience in comments, please do!
Name That Logical Fallacy
Image from Wikipedia. Licensed under CC Attribution-ShareAlike.
I just sent a quick email to the folks at The Skeptics' Guide.
Hey, folks.
It seems to me that this story's title should actually be "H1N1 vaccine linked to 700 percent increase in miscarriages, but not by anyone who knows what they're talking about".
My boss emailed this article to me this morning: http://www.naturalnews.com/030657_vaccines_miscarriages.html. I'd be interested in your interpretation, and it may make a "good name that logical fallacy".
Here's my take on it.
It seems to me that they're just saying that as rates of vaccination rise, rates of miscarriage rise ("the rate of miscarriage among pregnant women during the 2009 H1N1 / swine flu pandemic soared by over 700 percent compared to previous years, pointing directly to the vaccine as the culprit"). Sure, this is interesting, and perhaps further analysis should be performed. But the fact that the buzz of my alarm clock strongly correlates to the rising of the sun does not indicate that the sun's rising is caused by my alarm clock. The assertion that this points "directly to the vaccine as the culprit" can only be either ignorant or dishonest.
The Natural News site continues to poison the well by saying "the CDC denies the truth and continues to insist nobody has been harmed", when in fact it seems to me that the CDC is actually saying "you haven't demonstrated a causal link". Straw man, anyone?
And then the article loses its last shred of credibility by bringing up Thimerosol. Again. In my opinion, they finally jump the shark in the "related articles" section, in which links to a video called "Autism - The Hidden Truth".
I don't know much about the actual science, here, but it seems to me that their reasoning is WAY off. It is, of course, entirely possible that there is a link between the two, and that the vaccines are harming the foetus. But this article seems to be overplaying its hand.
Great show as always, folks!
Gem Newman,
The Winnipeg Skeptics
I hope that this issue does get a bit of airtime on SGU, as the safety of the flu vaccine is a very important issue. I hope that the vaccines are safe. The precautionary principle may get a bit of play here, but at the same time the seasonal flu vaccine has a long history and has been very well tested. It seems implausible that that the H1N1 vaccine would pose safety risks beyond those of the seasonal vaccine; if this were the case, I would be surprised.
But I'm not a medical doctor or researcher, and I'll defer to their expertise.
Edit: You can read Steven Novella's thoughts here!
The King analysis is nothing but rank pseudoscience, twisted to his anti-vaccine agenda. It has been widely repeated by anti-vaccine, anti-government, and conspiracy-mongering sites – Natural News being just one site to uncritically parrot the false assumption that reported cases of miscarriage and stillbirth are additional cases caused by the H1N1 vaccine.
In reality there is no evidence of any increased risk of spontaneous abortion from the flu vaccine or H1N1 vaccine specifically. The CDC monitoring of reported cases has not revealed any increased risk, nor have any direct comparisons of vaccinated vs unvaccinated (with the flu vaccine) pregnant women.
And yet the NCOW accuses the CDC of lying and falsifying their reports – because they present the public with science rather than King’s pseudoscience.
Meanwhile, the H1N1 flu presents an actual risk to pregnant women and their unborn children. Fear-mongering about the vaccine, therefore, has a body toll attached to it. The NCOW does this under the guise of defending the rights of women. Mike Adams seems only to want to sell his wares. I’m not sure which is worse.
Is this a joke?
I can only assume that it must be.
Yeah, I'm not kidding about that last line. Because sticking an electrified lollipop with a USB connector into your mouth is perfectly natural.
But surely there must be solid science to back this up! They do, after all, have a page titled "HOW IT WORKS":
There you are. Since they used the word "frequency" several times, we know that their science is solid. Good old science to the rescue!
To be serious for a moment, sensory substitution is a real thing. But it's very complex and I don't see how it would be helpful to people who do not have their senses impaired.
And I'm not quite convinced that an electrified lollipop will do the trick.
Introducing EYE CANDY
The candy that provides you with a sensational new way to see.
This delicious new confectionary uses cutting edge Sensory Substitution Technology to transmit vivid emotive images into your mind's eye.
Available in six unique flavours, each helping you achieve the right state of mind by projecting specifically created evocative imagary [sic] into your field of vision.
Eye Candy is the natural way to become the person you want to be.
Yeah, I'm not kidding about that last line. Because sticking an electrified lollipop with a USB connector into your mouth is perfectly natural.
But surely there must be solid science to back this up! They do, after all, have a page titled "HOW IT WORKS":
Let us in on the secret!
Each of your senses (touch, smell, sight, taste, hearing) sends information to the brain at a different frequency. The brain determines where the sensorial information it receives comes from by the frequency at which it resonates, it can then process it in the appropriate way (e.g. turn sight information from the eyes into pictures in the mind).
An array of resonators positioned on the surface of an Eye Candy transmit information from the tongue to the brain at the frequency that the eyes usually send visual information to the brain. A pleasant sensation of soda bubbles can be felt on the tongue as the mind decodes this sensorial information as vivid pictures.
There you are. Since they used the word "frequency" several times, we know that their science is solid. Good old science to the rescue!
To be serious for a moment, sensory substitution is a real thing. But it's very complex and I don't see how it would be helpful to people who do not have their senses impaired.
And I'm not quite convinced that an electrified lollipop will do the trick.
03 December 2010
Was I Wrong About Chiropractic?
This post is in response to some comments left by an anonymous chiropractor.
Hi, Anon.
Thanks for the time that you put into your response. I truly do appreciate your comments. I have a few quibbles, of course, as you might expect.
I'm puzzled that you say "it's a deliberate misrepresentation" to associate the (purported) dangers of CSMT with chiropractic. What I said was "there is evidence to suggest that [the chiropractor] actually put me at greater risk of suffering a stroke". Even if I were not put at greater risk, or if you were inclined to argue that CSMT is not common chiropractic practice, I find your assertion that I'm being intentionally deceptive surprising and offensive.
I could not agree more. :)
Interesting. I will reassess my position with regard to the level of danger presented by CSMT.
But is CSMT necessary? From what I understand, it is classified as an alternative therapy. As a treatment, is it indicated for any particular medical condition? If so, would you cite research supporting its efficacy? If it is unnecessary, why take even a marginal risk?
I believe that Drs. Ernst and Singh reached similar conclusions in their evaluations: that manipulation of the spine has some efficacy for when treating accute lower back pain. I have no reason to dispute those findings.
That's a fair point. I will attempt to be more cautious in the future. What I said was: "I found myself wondering (perhaps unfairly) whether [the study] had been carried out by a chiropractor. It had. Unfortunately, I am unable (and, frankly, unqualified) to assess the study's strengths and weaknesses." You will see that I was aware of my own shortcomings in this area when I wrote that paragraph.
I am not a medical professional, and I am not in the business of providing medical advice.
No, it doesn't. It implies that practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine have a vested interest in validating their own practices, especially when the efficacy of their techniques is hotly debated in the academic literature. I have similar reservations about studies performed by pharmaceutical companies who are engaged in testing their own drugs. Even without any flaws in the study itself, the file-drawer effect can be a major problem.
Sure. Which is why I didn't use it. I simply pointed out that chiropractors are not medical doctors, and are not required to attend medical school. (Neither is Simon Singh, but I don't go around saying that he isn't a "real" doctor.) I made this distinction not to discredit chiropractors, but to clarify a point made earlier by someone else who was claiming that chiropractors weren't "real doctors". It had nothing to do with an appeal to ridicule.
Indeed, you go on to say, "This is similar in other disciplines; those doing research tend to have additional training beyond that of a clinician or technician." Bravo! Although it is common to assume that a medical doctor would know how to do medical research, this is an unfounded assumption. There is an important distinction to be made between clinician and researcher, in any discipline.
Agreed. I do not frequent skeptic boards, so I cannot speak to the frequency of ad hominem attacks.
That's absurd. If you're not engaging in "bona fide" critical thinking, then you're not being a skeptic. And I have no interest in what "many genuine research scientists" think of the skeptic movement.
Absolutely!
In some cases, yes. I believe that it is appropriate to require evidence that is proportional to the prior plausibility of the claim. A claim that disruptions in the flow of innate intelligence caused by vertebral subluxations have a negative impact on my health requires more evidence than the claim that some insects are herbivorous.
Although it is easy to fall prey to the cognitive biases that plague the best of us, I certainly try!
Certainly. If I did not entertain just such a notion, I would not have stopped visiting the chiropractor in the first place.
I do my best to honestly and openly admit the edges of my own expertise. I am excited about critical thinking and the promotion of science. I may sometimes come to the wrong conclusion, but I am always willing to reevaluate my position.
Since you claim to be both a chiropractor and a skeptic, Anon, I'm curious as to your thoughts on the distinction between straights, mixers, and reforms. What do you think of the idea of innate intelligence?
As a skeptic, you must recognise that you work in a profession with other professed chiropractors who are tireless promoters of nonsense. Do you speak out on this topic? Do you caution your patients and friends that when chiropractors claim to be able to cure allergies, ear infections, and the like, their claims are not only implausible but unsupported by evidence?
As always, I appreciate any comments on the subject that you may have.
Edit: I recommend reading the comments on this post, as they may further provide further elucidation.
Hi, Anon.
Thanks for the time that you put into your response. I truly do appreciate your comments. I have a few quibbles, of course, as you might expect.
I'm puzzled that you say "it's a deliberate misrepresentation" to associate the (purported) dangers of CSMT with chiropractic. What I said was "there is evidence to suggest that [the chiropractor] actually put me at greater risk of suffering a stroke". Even if I were not put at greater risk, or if you were inclined to argue that CSMT is not common chiropractic practice, I find your assertion that I'm being intentionally deceptive surprising and offensive.
Case studies are just well reported anecdotes and the plural of anecdote is not data. Although they have their place in the research evidence hierarchy, case studies are not capable of determining causation of benefit or harm.
I could not agree more. :)
The data gathered in the article seems to support that if you require cervical spine manipulative therapy, go to a chiropractor, as they appear to be associated with less adverse events than medical providers or physiotherapists.
Interesting. I will reassess my position with regard to the level of danger presented by CSMT.
But is CSMT necessary? From what I understand, it is classified as an alternative therapy. As a treatment, is it indicated for any particular medical condition? If so, would you cite research supporting its efficacy? If it is unnecessary, why take even a marginal risk?
No study to date has shown manipulative therapy to be less effective than standard/usual care, suggesting it is at least as good and valid an option for patients with spinal pain complaints as medical care. However, when clinical practice guidelines are applied, it appears that chiropractic care fairs much better than usual care (see Bishop et al. 2010 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20889389 )."
I believe that Drs. Ernst and Singh reached similar conclusions in their evaluations: that manipulation of the spine has some efficacy for when treating accute lower back pain. I have no reason to dispute those findings.
Finally, an argument I've read on various pages of your blog goes something like, 'The study was positive for chiropractic, but the study was done by a chiropractor'. This is argument by innuendo - leading the reader to assume the study if [sic] flawed because it was a chiropractor that performed it rather than a rational discussion of the actual flaws of such a study.
That's a fair point. I will attempt to be more cautious in the future. What I said was: "I found myself wondering (perhaps unfairly) whether [the study] had been carried out by a chiropractor. It had. Unfortunately, I am unable (and, frankly, unqualified) to assess the study's strengths and weaknesses." You will see that I was aware of my own shortcomings in this area when I wrote that paragraph.
I am not a medical professional, and I am not in the business of providing medical advice.
Further, this argument implies that others are more reliable (i.e. a 'real' doctor), which is a tacit appeal to authority rather than a critical appraisal of the research.
No, it doesn't. It implies that practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine have a vested interest in validating their own practices, especially when the efficacy of their techniques is hotly debated in the academic literature. I have similar reservations about studies performed by pharmaceutical companies who are engaged in testing their own drugs. Even without any flaws in the study itself, the file-drawer effect can be a major problem.
The use of the 'not a "real" doctor' moniker is an appeal to ridicule – another informal fallacy.
Sure. Which is why I didn't use it. I simply pointed out that chiropractors are not medical doctors, and are not required to attend medical school. (Neither is Simon Singh, but I don't go around saying that he isn't a "real" doctor.) I made this distinction not to discredit chiropractors, but to clarify a point made earlier by someone else who was claiming that chiropractors weren't "real doctors". It had nothing to do with an appeal to ridicule.
Indeed, you go on to say, "This is similar in other disciplines; those doing research tend to have additional training beyond that of a clinician or technician." Bravo! Although it is common to assume that a medical doctor would know how to do medical research, this is an unfounded assumption. There is an important distinction to be made between clinician and researcher, in any discipline.
In science it is the quality of the argument that is to be judged NOT the person making the argument as is rampant on so-called skeptic boards.
Agreed. I do not frequent skeptic boards, so I cannot speak to the frequency of ad hominem attacks.
This is why many genuine research scientists think of 'skeptics' as strict adherents of orthodoxy rather than bona fide critical thinkers.
That's absurd. If you're not engaging in "bona fide" critical thinking, then you're not being a skeptic. And I have no interest in what "many genuine research scientists" think of the skeptic movement.
1.a. Is there any level of evidence that would change my opinion?
Absolutely!
1.b. Is that level of evidence greater than for other claimants?
In some cases, yes. I believe that it is appropriate to require evidence that is proportional to the prior plausibility of the claim. A claim that disruptions in the flow of innate intelligence caused by vertebral subluxations have a negative impact on my health requires more evidence than the claim that some insects are herbivorous.
2. Do I question my own beliefs when I 'Question Everything'?
Although it is easy to fall prey to the cognitive biases that plague the best of us, I certainly try!
3. Do I entertain the notion that I may be wrong?
Certainly. If I did not entertain just such a notion, I would not have stopped visiting the chiropractor in the first place.
I do my best to honestly and openly admit the edges of my own expertise. I am excited about critical thinking and the promotion of science. I may sometimes come to the wrong conclusion, but I am always willing to reevaluate my position.
Since you claim to be both a chiropractor and a skeptic, Anon, I'm curious as to your thoughts on the distinction between straights, mixers, and reforms. What do you think of the idea of innate intelligence?
As a skeptic, you must recognise that you work in a profession with other professed chiropractors who are tireless promoters of nonsense. Do you speak out on this topic? Do you caution your patients and friends that when chiropractors claim to be able to cure allergies, ear infections, and the like, their claims are not only implausible but unsupported by evidence?
As always, I appreciate any comments on the subject that you may have.
Edit: I recommend reading the comments on this post, as they may further provide further elucidation.
02 December 2010
SkeptiCamp Winnipeg: Videos, Part 2
Scott Carnegie has posted the second round of SkeptiCamp videos at the Winnipeg Skeptics Blog. (And here's a link to part one, in case you missed it.)
Gem Newman: "The Pleasure of Figuring Things Out"
Jeffrey Olsson: "How Do We Know Anything?"
Gem Newman: "The Pleasure of Figuring Things Out"
Jeffrey Olsson: "How Do We Know Anything?"
01 December 2010
Announcing: Myth of the Month!
I was chatting with Lindsay over at Struck by Enlightning a little while ago, and she had a neat idea. What if, every month, we chose a skeptical topic and examined in-depth the evidence for and against it to see if we could be convinced?
Well, this is the way that she phrased it:
I'm in!
December's topic? Positive thinking.
From today's xkcd:
While (finally) moving the last few bits of my wife's stuff out of storage at her folks' place, I stumbled across a copy of Rhonda Byrne's magnum opus that my parents had given her for Christmas one year. I'm not making any promises, but I may just crack it open this month...
Well, this is the way that she phrased it:
Every month I (and anyone else who wants to join me) will be exploring one topic that’s commonly looked at by skeptics, to try to get a good feel for it. I/we’ll be looking at the arguments for and against the subject, reading blogs or listening to podcasts to do with both sides of the issue, and trying to gain an understanding of what science says on the topic.
I'm in!
December's topic? Positive thinking.
From today's xkcd:
While (finally) moving the last few bits of my wife's stuff out of storage at her folks' place, I stumbled across a copy of Rhonda Byrne's magnum opus that my parents had given her for Christmas one year. I'm not making any promises, but I may just crack it open this month...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)