Dubito Ergo Sum

Anointed with Oil

2012-01-14T17:30:00.002-06:00

I saw this on a church sign today (though I didn't have time to take a picture, hence the Church Sign Maker):

I think they might have misspelled "lube." On the other hand, I think I've found a new slogan for K-Y.

What is D.J. Grothe talking about?

2012-01-10T17:27:00.002-06:00

As long as I'm still on this basic subject, there's another claim that Grothe made which is being met with some serious skepticism, and rightly so. Here's the quote, emphasis mine:

But I’d certainly hope that these “call-out” posts against various people in skepticism for real or supposed sins do in fact generate a lot of hits, because if they do not, I see little other real-world pay-off. I have been told by two people now who have been personally involved with one of the controversialist blogs that there has been explicit direction from that blog’s founder to this effect.

The overwhelming chorus of responses to this claim has been to ask for names. Who are these "two people"? What "controversialist blog" are they involved with, and what was the nature of the involvement? Why does Grothe apparently accept their claims at face value, over the statements of other bloggers on these so-called "controversialist blogs" who have provided information that shows this is not the case?

And those are all reasonable questions that Grothe needs to answer if this claim is meant to be taken seriously, and not as an intellectually (and otherwise) dishonest bit of mudslinging. But I had a different question when I saw this claim, one I haven't heard anyone address: what the hell is Grothe talking about?

Because I don't know of many blogs at all that are run in the way that Grothe's claim suggests: a blog founder at the top, with writers (or other people involved) who are subordinate content-producers. In fact, of the blogs I follow (many of which, I suspect, Grothe would call "controversialist"), I can think of only two blogs that have anything like that structure: Friendly Atheist and Skepchick. Both of those sites have a (real or perceived) main blogger/"blog founder," and a host of other writers.

Now, maybe these are the blogs that Grothe means to indict--in fact, I'd be surprised if Skepchick weren't on his list of "controversialist blogs." But how feasible is his claim if these are the blogs he's talking about?

I've been scrolling back through the Friendly Atheist archive. So far, I've seen four posts on sexism/feminist issues; one written by Hemant, one written by a guest named Claudia, one written by regular contributor Megan Wells, and one (a comic) by regular contributor M J Shepherd. That's going back to December 22nd, and touches specifically on the Reddit incident and Penn Jillette's promotion of Mallorie Nasmallah's letter--only one post mentions any names and could reasonably be termed a "call out" post. Other microscandals from the intervening period--Ben Radford's bad science on dolls, the comments made to Greta Christina which have formed much of the discussion with Grothe--have gone unmentioned, so far as my quick survey found. In addition, I saw little if any evidence of other "controversialist" posts, going after prominent skeptical figures for "supposed sins." If the decree went down from Hemant on high, then it doesn't seem to have had much effect. There's far more commentary on religion and atheism in the news than on insider pool between skeptics at Friendly Atheist.

So what of Skepchick? Well, they certainly comment on the sexism and misogyny issues, and were at the forefront of calling out Ben Radford, Mallorie Nasmallah, r/atheism, and last year, Stef McGraw and Richard Dawkins. Maybe this is the blog Grothe meant. Maybe MasalaSkeptic or Elyse Anders came to him and showed e-mails where Rebecca Watson sinisterly, tenting her fingers, ordered the Skepchick horde to attack the straight white men in the alls of skeptic power. It's the only way to explain all those posts, written by such diverse Skepchick writers as Rebecca Watson, Heina, Rebecca Watson, Rebecca Watson, Rebecca Watson, and Rebecca Watson.

Oh.

Well, clearly, if Rebecca's order from on high to attack the privileged leaders of the skeptical community actually went out, it didn't go very far.

Grothe's claim is starting to look pretty dubious on his face, but perhaps his language is simply unclear. Maybe by "blog's founder," he meant "the founder of a blogging network," like FreethoughtBlogs. Maybe someone over at FreethoughtBlogs shared some insider information on orders from Ed Brayton or PZ to go after the white male non-feminist hierarchy. And a bunch of the other bloggers, most of whom have been blogging for years with well-developed styles and spheres of expertise and influence, took this advice and started--or perhaps redoubled--their efforts to root out even the most trivial examples of potential sexism among prominent skeptics.

I suppose that's possible, but I'd sure like to see the evidence. Especially since a major factor in the founding of FreethoughtBlogs was apparently the potential moderating/censoring hand of National Geographic when they took over ScienceBlogs. But surely bloggers who bristled at the idea of even sharing space with the corporately-owned Pepsi blog wouldn't mind having new overlords dictate content.

As someone who followed Greta Christina's Blog and Blag Hag (and to a lesser degree, Almost Diamonds and Butterflies and Wheels) before the FreethoughtBlogs move, I can't say that I've noticed a marked difference in the blog content. What I have noticed is an uptick in the frequency of ridiculously sexist acts among the atheist/skeptic communities, and an uptick in the number of people willing to call out such behavior. Maybe there was an order from on high at FreethoughtBlogs to go after prominent skeptics (doesn't explain Skepchick's participation, but maybe they're in cahoots), but it sure would look a lot more like grasping at straws and desperate attempts to paint skeptical leaders as misogynists if those same skeptical leaders weren't doing things that can be so easily interpreted as misogynistic. No one from FreethoughtBlogs went over and started making rape jokes at a 15-year-old Redditor. No one at Skepchick forced Ben Radford to write a clueless article where he justified gender essentialism with appeals to antiquity and popularity and evo-psych in complete ignorance of the scholarly work on the subject. Grothe can complain about people calling out skeptics for "supposed sins," but it'd be a lot harder to do if those skeptics stopped committing those sins.

The most charitable interpretation of Grothe's claim here is that he's accepted the words of actual people who have actual evidence that some blog founder someplace issued instructions to call out skeptics for their real or supposed sexism. He's not denying the content of these "call out" posts (diminishing, but not denying), which amounts to saying 'I'm upset that people would notice these instances of perceived sexism and talk about them publicly.' The least charitable interpretation is that Grothe is maliciously lying to dismiss and discredit people with whom he disagrees, in the service of greater perceived harmony among the community--to set a policy of not policing our own. I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but in no case does it reflect positively on Mr. Grothe.

Is there an echo (echo, echo) in here?

2012-01-10T17:12:00.002-06:00

It seems like the accusation of various blogs and spaces being "echo chambers" is showing up more and more. In honesty, I've used it myself to describe various communities. In a particular recent example, D.J. Grothe of the JREF called the commenters of Greta Christina's Blog "ditto-heads." Others in related threads have referred to a collective of atheist and feminist blogs as "echo chambers" where dissenting opinions are stifled. Less charitable commenters, have referred to such environs with Godwin-loaded terms like 'lockstep' and 'brownshirts' and 're-education.' The most famous such "echo chamber" among atheist/skeptical blogs is at Pharyngula, where the horde simply parrots whatever PZ says, and violently assaults anyone who dares to disagree.

Or so critics imply (or occasionally state outright).

There are a couple of problems with this critique. The first is that it is not actually a critique. At least in many cases, it's used to dismiss the arguments of people in comment threads, or fans of bloggers. Used in this way, the "echo chamber" accusation becomes both an ad hominem and an argument from incredulity. The dismisser cannot imagine how a group of people could legitimately arrive at another position, and so they must be under the thrall of some charismatic leader. Thus, their opinions can be dismissed.

Let's address the first part: that commenters in alleged "echo chambers" are necessarily swayed by the opinions of the charismatic leader at the top. I think, in most cases, this gets the causal relationship exactly backward. It's almost certainly true that there's a correlation between the opinions of a group of blog commenters or forum members and the opinions of the person(s) running the forum or blog, and it's almost certainly true that those opinions have been influenced by that writer. But these are not (at least in most cases) cult compounds. People are not isolated in locked rooms, forced to use Pharyngula as their only source of information and companionship. These are people who came to Pharyngula independently, and stayed of their own volition.

In other words, I tend to read blogs (and magazines and books and watch TV shows and YouTube channels and so forth) written by people whose views generally agree with mine, who comment on issues that I care about, and who present information or opinions in an entertaining and/or informative manner. I suspect that this is almost universally true. I only have so much time to read and watch TV and listen to podcasts; why would I spend a majority or plurality of time on sources that don't interest me, enlighten me, or entertain me? This isn't to say that I wall myself off from alternative opinions (more on that in a moment); it means that I'm going to spend more time reading Skepchick and Pharyngula and Slacktivist than, say, Mike Adams' Health Ranger blog.

And when I read the Health Ranger blog, I'm not expecting to actually learn anything new (except inasmuch as it might teach me new things about bad arguments, or lead me to do debunktional research), and I'm anticipating entertainment by way of hilariously irrational and terrible arguments, which may further entertain me by giving me something to write a blog post about. It doesn't mean I wouldn't consider Adams' arguments--I'll evaluate them based on logic and evidence, like any other claim--but I don't enter with high expectations.

So, to the point of the "echo chamber," I think you'll find that blogs with established commenter communities tend to have commenters who agree with the bloggers because if they disagreed, they'd be reading other blogs. Which kind of reverses the whole cause-effect relationship tossed out by the "echo chamber" criticism. Commenters don't share the blogger's opinion because they're part of that community; they're part of that community because they share the blogger's opinions.

And, of course, even with the infamous Pharyngula horde, there "lockstep" just isn't there. PZ has been called out by his own commenters on more than one occasion (the RDF forums affair and bunny comic brouhaha come to mind), which exposes the other point: even if I seek out communities that represent my opinions, I will almost certainly never be able to shield myself from views with which I disagree. I love Slacktivist, and I even love Fred Clark's articles on his faith. I disagree with his conclusions and I think his reasons for theism are weak at best, but I've learned a lot from reading those posts, including how a liberal Christian can reconcile his beliefs with the Bible, and how overly-simplistic the notion that fundamentalists take the Bible "more literally" is.

And the same can be said for "Penn & Teller: Bullshit" or "Skeptoid" or any of a number of other blogs I read, podcasts I enjoy, or shows I watch. I can scarcely imagine how one might even go about setting up an "echo chamber."

Actually, that's not entirely true. We all can imagine precisely that, because we know of at least one infamous actual echo chamber: Uncommon Descent. In that case, it's clear how you create that kind of environment: ban anyone and everyone who disagrees, and delete their posts. The closest I've ever seen to that in the skeptical/atheist community was the You're Not Helping blog, and rampant banning was the least of that blog's problems.

There are, of course, accusations that PZ's blog does precisely that. I don't know, looking at the threads I linked earlier, it sure seems like Jadehawk; Caine, Fleur du Mal; and Josh, Official SpokesGay are still around and posting, despite disagreeing with PZ (in some cases, quite vehemently) in the threads I linked above. Sorting out any actual "PZ bans anyone who dissents" claims from sour grapes and mudslinging would be a fairly difficult feat, and surely a prominent skeptic like Grothe would know better than to take claims of that sort at face value.

But let's finally get to the dismissive nature of the "that's just an echo chamber" accusation. For the sake of argument, let's accept the premise: the Pharyngulistas (as our example) accept everything PZ says and march in lockstep across the Internets to promote his uncritically-accepted opinions.

So fucking what?

This is why the dismissal fails as a critique: it is wholly without substance. It is a red herring, a non sequitur which says nothing about the claims or opinions being discussed. Even if Pharyngula beamed out mind control rays that placed each and every reader under the thrall of Svengali Myers, it would not be a response to any argument presented by those mind-controlled horde members. The source of the claim, argument, or opinion is immaterial. What matters is its substance, not its source.

Those who are using the "echo chamber" claim as a way of deflecting criticism or dismissing arguments are not engaging in the argument. They are using the same fallacious tactics and intellectually dishonest techniques that we all learned back in Skepticiism 101, and there's no reason to accept that kind of red herring in any good-faith argument or conversation.

The "Now What?" Phase

2012-01-03T16:29:00.000-06:00

There seems to be a kind of life cycle of skeptical blogs. They start out all excited and frequent-posting, hitting all the usual Skepticism 101 topics, and trying to say something new or interesting about them. But eventually, I think every skeptical blog comes to the "Now What?" phase. You've hit alt-med and ghost hunting and cryptozoology and alien abductions and conspiracy theories and antivaxxers and maybe dabbled in a little religion. But once all that's done, where do you go? There are some choices:

Fade Away: There's only so many ways you can say that homeopathy is bullshit. Your posts are all there, archived for all time on the Internet, and there's nothing more to say. You walk away, and your blog slowly gathers dust.
Firefighting: Keep up with the woo-news. Jump on every new article or claim that pops into your feed or Google Alerts. It might be a little repetitive, but it'll at least be relevant.
Case Studies: Go after every specific story. Instead of talking about hauntings in general, look at each prominent haunting story on its own. Take every claim as new, examine it, and debunk as necessary.
Angling: Try to find new ways of talking about the usual skeptical topics. Maybe there's some larger themes you can draw conclusions about, maybe there are connections to other fields. Maybe it's just a matter of doing the usual topics as a webcomic or poetry.
Diversify: Change the blog focus. Maybe make it more personal, maybe talk about art or video games in addition to occasional skeptical topics.
Pioneer: Skepticism is a process, not a set of conclusions, so apply that process to new topics. Political claims? Social trends? Mores and traditions? They're rife for skepticism and doubt just like any other set of claims. You might end up doing a lot of your own legwork, but you'll have something new to say and show for it.
Quarterbacking: You may have noticed that there are a lot of other people who also agree that UFOs aren't aliens and Bigfoot is bullshit. You socialize with those people, online or off, and maybe there are some things that you see in this group that you want to praise, or decry. Maybe you think they should be doing things differently to attract more members, or make things more pleasant for people who are already in the group. So you voice some opinions, suggestions, descriptions, or decrees for the community at large.

In truth, I think most skeptical blogs and podcasts do some combination of most or all of the above. The problem comes when people visit a skeptical blog and are shocked--shocked, I say!--to see discussion that isn't strictly Skepticism 101 on a skeptical blog. "Why are you talking about X? X doesn't have anything to do with Chupacabras!"

And it might not. But if every skeptical blog spent all its time re-hashing Skepticism 101 topics, it'd get really boring really fast. If you can't handle skeptical pioneering or occasional quarterbacking, then maybe you should find blogs that engage in more of the firefighting and case studying and angling. But complaining that it's not strictly skepticism? Well, that just makes you look like an ass.

How the toothless eat gelato

2011-11-22T06:27:00.001-06:00

You've no doubt heard about the ludicrously-titled "Gelatogate" controversy, where Christian businessman Andy, owner of Gelato Mio in Springfield, MO, saw a bit of Brother Sam Singleton's atheist revival, got offended, and hung a sign that said Skepticon attendees weren't welcome in his store. He apparently came to his senses rather quickly (but not before irreparably damaging his Yelp and Google reviews and racking up a ton of bad publicity) and issued a pretty sincere apology (Blag Hag has the whole story). At this point, the story should be over--privileged Christian let his personal offense lead him to a bigoted action and learned a valuable lesson about how your actions have consequences, the end. But of course, it's not. Instead, it's become an excuse for the DBs to harp on Skepticon's atheist leanings and complain that atheists are harming the skepticism brand.

In particular, Jim Lippard, who said that the "Root cause of Skepticon gelato incident was brand confusion over an atheist convention labeled as a skeptic convention." We can leave aside several points--that Andy saw only a little bit of one talk (a satirical revival, no less), and thus could have had the same reaction to any anti-religious talk (or comedy routine) at any skeptical conference, regardless of what proportion they actually made of the talks; that only 1/3 of the Skepticon events were explicitly about religion (assuming Dan Barker's was and Rebecca Watson's wasn't), with the rest being about genetics, math, critical thinking, and other topics; that this same thing could have happened if Andy were an anti-vax mom going to an anti-anti-vax talk at any other skeptical conference (or any of the "how dare you assault my beliefs" people who write in to skeptical blogs and the like), etc. We needn't consider those points because, after all, the DBs don't consider them (inconvenient for the narrative, don'cha know).

No, let's focus instead on Andy's misconception that led to the whole process, because I agree with Jim Lippard that it's the source of the problem. Andy said "Once the store slowed down, I decided to walk down the street to learn more about the convention, fully thinking it was something involving UFOs (“skeptics”)." Jim Lippard might look at that and say Andy correctly understood what topics skeptics typically address, was at least open to the skeptical position on those topics, but was turned away by the bait-and-switch of running into a talk that ridiculed his religious beliefs. Another religious ally turned off to skepticism by atheists who continue to conflate the terms.

We'll ignore, of course, that the same Andy has now had a consciousness-raising experience with respect to the rights of atheists to believe and speak as they wish, the wrongness of bigotry in any form, the consequences associated with acting rashly out of personal offense, and his own religious privilege, all of which appear not to have affected his openness to the points of UFO skeptics.

I agree that this is a problem, the popular understanding that the set of topics that are addressed by skeptics completely overlap with the set of topics of History Channel shows that feel the need to consult a token skeptic. Someone like Jim Lippard might say that the solution is that skeptics need to focus more on those topics, and that atheists should be more forthright in the labeling of conventions that focus on atheist topics (ignoring, again, that 2/3 of the events at Skepticon had nothing explicitly to do with atheism, judging by the talk titles). The problem is one of mislabeling atheism as skepticism.

Obviously I disagree, or I wouldn't be taking the time to post about it. The problem is not so much one of mislabeleing as one of blinders. The DBs have walled off atheism as a set of topics that deserve their own conferences and conventions, talks that don't have a place--at least in large number--at skeptical events. Some, like Daniel Loxton, have done this explicitly by giving god claims and related religious claims a special category ("metaphysics") that makes them immune to the skeptical process (and sticking their fingers in their ears when anyone brings up the notion of null hypotheses, burdens of proof, or Occam's Razor). It would be just fine and dandy if a skeptical conference had a plurality of talks on UFOs or talks on ghosts or talks on cryptids or talks on alt-med--Lippard himself said as much. Only religious skepticism is singled out for such critiques; only atheism is snubbed and assumed that it'll have its own conference, so as not to sully and taint the very term "skepticism." Skeptical conferences should focus on the safe topics.

Because that's what most of them are: safe. Few people have any real emotional or personal investment in the existence of cow-mutilating aliens or loch-dwelling pleisiosaurs. Criticizing those fields steps on almost no one's toes. Even anti-vax is a minority position; for all the harm it does, for all the people it injures and kills, most folks still trust their doctors and get their kids immunized. Attacking those positions is okay, because most people tacitly agree with the skeptics, or at least aren't emotionally invested or indoctrinated into holding the non-skeptic position and defending it as an integral part of their life, which they reinforce by attending weekly meetings of believers.

I don't begrudge skeptics those topics, or even a preference for those topics. Take a look at the talks we've done for Gen Con--there's not an explicitly atheistic one in the bunch. Talking about those safe topics is often interesting, but more importantly, it's fun. We can cut loose on the silliness of ghost hunters or the stupidity of cryptozoology, because we know that most people aren't going to take personal offense. We can keep the tone light and frivolous, because the topics we're talking about are largely frivolous. Informative, sure, but largely inconsequential (except, of course, the alt-med stuff).

Religion's not as safe, because lots of people have lots of emotional and personal ties to their religion, and have a lot of their energy and personal identities tied up in their religious beliefs and practices. Religious belief is a majority position, and even the people who aren't very religious tend to lean toward casual belief--just like, I think, most people tend to lean toward thinking fairies and Bigfoot and alien abductions are kind of silly. If you're strictly playing a numbers game, then you're likely to offend a lot more people with a talk on religion than with a talk on Nessie.

And the numbers game appears to be exactly what the DBs are playing. They want the "movement" to grow; my inner cynic says that a larger "movement" means more podcast subscribers and donors, more book purchases, more TAM ticket sales, more token skeptics on the History Channel, and so forth. The more charitable interpretation is that it's education--more people will be able to recognize bad arguments, more people will get vaccinated, more people will avoid quack alt-med treatments. The world becomes a little more rational, step by tiny step. But that's ignoring the giant elephant in the room, the institution that legitimizes and promotes magical thinking, denigrates science and critical thought as methods of discerning truth, does tangible and significant harm, and is the source of (or overlaps with) a large portion of the 'approved topics' for skeptical conferences, religion. And ignoring it intentionally, knowing that attacking the majority proposition might offend some people, might turn some people off, might prevent those tiny incremental steps toward rationality. It's what the alt-med quacks accuse doctors of: treating the symptoms rather than curing the disease.

I can already hear the DBs reaching for their pearls and fainting couches, so let me back up a bit. Here's an incomplete list of the woo-woo--approved, safe-for-skeptical-conference woo-woo--that stems directly from religion:

Creationism/Intelligent Design
Faith healing
Afterlife beliefs
Reincarnation
Demons and demonic possession
Angels

And here's a list that have significant overlap, such that religion is often used as the justification for these positions, beliefs, or actions:

Global warming denial
Anti-gay pseudoscience & discrimination
Historical revisionism
Dualism/soul
End of the world
Conspiracy theories
Anti-vaccination positions & policies
Anti-abortion pseudoscience & policies
Misogyny & sexism
Child abuse
Abstinence-only sex education policies
Ghosts
Witchcraft/magic
Naturopathy and other alt-med
Gender essentialism
Mental illness denial
Anti-GMO hysteria
Near-death/Out-of-body experiences

And that's not even scratching the surface of the logical fallacies, specious arguments, fabrications, and crappy reasoning that prop up the whole edifice of religion, nor does it even touch the problems of accepting personal revelation as solid reason for belief or the issue of treating hierarchical organizations or age-old texts as absolute authorities. Hell, it doesn't even include UFOs and alien abductions, cornerstones of religions like Raelianism and Scientology. Why is it okay for us to go after all those things, but not after the root cause that promotes, supports, and legitimizes them? It's ridiculous, tantamount to telling someone a thing is untrue without explaining why or how we know.

But more salient, I think, is the matter of harm. Call me a pragmatist, but I think we ought to focus a lot of our skeptical efforts on the woo-woo that does the most harm. That's my biggest problems with the DBs and their sphere of acceptable skepticism: with the exception of alternative medicine, they focus on the most harmless kinds of woo-woo. Cryptozoology is kind of the ur-example; the biggest danger of cryptid hunters and their ilk is the propensity for hoaxes and the money they potentially drain from more worthwhile causes. Otherwise, some guy in a hat and vest stomping through the woods looking for hair or footprints isn't actually doing anyone any harm whatsoever. UFO believers and abductees are a little more harmful, since their efforts can actually divert police and other emergency resources, but they're still mostly just silly. Psychics and ghost hunters take money from people and give them lies and false hope in exchange, and contribute to a larger problem of a bullshit-saturated medium, but they're mostly only harmful to the gullible. That sucks for the gullible, and we should do what we can about it, but it's not killing anyone, for the most part. Alternative medicine, yes, does lots of harm to lots of people, and we should focus lots of effort on fighting the chiropractors and acupuncturists and especially the antivaxxers. But we should also focus on the faith healers, and the Christian Scientists, and the people who claim that vaccines are full of fetus parts, and the anti-stem cell crowd, and we're back to religion.

And when it comes to harm, I don't think all the rest of the acceptable sphere of skeptical topics added together do as much harm as religion, even if only because it encourages blind faith in fallible leaders, rejects reason and evidence as primary tools for knowledge acquisition, and legitimizes magical thinking. If it did nothing else--if it weren't spreading miseducation and misinformation to children and developing cultures, if it weren't the source of countless cases of child abuse and sexual abuse and coverups thereof, if it weren't a (frequently) legally-protected reason for parents to kill their children and put others at risk through medical neglect, if it weren't actively behind efforts to make women and non-heterosexuals into second-class citizens, if it weren't a tax shelter and source of wealth for people who do nothing to help their communities and bilk money from people who actually need it--I'd still think those reasons put religion head and shoulders in terms of harm above chupacabras, chiropractors, and charlatans. But the fact is that religion is behind all those sources of harm and more, and that should make countering it a major focus of any skeptical effort.

A skepticism that ignores--willfully ignores--this largest and most dangerous of the potential woo-targets, is a skepticism content with being toothless, with gumming safely away at the softest targets and lowest-hanging fruit, rather than chopping down the whole goddamn rotten tree. A skepticism that excises the topics which may actually offend people--or more accurately, may actually offend a majority of people, because the DBs don't care about self-identified skeptics who believe in alt-med or deny global warming--is a skepticism content to be relegated to fringe magazines and token opinions on bullshit-saturated cable specials. It's a contented skepticism, with no ambitions beyond growing the number of contented toothless skeptics, so they can have larger and larger conferences about how silly UFOlogists are, and never step on anyone's privileged toes.

That's fine for the DBs. They can have all the conferences they want where religion is never mentioned, never doubted, never questioned, never criticized--that's the only way to ensure that an Andy can't randomly walk in and be offended by an assault on his deeply-held faith (that, or exorbitant ticket prices)--but they don't own the term "skeptic," and they don't have a solid leg to stand on with respect to restricting skepticism as a method or a community to "everything but religious skepticism." They can structure conferences where every kind of woo-woo (except religion, except except the fringey religions that no one cares about anyway) gets equal time and equal treatment, from chemically castrating autistic children to the Cottingley fairies. What they can't do--well, they can, but no one has any reason to listen to them--is get their knickers in a twist when people with reasonable priorities and an interest in making the world a better place go after the root of the problem, or at least focus 1/3 of one annual conference on addressing that problem.

The DBs can restrict their skepticism if they want. They can focus on the safe topics and the safe methods; they can have safe conferences and safe speeches where they studiously keep the privilege of the religious majority safe from any potential critique. And doing so, they can be safely ignored. Don't feel bad about that; it's what they've chosen.

And, of course, I wrote all that before reading through PZ's post on the same topic, where he ultimately used the same basic language that I did. While I disagree with his overall approach to Gelato Guy (and don't begrudge him his response), I think he's spot-on with his critiques. You know, because they're basically the same as mine.

But he brought up a hilarious little bit from Jason Loxton, where he argues against himself, whether or not he realizes it. In making a blatant appeal to tradition, he ends with "Clear definitions, like fences, are good for neighbourliness." The phrase is apparently a 17th Century proverb, but I suspect that most people now know it from Robert Frost's "Mending Wall." Let's take a look at that poem, with a bit of helpful emphasis:

Mending Wall
Robert Frost

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.' I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."

Two neighbors rebuilding a fence because that's what they've always done, one asking why the fence exists in the first place, seeing no good reason for its existence or to keep putting in the effort to maintain it, and getting only tradition and platitudes in return. Sounds about right.

Am I Blue?

2011-09-13T18:40:00.002-05:00

I watch a fair amount of basic cable TV, and I don't have a DVR, which means I see a lot of commercials. Most of them are inoffensively awful and generally unmemorable. There are some standouts; Geico seems to get more annoying with every new commercial generation, the J.G. Wentworth jingle never fails to stick irritatingly in my head, and the FreeCreditScore.com band seems strangely sinister ever since I read Fred Clark's enlightening argument about credit scores. I will, however, admit to a general love for the goofy, transparent commercials of the obviously shady "Education Connection," especially this one.

But the reason I'm writing this post is because of Blue Tax. If you haven't had the pleasure, Blue Tax is one of the many organizations that have popped up in this economy to allegedly help out people who owe back taxes. Tell me, would you trust these people with your money, let alone your possibility of prison time and wage garnishment?

Seriously, that's a commercial from 2010 at the latest; the company put it on their YouTube account in February of 2011. That animation would have been embarrassing fifteen years ago. ReBoot looked better than that--"Money for Nothing" looked better than that! If a company is so incompetent that they can't put together a commercial with computer animation technology--cheap, plentiful computer animation technology--that looks like it was made in this century, then why would anyone trust them to be competent with anything else?

There's a lot that I often don't get about commercials right now. I don't get why Skittles seems to want their delicious candy associated with absolute weirdness or why Mountain Dew felt it necessary to show a technicolor history of transients and hobos, but I can chalk that up to differences in marketing research or attempts to target a hipster demographic. I do not understand how a commercial this amateurish and unprofessional ever passed any organization's marketing department. I do not understand how anyone looked at this and said "yes, these stock poser animations of people clapping, people who are stylistically nothing like our rubber-faced elfin spokesperson, are perfect. Send that to the networks."

Unless the goal was to generate conversation about your business by putting together a laughably awful commercial that made you look completely incompetent and utterly shady, out of a misguided notion that any publicity is good publicity. In that case, mission accomplished.

Oh right.

2011-09-11T20:26:00.001-05:00

Now I remember.

I remember how 19 terrorists conspired to knock down some buildings, killing nearly 3,000 people in New York City, Arlington, and Shanksville.

I remember the confusion of the day, as news reports scrambled to report every bit of information, much of which turned out to be rumor.

I remember how quickly Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda came up in assigning blame, and wondering if it was premature.

I remember al-Qaeda taking credit, which mostly sated that skepticism--though obviously not for everyone.

I remember the sense of patriotism and vulnerable togetherness that gripped the country.

I remember rushing to set up donations at my high school, talking about the Gadsden flag in a college application essay.

I remember the days with no airplanes flying overhead.

I remember politicians scrambling as quickly as they could to wield the tragedy like a cudgel, so they could rush to unrelated wars and trade liberty for fake security.

I remember other politicians allowing it to happen, or going along with it out of misguided nationalist fervor.

I remember finding out about the memo that warned of the attacks, ignored at our peril.

I remember "mission accomplished."

I remember the United States committing war crimes for no tangible benefit.

I remember a President campaigning on his stellar terror record, which paradoxically included the worst domestic attack in U.S. history.

I remember the millions of dollars that went to no-bid contracts, the millions more that were lost entirely.

I remember the sinking of the economy on the backs of cronyism and corporate greed.

I remember the wars that have killed more on both sides than thirty 9/11s.

I remember a President campaigning on change, who left the horrors of torture and indefinite detainment and unchecked surveillance unchanged.

I remember the day almost ten years later when the man behind the attacks was finally caught, in a nation that claimed to be our ally, nowhere near our wars.

I remember the men and women still fighting those insane, costly wars, who cannot come home.

I remember that, even if they were to come home, corporate greed and political spinelessness would mean that they'd have no jobs to come back to.

I remember that terrorism means the use of attacks to spread fear and force action.

I remember what America was like before, and wonder how we let the terrorists win.

What was that again?

2011-09-11T07:46:00.000-05:00

I have the strangest feeling that I was supposed to remember something.

Credulous Books by Skeptics

2011-08-12T21:18:00.000-05:00

I've been doing some reading here and there, first to prepare for our awesome GenCon presentations, and then to get ready for the upcoming academic year. And in each case, some of the reading I've been doing has forced my palm to meet my face.

First, as part of the last surge of brainstorming-and-research phase for our presentation on conspiracy theories, I read chapters from The Skeptic's Guide to Conspiracy Theories. It's an entertaining book, written as a critical examination of conspiracy nuttery with "penned-in" annotations by a conspiracy theorist caricature, or possibly just Alex Jones. Where the book really lost me, though, was in the chapter on the JFK assassination. In it, the author claims that the "magic bullet" theory--that a single bullet hit Kennedy, zig-zagged through the air, then hit Connally in at least two places, emerging almost unscathed--is an aspect of the official story. He also notes a litany of "suspicious" deaths that occurred to people peripherally involved with the assassination, and based on these traits assigned the JFK assassination conspiracy theory a fairly high degree of plausibility.

Now, I'll admit that as far as conspiracy theories go, the JFK assassination is firmly ensconced on the more plausible end of the spectrum. In fact, Don and I put together this graphic of conspiracy theories that we didn't get to use in the talk, and you can see that we were generally pretty favorable to the JFK assassination buffs.

See, JFK is right there in the "pretty darn significant" and "only somewhat batshit insane" section of the graph. And even that's largely because the secret has somehow been kept for over fifty years, and the conspiracies get pretty crazy pretty quickly. But it's not hard to imagine, what with his Communist sympathies, that maybe Oswald was put up to it, or that Jack Ruby was working for the mob, or something along those lines.

That being said, the whole "magic bullet" thing smacks of not doing the research. The "magic bullet" is not a feature of the official story, but an anomaly seized-upon by the conspiracy theorists, based entirely on a misunderstanding of how Kennedy and Connally were seated in the car. When you account for the actual seating arrangement, with Connally sitting somewhat inboard and Kennedy elevated, the path of the "magic bullet" suddenly becomes a fairly straight-line path expected by an average bullet. And, of course, the "unscathed" bit is based on one misleading photo of the bullet; other photos show that it was all smushed in on one side and kind of twisted.

So that soured me on Cook's book; if he could miss that bit of research--something that's easily found in any number of sources, from TV specials to Vincent Bugliosi's encyclopedia of the JFK assassination, Reclaiming History, then what else might he have missed? I own the book, so I suspect that I'll come back to it eventually--everyone makes mistakes after all--but it was a little disheartening to see a book with "skeptic" right there in the title, and one of the few readily available skeptical guides on conspiracy theories, make such an appeal to credulity.

Fast-forward a few days, and my wife was looking to round out an Amazon order to get the free shipping. A book called Amazing...But False! had been floating around my "saved items" section of the Amazon cart for a year or three, and had recently dropped below $7. It seemed like exactly what I'd need for examples to stimulate critical thinking skills--there's a foreword by James Randi!--and so forth, so I had her add it.

The book arrived today, and I started flipping through, reading items here and there. Most of them have been pretty good, although a lot of them were already pretty familiar. I was intrigued by one teased on the back of the book--"All Crop Circles are Hoaxes"--but it was presented there under the "True or False" header. The article was a whole lot less ambiguous, unfortunately. Author David Diefendorf gives a decent overview of the crop circle phenomenon, but cites "some experts" claiming they've been around for hundreds of years, and goes on to make a distinction between "true crop circles" and hoaxes. "There is a long list of characteristics that make it unlikely if not impossible for the 'natural' crop circles to have been fabricated by humans," he says, then lists eight bullet-pointed traits of "genuine" crop circles that seem an awful lot like credulously repeating believers' anomaly-hunting. Among the reasons are that "the leaves and stems of the plants manipulated in genuine crop circles are woven together in a fashion so intricate as to be impossible for pranksters to duplicate" and "of the legions of crop circles scattered all over the world, many are far too complex in design to have been fabricated by pranksters." Most of them are like that: anomalies that make it "impossible" for any human to have crafted them. As St. Peter said, "You're right, no human being could stack books like this."

It's disheartening to see such a failure of skepticism in the face of typical woo-woo tactics, but it's especially galling in a book endorsed by James Randi.

I guess the takeaway is the same one that one should get from Snopes's "Lost Legends" page: you can't believe everything you read, even from otherwise skeptical sources. Unfortunately, it puts me in the position of having to independently research every entry before I present it to anyone else.

Gen Con 2010 and 2011

2011-08-01T10:32:00.000-05:00

First, Don has posted video from two of last year's Gen Con skepticism panels. I can't watch it myself yet--my voice sounds all weird when I'm not hearing it through my bones--but I encourage all of you to do so, if you're so inclined. Here's our General Skepticism one, and you can view "Cargo Cult Science" at A Place for My Stuff or YouTube.

Second, as you may be aware, Gen Con 2011 is this week, and the Skeptical Gamers are back in force, with a whole bunch of panels and presentations to expose skepticism to the gaming masses. Somehow I got myself involved with four of these presentations, but don't let that keep you from attending. There are lots of other awesome people involved, and if you happen to find yourself in Indy, I recommend dropping by. Feel free to come up and say hi!

Do, or do not

2011-07-03T11:54:00.001-05:00

I'm watching "Selling God" on Netflix Instant, on a whim this morning. It's only half an hour in so far, and it's all right. It's no "God Who Wasn't There," which I go back to now and again, but it's definitely aiming for a similar tone and format, with a focus instead on how religion, and Christianity in particular, markets and spreads itself.

But that's not really what I wanted to talk about. I wanted to talk about Romans 7:15-20, which just got quoted in the film. Read through this:

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

I get that the passage is talking about man's sinful nature causing him to make bad choices, and I suspect that it's a lot less tongue-twistery in Greek, but holy cow, look at that. I don't know if anyone else remembers the slapstick comedy New Testament I proposed way back when, but this passage put me in mind of it again. Can't you just hear that passage being read by Jackie Mason or John Moschitta or the late Rodney Dangerfield? It'd be hilarious.

Failing Massively at Language

2011-06-27T22:41:00.000-05:00

Every now and again, I see this group (or page or whatever the kids are calling them now) pop up in my Facebook feed: "Changing the meaning of FML to Feeling Much Love," and I rub at the bridge of my nose and shake my head a bit. I've talked before about the problems inherent in trying to exert conscious control over language, and this situation highlights a bunch of those problems.

For the uninitiated, "FML" is Internet shorthand for "fuck my life," and the term was popularized by the website FMyLife.com, where users submit amusing stories about unfortunate events in their lives. It serves much the same purpose for the Internet as similar sections in "Reader's Digest" or "Seventeen" magazines (shut up, yes, I've read "Seventeen"). Know Your Meme tracks the origin of the initialism to 2009, when FMyLife started as the English-language version of French website Vie de Merde, and popularity peaked shortly thereafter. The F My Life book was published in mid-2009, representing what appears to be the last spike in popularity before a very long downward slope that has largely plateaued.

So, there's your first problem: the time to attempt to change the meaning of this phrase was two years ago, when it was actually popular and not just part of the background noise of the Internet, the out-of-vogue memes that make up our online vernacular. Going after "FML" now is a little like starting a campaign to make "all your base are belong to us" into a campaign to promote community softball programs or "ate my balls" into a meatball advertisement. The ship has largely sailed, and any attempt to address the term has to clear the hurdle of making the term relevant again.

The second is a matter of bottom-up vs. top-down engineering. The initialism "FML" developed from the "F My Life" phrase, which itself developed as a catch-all term for things that people actually say. Know Your Meme has a clip from "Superbad" where the phrase is uttered, but precursors like "fuck me" or "why me?" and the like are easy to find. Ultimately, "FML" developed naturally out of things people actually say, and moreover, a feeling people actually have. It's a very natural, bottom-up development of a new term.

Trying to redefine the initialism is a top-down attempt at imposing control. It's trying to impose a new meaning over something that developed naturally, which puts it in several difficult positions. For one, it's awkward: "Fuck my life" is a full sentence, "feeling much love" is a verb phrase, and a weirdly-concocted one at that. Unlike "fuck my life," "feeling much love" is not something you're likely to hear someone say. "FML" developed as a general term for a lot of other phrases describing the same thing; even if people are "feeling much love," it's not something they routinely say. It's certainly not something that's likely to accompany pithy, amusing stories--more likely cloying, sappy ones. In any case, the number of people trying to impose this change, almost by definition, is much smaller than the number of people who defined and popularized the term in the first place. Even with the term's fall from memetic prominence, this campaign is farting against a strong wind.

Then there's the matter of how one would accomplish this. If it's just "let's start a Facebook group and get everyone on-board," then it's a symbolic exercise at best, with almost no chance whatsoever of enacting actual change. But let's assume that the thirty-odd members of the group are a little more gung-ho about this change. One of them writes a blog post about their big family reunion, and how five generations were represented, and everyone had a wonderful time and took a big picture and a great meal, FML. The average Internet reader is going to be understandably puzzled, and so might post a comment, asking "FML? That sounds great! Why would you say 'fuck my life'?" To which the original poster will have to respond with something like, "no, I'm trying to change the meaning of 'FML' to 'feeling much love'!" Which, again, is awkward and silly.

And it inverts the process. By the time "FML" became widely used, the phrase "Fuck/F my life" was enough of a part of the Internet lexicon that it became easy to figure out (or look up) what the term actually meant. The people waging this counter-campaign are not only working against the term's loss of popularity and relevance, but also against the clear, understood meaning, and a wealth of links and pages and people who provide the common definition. Is it possible to fight such a trend? I suppose, in principle, but it's not so much an uphill battle as a scaling-a-building battle.

Perhaps the biggest problem with all this is the motivation. Obviously the intentions are good, trying to get people to be more positive. But, you know, bad shit--and in the case of most of the "FMyLife" posts, embarrassing shit--happens, and we don't have to be super-cheery about it. With many of the stories submitted to FMyLife, it would be a sign of distressing mental issues--or a severe case of sarcasm--to follow up with something cheery and sappy like "feeling much love." And with many of the cases, it's similarly inappropriate to follow them with "fuck my life," but only because they're really trivial shit (or obviously fabricated). Such a quality decay--everyone wants to participate, even if their lives are utterly mundane--is probably a contributing factor to the site's precipitous slide down the Alexa rankings.

The point being, it's okay to feel bad when bad shit happens. Trying to limit or change people's language in such a way that they lose an expression for "well, that sucked" just means they're going to abandon the mangled expression and invent a new one. Expressions of life sucking at the moment are as necessary and natural and legitimate as expressions of life being awesome. At least the FMyLife posts demonstrate a willingness to laugh at oneself, or to let others laugh at oneself, which (considering the Internet) is a surprisingly mature way to handle embarrassing and tragic situations. I think the "feeling much love" folks miss that bit of nuance; people posting on "FMyLife" and saying "FML" aren't generally that down on life. They're not all suicidally depressed people slitting their wrists on an electronic forum, they're mostly people who tripped and faceplanted in front of everyone, and are joining in with the schadenfreude-colored laughter. That's not really something that needs to be changed, specifically not changed in a way as to miss and negate the humor.

The suicidally depressed people are over at PostSecret.

Ch-ch-chain

2011-06-23T17:46:00.000-05:00

As far as I know, there's no video of the talk I gave last year at GenCon on the subject of Chain Letters and E-Mail Forwards. Thankfully, "Weird Al" Yankovic has kindly summarized it:

The Indictment of Brian Dunning

2011-06-20T02:01:00.000-05:00

I figured I'd write a quick post on this, since I haven't seen much of anyone talking about it around the skeptical blogosphere. In case you missed it, Brian Dunning, of the Skeptoid podcast and Skepticblog, has been indicted for wire fraud, and potentially faces some huge fines and jail time as a result of it. The full text of Dunning's indictment is here, and it sounds pretty damning. Innocent until proven guilty, of course, but I have a hard time believing that these kinds of charges could be filed without some pretty solid evidence to back them up. Then again, until this weekend I thought "cookie stuffing" was what I did with E.L. Fudges and my belly this past week, so take it with a grain of salt.

So, why should I blog about this? Obviously I don't think that Dunning's alleged crimes invalidate his arguments against homeopathy or conspiracy theories. The claims stand on their own, and so forth. But I do think it's important to keep a clean house. If I call out fraudsters and charlatans like Kevin Trudeau and Andrew Wakefield, but give Brian Dunning a free pass because I subscribe to his podcast, then I'm treading quite close to hypocrisy. And I think it behooves the skeptical community to do the same. We're a fairly small group with only a few media-prominent members; when one of them is (allegedly) committing fraud or making sexist remarks or spreading disinformation, then it's our responsibility to call them out first. Again, it's largely a matter of hypocrisy--if we're going to criticize liberal Christians for giving a free pass to Rick Warren or Pat Robertson, then we shouldn't be giving out free passes either.

There's also an element of outrage-tinged schadenfreude. I like Skeptoid as a podcast, but there's no denying that the same stripe of foot-in-mouth libertarian-themed stupidity runs through Dunning's works as runs through Penn and Teller's. His early "new bill of rights" episode was an unfunny screed, and more recently his episode on DDT--which earned him justified criticism from just about everyone--provided a serious hit to his credibility. Not to mention the way his run-ins with sexism and serious gadfly syndrome (an example) have made him look like a giant douchebag.

The outrage, however, comes from knowing that I enjoyed Skeptoid enough to do the $4/month donation for several months, finally caving to Dunning's frequent postscript pleas for money. The donation requests were interesting, since Skeptoid once billed itself as "the only podcast that does not accept donations or sponsors," which led gradually to 'it's easy to donate at 99 cents an episode,' to the more recent "if 2% of Skeptoid listeners donated 99 cents per episode, I could do it full time." If I'd known that Dunning's company had made $5.3 million over the span of a year or so, possibly through wildly illegal and unethical practices, then I highly doubt I'd be sending him that donation. I don't feel too bad about it--I keep buying seasons of "Bullshit," even if each one has an episode or two that I have no desire to watch--but it's still kind of bullshit to beg for money when most podcasters do it for free, and when you're making even a fraction of that kind of bank at your real job. It makes me feel worse that I gave into his begging, but haven't donated to other (better) podcasts like the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe or the Non-Prophets.

If I were to do some armchair psychoanalysis, I'd say that the problem with being a libertarian (or having some apparent libertarian leanings, since Dunning denies the label) skeptic is that, as a skeptic, you're aware of lots of ways to fool people and scam them out of money, and as a libertarian, you don't think you have any responsibility to keep those people from being scammed. I certainly don't think it's that simple, especially since it looks like the real victim here is eBay (and other affiliates, but they aren't the ones being directly scammed, just stolen from by proxy), but I suspect that libertarian political leanings probably have the same kind of effect on moral behavior that they have on skepticism. And their effect on skepticism often seems to be to force logic, reason, and evidence into a subordinate position to political ideology.

In any case, watch this story. I certainly hope that this gets as much attention from the skeptical blogosphere as Bill Maher's anti-medicine woo-woo or Randi's global warming misinformation. It's important that we call out our own luminaries, lest we foster an environment where unreason and corruption can grow unabated.

George Lucas is a Genius

2011-06-18T13:55:00.000-05:00

Crossposted from Movies Schmovies

Ever since The Phantom Menace, people have been complaining about how George Lucas ruined the Star Wars series through a series of stupid plot points and plodding movies. After all, he took two of the most badass, fan-beloved characters in the series...

...and turned them into annoying, whiny bitches:

Not only that, but it introduced annoying characters like Jar-Jar Binks and then proceeded to make them central to the mythos (go ahead, try to forget about him. Try to explain the backstory of the Empire, the driving force behind the trilogy that you actually like, without noting that Jar-Jar Binks cast the deciding vote to making Palpatine Emperor). It's really almost surprising that we weren't treated to a shot of young Han and Lando whining at each other over a game of space-marbles or something.

But while watching bits of Attack of the Clones on Spike today, I think Jon and I stumbled onto the truth. This wasn't George Lucas being some dumbass hack who can't write dialogue or a coherent plot, who thinks that political discussion between two unlikable one-dimensional characters belongs in the middle of the second film of a trilogy.

No, this was George Lucas, the genius who has had to deal with legions of Star Wars fans for the last thirty years. George Lucas, the man who couldn't escape from under the shadow of this fucking trilogy if he tried--and if he did, he'd still end up under the shadow of the Indiana Jones films.

So this is George Lucas's letter to the fans: Hey, you know those badass characters? Those mysterious and awesome people that you've been pestering me about for decades? Well, it turns out that they're whiny fucking bitches...Just. Like. You.

And man, after falling right out of Star Wars fandom, I can totally sympathize with that. Lucas knows that his fans want to identify with the characters, and so he's thrown them the biggest bone ever: now you can identify directly with Boba Fett and Darth Vader--the fans' favorite characters!--who have become whiny, obnoxious little shits that ruin the whole goddamn experience. It's...it's kind of brilliant in its spitefulness.

So good on you, George.

Disappeared for a Reason

2011-06-12T11:47:00.000-05:00

When I was a kid, I watched an assload of Unsolved Mysteries, and one of my wife's preferred background-noise shows now is Disappeared (and a myriad of other Dateline-type true crime shows). While the late Robert Stack was just as likely to talk about alien abductions or ghost sightings, the series did often talk of unsolved murders, abductions, and disappearances, the latter of which is Disappeared's raison d'être.

So a question occurred to me this morning, while the latter show was on: what if some of these "disappeared" people are in the Witness Protection Program?

I imagine the chances of that are pretty slim, but with all the hundreds or thousands of people who get profiled on these shows, it seems like eventually that number is going to come up. Then, suddenly, you've got the original names and faces and circumstances of disappearance and other vital information of two people in hiding broadcast on national television, almost certainly with some number or organization to contact if you have information about their disappearance. Seems like that would be an absolute nightmare for anyone in Witness Protection.

And I don't see a way around it, either. It's not like the US Marshals can provide a list of names to Investigation Discovery and say "don't do episodes about these people," can they? Wouldn't that be like making a hit list, saying "these people are still alive and in hiding, contrary to what the people who want them dead believe"?

It'd be interesting to know if this has ever happened, or how they prevent it, but I suspect a lot of that information might be kept secret.

XKCD tells it truly

2011-03-29T21:01:00.000-05:00

I've recently been a bit under the weather. After having a cold I couldn't shake and getting a week or so worth of antibiotics, I was having a host of appetite and gastrointestinal problems, so I went back to the doctor. In the sixteen days that had passed between visits, I'd lost ten pounds.

Now, having repeatedly fallen off the wagon with respect to my calorie-counting and exercise regimen, I was surprised to learn that I'd lost any weight at all, let alone what I knew was an unhealthy amount. Needless to say, my doctor was concerned. He ran some tests, and among the things he said he'd be looking for was the bacteria H. pylori.

I recognized the name immediately, though I wasn't sure of the connection until he elaborated that H. pylori is associated with peptic ulcers. My initial thought on making that connection was "Cool! I might be infected with H. pylori!" I proceeded to tell my doctor about the Nobel Prize that resulted from the discovery of H. pylori and its association with peptic ulcers (previously thought to be caused by stress and spicy food). Taking a page from comic books, and apparently just to prove a point, researcher Barry Marshall experimented on himself with the bacterial culture, giving himself gastritis, then demonstrated that antibiotics could treat it. Certainly it was a small sample size, but confirmation earned Marshall and partner Robin Warren the 2005 Nobel Prize in medicine, and I suspect the 2005 Nobel Prize in utter badassery as well.

So the thought of being connected, even tangentially, to such an overwhelmingly hardcore demonstration of science excited me, despite the stomach aches.

Or, as explained by the illustrious Randall Munroe:

On Educational Reform

2011-03-05T11:06:00.001-06:00

I don't like to talk about work on this blog¹. Despite everything, I like to maintain a modicum of anonymity, especially with respect to my career. But I've had some recent conversations that touch on it, and I feel like venting a little. So, without much detail, I'll say that I'm currently employed as an educator. Most of what I'm going to say in this post is off-the-cuff and anecdotal, so take it with a serious grain of salt and do the research for yourself--and feel free to let me know if I've gotten anything wrong (but also feel obligated to direct me to a primary source).

So, I had a recent conversation with a good friend about education reform, largely based around the claims of the film "Waiting for Superman." I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm inclined to skepticism--not just because of who I am, but also because of the counterclaims and responses that paint it as a kind of anti-union propaganda piece, the "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" of public schools. This Washington Post piece isn't exactly the point-by-point rebuttal I'd like to see, but it echoes the sorts of responses I've heard from the unions and others.

So let's start with the basics: there needs to be reform at nearly every level of the process. Let's start with one of my favorite topics in this conversation: teacher education. My own experience is still fairly recent, and while anecdotal, I feel like it's fairly representative. One of the biggest problems is just attracting people into the field; teaching is not exactly the most presitgious or well-paid of careers. Education programs often go beyond the average four-year college plan, including at least one semester of full-time student teaching. Student teachers still incur tuition costs, but do not get paid for their time in the classroom, rarely get reimbursed for any travel costs, and often are discouraged or outright prohibited from holding outside jobs. That means a full four to six months of mounting debt before they can even begin looking for a teaching job. Not the most attractive of propositions, I assure you. All of the significant incentives--tenure, insurance, stability--only happen well after the novice teacher has been hired and established. Consequently, it's hard to attract people to education if that wasn't their goal all along.

Most teacher candidates go into education from the start. On one hand, this means that their entire college experience is supplemented with educational philosophy and psychology courses, and they're on-track to become educators as soon as they graduate. On the other hand, this means that they often don't get the same rigorous, in-depth examination of their subject area as a non-education major in the same field. Education courseloads are not major-plus-education, they are education-plus-subject-area. This presents a number of problems; some might be attracted to education as an option because they don't want to do the in-depth work required by the advanced courses in the subject major. On the other hand, the people who end up teaching lack some of that in-depth knowledge, and while they may never be expected to teach a class on those topics, a more thorough understanding of any topic is important to being able to teach it accurately and correct students' misconceptions and answer questions.

This is especially problematic when we're talking about elementary school teachers. At least in some education programs (and I would suspect it's a majority), elementary school and even some middle school teachers get only a minimum of education in science or math. It's been my experience that many non-science or non-math teachers exhibit the same distaste and disdain for those subjects as non-science and non-math majors did and do, and consequently science education at the elementary level is often cursory or nonexistent. While students may do some reading or occasional experiments, rarely is there any education on the actual process of science. Math is much the same, teaching skills devoid of conceptual context. I've been in districts where entire elementary schools had eliminated science as a subject because no one was trained or particularly interested in it. This problem will rear its head again shortly.

My own path was different; I went to college on a typical four-year career-oriented track, but decided mid-way to go into education. Naturally, it was too late to start up an education major, so instead I went through all the four-year extensive training in my subject areas, then did my education training in graduate school. I think this gives me a leg up when it comes to some of the more arcane and advanced questions I get from students, and it certainly gave me a leg up on the pay scale to come into the field with my Master's degree. Unfortunately, it also drove me further into debt, kept me in a dwindling program that was tied up in the academic bureaucracy of three different departments (four, in my case) so that no one knew what my requirements were or could communicate them to anyone else, and made me radioactive to various low-budget districts who won't hire a first-year teacher with a Master's, due to the pay requirements. Six-point-five years of college and plenty of knowledge earned me a degree that made me too risky a candidate for many underfunded schools. The economic side of the system, in at least some cases, is designed to penalize highly-trained candidates. This is a problem.

The economic problem is a major one, and if that Washington Post article is accurate, it's a problem that Waiting for Superman largely ignores. That seems strange, since it was a recurring theme in just about every semi-popular text that I read in my education courses; it's not as though economic disparity is some arcane issue that no one's explored. I can't speak for every state, but in my state the schools are funded primarily by local property taxes. I can understand the reasons for this, but the unfortunate consequence is that this perpetuates and furthers the economic divide between the rich and poor; wealthy neighborhoods tend to have schools that are better-funded, have better equipment, have more opportunities for electives and extracurriculars, and can lure top teachers away from smaller, poorer schools. On the other side of things, I have a hard time believing that anyone could be ignorant of all the schools who have cut music and art programs, sports and extracurriculars, and have even been unable to buy textbooks or equipment due to funding problems.

NCLB and related programs have exacerbated that matter by imposing various--often draconian--regulations on which schools get additional help and what metrics are used to measure student ability and growth. I know that my teacher education classes explored a wide variety of different pedagogical styles, techniques, and methods, designed to stimulate students with different strengths and different levels of ability; it didn't teach me what the requirements of the ACT were and how to teach students to pass standardized tests. I didn't go to college to be a test preparation tutor, and the more that schools move toward that, the more you'll see qualified, passionate teachers leaving the profession.

The more you'll also see qualified, passionate teachers forced out of the profession as schools cut any programs that are not explicitly tested on the common standardized tests. Music programs, art programs, and foreign languages are typically the first to go. In many cases, it seems the only reason that Physical Education remains is because it's typically mandated by law. Whole subjects of teachers are being cut out of the industry as the number of available jobs in their fields dwindles. The teachers whose subjects and programs remain experience increased pressure to align their curricula with the expectations of the standardized tests, which generally means a very tight focus on a very small set of skills. The ACT doesn't require you to have read Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet, it doesn't require you to know who wrote the Declaration of Independence or what the Magna Carta was, it doesn't require you to know Avogadro's Number or how to balance a chemical equation. The ACT is designed to measure a certain set of reasoning, verbal, and mathematical skills, and all the other things that go into a high school education--from hands-on experiments to basic cultural literacy--can be allowed to fall by the wayside. If they're not on the test, then they're a lower priority.

Which, unfortunately for everyone, goes against all the research that says students perform better when they can make connections between disparate fields of knowledge, and are more likely to graduate the more invested they are in the school, through courses they enjoy and extracurricular activities. Cutting out the electives and extracurriculars that students enjoy cuts down on their interest and cuts into their performance. Restricting teachers to the skills-based topics covered by standardized tests cuts down on their interest and cuts into performance. No one excels when no one is motivated to excel.

Which, I suppose, brings us to the matter of tenure and the unions. Again, teaching is not the most prestigious or high-paying of careers. It involves, especially early on, considerable education and a time commitment that well exceeds the typical 40-hour work week, much of it unpaid. Contrary to what many think, the teaching doesn't end at 3:00, and grading papers is no small task when you have over a hundred students and have to plan lessons for the following days on top of it. The longer you teach, the more you build up a set of assignments and techniques and things that you can go back to without re-inventing the wheel each year, but novice teachers only have those kinds of archives in the form of what their colleagues have accumulated. The problem with this is that it stifles innovation; when it's 9:00 at night and I have to be up at 5 to get ready and be at the school on-time for a staff meeting, and I have to choose between using a decade-old worksheet that may not represent the best modern research practices, a textbook-designed worksheet that may not reflect the emphases I have in my particular classroom, or a tailor-made assignment that I take time to put together on my own (with my knowledge of educational research but lack of expertise in crafting assessments), circumstances are often going to necessitate taking the easier options. Circumstances especially dictate those shortcut methods when, in the last few months of the year, when students have checked out mentally (and in many cases physically, what with the increase in field trips and family vacations) the novice teacher receives notice that they will not be hired back for the following school year. April, May, and June become a juggling act, where the novice teacher must continue their commitment to cover a certain amount of material and keep consistently grading to maintain the fidelity of the students' scores, while also rewriting their résumés, submitting applications, and arranging interviews--with administrators at other schools, whose goals are to complete hirings before their own current school years end, and who are only available for interviews during school hours on school days. The faint glimmer at the end of this whole process is that, if you get hired by a school district, perform well for your periodic evaluations, and are not let go due to budget- or enrollment-related issues--for two to five years (more in some places)--then you don't have to go through that juggling act again. You can settle down, put down roots, and have insurance during the summer months. That's tenure.

"Ah," you might say, "what about bad teachers? Doesn't tenure make it so hard to fire a bad teacher that some districts refuse to even begin the process, preferring to just wait until they retire?"

Yes, it does. The union-negotiated contracts and tenure process make it difficult to fire teachers, even really terrible ones. This graphic from the Chicago Tribune demonstrates a typical process, and how it can take 2-5 years to remove a tenured teacher. Obviously, the process differs from district to district, but I suspect this is fairly typical. After all, it took over two years and nearly a million dollars for Mount Vernon, Ohio, to fire John Freshwater, who openly taught creationism in his public school science class, proselytized to his students, had been the subject of complaints by other teachers for eleven years, defied orders from the administration to stop teaching creationism for two years, and branded a student with a Tesla coil. Obviously, there's something wrong with that system.

Except. Except that for every John Freshwater there's a Dover School Board, full of elected ideologues with no educational background, who want to force teachers to promote their agenda. For every John Freshwater, there's a Christine Comer, forced out of an educational position because the administration disagrees with their beliefs or legal conduct. The reason it's hard to fire bad teachers is because the tenure system and the unions ensure that teachers have fair representation and an appeals process as a defense against ideologically- or personally-motivated administrations or school boards, against false accusations and unconstitutional mandates, and against biased people with personal vendettas. It's hard to fire a veteran teacher for the same reason that it's hard to execute a murder suspect. When those protections are taken away, you end up killing a lot of innocent people. Without those protections, administrations are free to staff schools with sycophants and the curriculum is decided by the non-expert school board; without those protections, any student can hold every teacher hostage with the threat of crying 'rape' or 'assault,' potentially ending a career on a whim, even if the teacher is acquitted. The appeals process protects bad teachers because it also protects good teachers, just as due process under the law protects the guilty because it also protects the innocent.

The system could certainly be more streamlined in many cases. Take, for instance, the Rubber Room situation in New York City, where teachers who were under investigation for a variety of reasons, ranging from the spurious to the serious, were removed from the classroom during the hearing process, but still required by contract to show up, and the districts were still required to pay them in full. It was an unfortunate confluence of protections for both the teachers and the students that worked out poorly for everyone. The trick for unions and districts is to strike a balance between protecting students from bad teachers and protecting teachers from bad students, bad administrations, and bad school boards. That's a difficult balance to strike, and it differs from district to district.

The hope in any iteration of this process is that bad teachers will be rooted out before they get to the tenure stage. Novice teachers, as I mentioned above, go through a trial period before receiving tenure, and that can take between two and five years (or possibly more) depending on the district. Teachers who don't make the cut--whether it's because of performance or because of other issues--get pink slipped and sent back into the job pool. Teachers who survive all the cuts over that whole term are potentially retained for life.

This process creates a couple of problems, to be sure. For one, a teacher's ability can vary greatly over their lifetime; they may get considerably better with experience, they may burn out and check out, and hell, they may do both at different times. Tenure is a gamble that a school district takes based on a few years of rookie performance. Not that there aren't checks on that matter; teachers typically have to meet certain requirements of continuing education and periodic evaluations over the course of their tenure. It's still not easy to fire them, but the schools typically have some recourse.

The other problem is what the process does to the pool of available teachers. My friend who inspired this rant directed me to this podcast, where an economist and education expert suggests that a solution would be to fire the bottom 5-8% of teachers and replace them with teachers of average ability. There are problems with this plan, not least of which is that it's based around data from students' improvements on standardized tests--which are not an accurate measurement of anything except how good the teacher is at tutoring students on test preparation. I'd be curious to see how this plan could be implemented regarding teachers whose subjects aren't tested by the standardized tests--like Spanish class, or Shop class, or most Social Studies classes. The bigger problem, though, is the matter of replacing those 5-8% of teachers. Let's ignore the point that this is a nationwide survey, and so those bottom 5-8% of teachers might themselves be more heavily concentrated in completely different states than the more average and above-average teachers, and saying "if only we moved teachers from New York to Mississippi" is not feasible. The teachers who are mobile, who are available for new jobs and new hires are almost entirely (by definition) made of teachers who are newly graduated and thus unexperienced, experienced teachers who have not (for whatever reason) been granted tenure by another district, and experienced teachers who have been fired from a tenured position.

In other words, if you fire those 5-8% of bottom teachers, you have to take a gamble on the job pool of untested teachers and failed teachers. I can't entirely fault districts for going with a "better the devil you know" approach even if they had a fairly easy time of firing those poorly-performing teachers.

Which is where the Hanushek plan makes the same basic mistake as just about any plan I've ever seen for an education reform panacea: its proposed solution ignores the complexities of reality. As I said, I haven't seen "Waiting for Superman," but my experience and the responses lead me to believe that it makes the same errors--and does so less out of ignorance than out of ideological reasons and a desire to promote propaganda. The truth is that there is no one culprit in the production of bad teachers and bad schools, but a tangled mess of problems in higher education, problems in the management of schools, problems of funding and budgeting, problems in the negotiation of contracts, problems in the turnover of administrations, problems in the measurement of student achievement, problems of priorities, and a further list of problems that would make even Jay-Z blush. Proposing any one school type as a solution or any one group as the villain is, at best, completely myopic, and at worst, profoundly dishonest. The only solution to education reform must be a comprehensive plan that addresses the problems at every level, from teacher education to tenure and everywhere in between, and recognizes that different places have different unique problems and needs. And that's not a plan that can be expressed in a slick two-hour movie.

1. If recent history is any indication, I don't like to talk about anything on this blog.

Nothing of Consequence

2010-11-24T04:59:00.000-06:00

Rant mode activated. You've been warned.

So, I got into another Twitter kerfuffle, this time with a blogger from Skeptic North. This, of course, hot on the heels of some moderately heated exchanges in Jen's comment thread. I don't know what it is with me and these Canadian skeptics, man. I mean, I love Degrassi and hockey and bacon.

But I don't love the current popular trend among some skeptics to blame atheism for diverting resources, energy, and attention away from other skeptical causes. I don't love the current efforts by some skeptics to hide or silence atheists because they see them as some threat to recruiting theists. The circular firing squad is getting fucking old.

Some additional highlights of the evening:

You say this like it's a bad thing.
I promise I will never make fun of theists as Steve Thoms. What?
The conversation continued for an hour after this.
This is what happens every time skepticism and atheism get mentioned. It accounts for the shocking number of atheist deaths due to immolation.
Can I just say how much I hate dismissive strawmen? From skeptics especially.
Aggressive atheists are so uncivil. Perfectly civil? Telling people you agree with to "say something new or get out of my way," kicking naturopaths. I guess it's the "please" that makes all the difference.
And because no irrational argument would be complete without them, how about some stereotypes, armchair psychoanalysis, and really blatant projection.

As usual, my side of the argument can be seen here. Just scroll down and keep clicking. You know, I hate threaded comments on blogs, but I sure wish Twitter had a feature that let you slot comments in a conversation with each other, so you could actually follow what was being said. But then, that would also require a system that didn't drop every third tweet on its way to my feed. Eventually, I will learn that Twitter is not the proper medium for this kind of asinine argument, but not yet, apparently. Let's get the obvious out of the way first: yes, I was most certainly being hostile, antagonistic, snarky, sarcastic, and borderline insulting right off the bat. Maybe it's because I'm writing this rant directly after the argument, but I don't even feel bad about my tone, the way I sometimes have in the past. "He started it" is a poor excuse for anything, but I think the condescending, 'get out of my way' post which kicked everything off, set that tone. Believe me, I've been bored with the religion fight too. There are times when I've felt exactly the same as Mr. Thoms, that anything worth saying about religion had already been said--most of the time, centuries ago. That's one of the reasons that this blog has gone through such long dry spells in the past, and I know folks like Don and Bronze Dog and Skeptico have felt the same at various times. On the other hand, I suspect they'd all agree that we've all felt the same about most of the typical skeptical topics from time to time. For me, there are four loose categories of skeptical topics: those I don't care about, those I care about enough to talk about, those I care about but am sick of talking about, and those I don't know enough about to talk knowledgeably. I suspect that any skeptic would have a similar breakdown. We have our areas of interest, our areas of expertise, and hopefully we largely stick to talking about the places where those two overlap. And yet, I've never really felt the need to tweet about how the anti-dowsing crowd is getting in the way of my anti-antivax activism. It all goes back to that philosophy I keep espousing regarding skepticism: do what you want, just stop telling me what to do. Different people have different interests, different goals, different priorities, and so forth. Let 'em. So, let me lay down a few things that I haven't expressed before, because I don't generally care that much (but they make for a good example):

I think skeptics in the United States generally spend way too much time and effort on homeopathy. It's not ubiquitous here the way it is in Europe, and I've found that in order to argue against homeopathic remedies with Americans, I first have to explain what they are. That doesn't mean they're not a problem; the Zicam scandal and Airborne lawsuit showed that they certainly are. But I think the attention they receive on this side of the pond is disproportionate to the danger they actually pose, largely because there's such a large contingent of skeptics from Europe and Australia, where the stuff is endemic.
I think skeptics, and particularly James Randi, spend way too damn much time on dowsing, relative to the prominence and harm actually caused by dowsing. Those useless bomb detectors certainly were a big deal, and it's good that skeptics worked against them. But before that, I don't think I've ever seen dowsing in the news outside of the occasional local story about some hick who thinks he can find water or oil or gold with a stick. I know there's some annoyance on the JREF side of things too, since 'the dowser who is convinced of their ability' was the particular example given of wasted effort when they changed the parameters of the Million Dollar Challenge a few years ago to focus it on more prominent figures.
I think we could be doing a lot more to promote vaccination, especially since we have the CDC and other major organizations on our side. The groups involved in promoting vaccines are dedicated and good at what they do, but I think we could focus more effort and time on that.
I think we're way too resigned to the glut of woo-woo programming on television, and particularly on channels that should have higher standards, like Discovery and History. The Skepchicks recently spearheaded an (apparently somewhat) successful campaign to keep an antivax ad from running in movie theaters around the country; it seems like we ought to be able to exert similar pressures against garbage like Ghost Lab or any History Channel show that consults Fred Zugibe or John Hogue as credible sources. Some prominent television figures, like, say, Adam Savage, speaking out against some of the televised paranormal dreck in public would probably help raise a little consciousness and exert a little force in that regard.
I think we ought to be doing more against Chiropractic. Like, period. I have a hard time believing that the ubiquitous back-cracking which people generally think is real medicine is more powerful in Great Britain (where the whole Simon Singh flap has been going down) than here.

Those are all things I think about the priorities of (at least) the American skeptical community, as I see them. But here's the rub: I don't begrudge anyone for sorting their priorities differently. I don't claim that the 10^23 movement is taking money and resources away from the fight against shit like "Ghost Lab." I don't say that because it's fucking absurd. There is certainly a largely common pool of people with a largely common pool of money to be had for all of these groups and causes, but people are going to associate with and support the causes they prioritize most highly. You want to change people's priorities? You want to get a bigger piece of the skeptical community pie? I'll give you two hints: one, you're not going to get there by alienating existing allies, and two, you're not going to get it by complaining about how everyone else's slice is bigger than yours. This is a marketplace of ideas. If you want more people to buy into your idea more strongly, then you need to be a better marketer. I offered Mr. Thoms some suggestions as to how he might go about doing that, but he didn't seem receptive. Because, after all, I'm an angry atheist, and my presence alone, what with my desire to be out and open about my atheism, and my penchant for criticizing religious believers, is driving potential theist supporters away in droves.

Let me break down some of the problems with that notion, shall I?

I'd be less angry if I weren't constantly dealing with patronizing skeptics who want me to stay in the goddamn closet.
Where are these droves of theist skeptics who would have joined up if not for those danged pesky atheists? Can we substantiate that they even exist in large enough numbers for us to really care?
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. It seems like shortsightedness to alienate people who already mostly agree with you because you don't like how in-your-face they are with their religious (non)beliefs, in hopes of catching more supporters who may or may not exist.
I think just the idea that--"if atheist skeptics would only keep quiet about their atheism we'd have more theist skeptics"--is profoundly condescending to the theists. It isn't just that it looks from the outside like you're trying to hide an uncomfortable truth (skepticism might gasp lead you to atheism!), it's also that it sets theism apart from all other non-skeptical beliefs. We don't caution liberal skeptics to keep their mouths shut about social security and medicare lest they scare away the libertarians (or vice versa). We don't tell the skeptics who accept Anthropogenic Global Warming to stay quiet about hockey sticks and climate forcing, for fear of alienating potential skeptics from the anti-AGW camp. We don't tell anti-GMO skeptics to lay off of potential pro-GMO allies. I've never seen skeptics who love the Cubs told to put their hats away to avoid offending Cardinals fans who happen to agree that vaccines are super. In all of these cases--and many others--skeptics disagree, often vehemently. Heated discussions often rage around these topics on message boards and in blog comment threads. Skeptics argue with each other, questioning their assumptions, pointing out flaws in their logic, and generally secure in the rightness of their own position (but, one would hope, open to changing their mind, given sufficient reason and/or evidence). I think it's coddling to give theist skeptics a pass on their theism when we would not hesitate to skewer them mercilessly on their objectivism (for instance). If they can't handle having their beliefs questioned and defending their claims against challenges and pointed questions, then they've joined the wrong community.

And here's a bombshell: I think it's possible for someone to be a skeptic and a theist. I don't necessarily even think they're being a bad skeptic, depending on what their theist-position is like. I fully admit that I could be wrong and other people could have evidence to which I am not privy. Of course, those are the theists I'd be most interested in, since I'd like to know what their evidence is, but that's kind of beside the point. I don't actually have a problem with the idea that applying skepticism can lead different people to different conclusions regarding the same question. I think they're wrong, and if it came up, I'd ask them what led them to their conclusion. And if asked the same, I'd answer. Because that's the kind of dialogue and discourse that I expect from a community of doubters, questioners, and scientists. If a theist agrees with me on vaccinations and Bigfoot and UFOs and 9/11 and every other skeptical topic, but can't handle being associated with me because we disagree on the matter of the existence of God, or because they resent the fact that I think they're as wrong about God as Bill Maher is about medicine, then fuck them. What good is such wishy-washy, fairweather support? Skepticism is a way of thinking; anyone can do it. Consequently, the skeptical community is a diverse damn group, and I should think it's as disgusting, dishonest, and disrespectful to tell an atheist to remain closeted so they don't offend potential theist allies as it would be to tell gay skeptics to stay in the closet in case there are homophobes who think acupuncture is nuts. Now, there's one last point I need to address, and that's the matter of atheists being aggressive, taking it to the streets, being in-your-face, and, as a side-effect, causing theists to not support skeptical causes or join skeptical organizations. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anyone who makes that argument is missing the goddamn point, and is likely so self-absorbed with their own goals and priorities that they simply can't conceive of the possibility that other people might be individuals. The movement toward atheist activism and visibility and openness is almost completely orthogonal to the movement to increase support for skeptical causes. The only real relations are that atheists tend to be scientific, and skepticism tends to lead toward atheism. But the goals are almost completely separate. The specific goals of things like the Atheist Bus Ad campaign or the Coalition of Reason's billboards or the Freedom From Religion Foundation's ads, are (as I understand them):

To destigmatize atheism
To debunk myths about atheism and atheists
To make people who are already atheists more comfortable about coming out
To make people who are atheists realize that they aren't the only ones around
To raise consciousness about the privileged position which religion has in our society
To increase the acceptability of criticizing religious dogma and religious claims

If you think "embarrassing religions" is a primary or even secondary goal of the "There is probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" bus ads, then I think it's safe to say you're missing the goddamn point. You and the point are not even on the same brane. If you think that "increasing support for skeptical causes" is a major goal of such ads and campaigns, then again, you are missing the goddamn point. When atheists can generally feel comfortable about being out and open about who they are and what they believe, without fear of reprisal and repercussion from coworkers, employers, families, friends, and communities, then we can start talking about who gets hurt when atheists come out of the closet. Until then, suggesting that an ad which says "Yes Virginia, there is no God" is even in the same league as "guns," and is "aggressive" is colossal asshattery. When atheists start doing shit like this? Then you can talk about "aggressive."

So in the end, no, Mr. Thoms, I don't give a flying fuck how aggressive or in-anyone's-face you are as an atheist. What I give a fuck about is people telling me what a horrible person/skeptic I am for driving away allies who I've never seen. What I give a fuck about is being stereotyped by skeptics with the same asinine brushes used by fundamentalists. What I give a fuck about is hegemonic assholes who think that their way is the only way, and "take issue" with groups and organizations that see things differently, and criticize groups who are achieving their goals because they aren't helping him achieve his. What I give a fuck about is people who are willing to complain about their lack of support, but not enough to see that if they want to compete, they need to change the fucking message. What I give a fuck about is treating people with openness and honesty, whether or not they believe in God. It seems to work all right for my theist friends and associates. Strange how I haven't driven them away.

The Future's So Bright

2010-10-09T12:12:00.003-05:00

I've been watching a lot of action movies lately, inspired in part by Don's Manly Monday series. It started with "Team America: World Police" and "Die Hard with a Vengeance," and so far I've worked my way through "Live Free and Die Hard," "Demolition Man," "Con Air," and most of "Lethal Weapon" recently. For some of those, it's not the first time I've seen them, but there are others that I missed for one reason or another. "Demolition Man" is one that I'd managed never to see before, despite the massive amounts of hype I remember surrounding its release, and while it's not the best of my recent marathon, it certainly gave me a lot to think about.

See, I love dystopian stories. I love the semi-reasonable ones and the fantastic ones and the blatantly ridiculous ones. I love the way they turn the slippery slope argument into a world-building exercise. I love the way that they can provide a handy reference for actual social issues. I've read and watched a lot of dystopian stories, and while there's a lot of quality variation, I can't think of any that I didn't enjoy to some degree.

So, because I don't have enough to do, I'm going to start a series of posts discussing some of the features and commonalities of my favorite dystopias. Unlike most of my posts, I'll probably go back and edit these periodically to add titles to each list. Like most of my posts, I'm not going to put any kind of schedule or restriction on this, because FSM knows I'll never be able to keep to it. But it'll give me an outlet for some percolating thoughts, and I think it could be interesting.

My name is Matt Foley and I am a motivational speaker!

2010-09-13T14:00:00.001-05:00

I used to live in this county. I moved before I could vote.

You know, maybe Howard Dean should have screamed more.

Now, I guess I just have to content myself with living in a state with one jailed governor and another awaiting a retrial who's trying to recoup his court fees by doing autographs at comic conventions.

Meme Debunking #3: Wash your damn hands!

2010-09-12T14:06:00.003-05:00

This may come as a surprise to the non-penised among you, but there's a meme among penis-possessors regarding the necessity of washing one's hands after urinating. I've encountered it since junior high, but it's probably best expressed here:

The boiled-down logic goes something like this: if I wash my penis in the morning, don't pee on my hands, and don't touch anything but my already-cleaned penis in the bathroom, then why should I have to wash my hands afterward? That would just expose me to the further germs on the faucet handle and soap dispenser. More scientifically-savvy non-washers might also note that urine is sterile, and so even a little dribble on your fingers might just cause you to smell a little bad.

The reasoning seems valid, and I think that's a lot of why people are compelled to accept this argument. I also assume that some people don't want to wash their hands for whatever reason, and this is a convenient way to support that preexisting position. Frankly, I wash my hands so often that the CDC considers me a key factor in the development of resistant bacterial strains, so I don't get the appeal.

Here's where I see the problem: next time you meet someone who doesn't wash and offers this excuse, ask them if they'd say the same thing about their hair, or their feet, or their armpit. "I washed my feet and armpits in the shower this morning, and ever since then, they've been enclosed in clean clothes. Why should I wash my hands after touching my feet and/or armpits?" Ask them if they'd be okay with their waiter or cook using that logic when changing before a shift. I haven't done the polling, but I suspect they'd probably be a little uneasy with that prospect.

And that's because we spend a lot more time thinking about and dealing with the normal functions of sock-and-shoe-clad feet and clothed armpits: namely, sweating. The armpits are a crevice containing a rich network of sweat glands and, unless you're a swimmer or otherwise depilated, a bunch of hair. Feet tend to be less hairy where it counts, but have similar crevices between toes, have an abundance of sweat glands as well, and tend to often be contained in tight-fitting cotton coverings. Sweaty crevices are pretty much the Garden of Eden for bacteria growth, and hair and tight cloth have the added effect of holding sweat close to the skin and keeping those dark creases consistently moist. Which is why we apply antiperspirant to our armpits and hate it when our socks get wet. I know that the feeling of sweat-pruned feet is among the most disgusting things I experience in the course of normal living.

And yet, some people are quite willing to consider the penis to be pure and pristine after a long day of the same activities that cause sweaty armpits and toe jam. I hate to break it to you, folks, but the crotch has all the downsides of both feet and armpits when it comes to sweat and bacterial content, as anyone familiar with the term "ball soup" can attest. The male crotch is a mess of creases and crevices, far moreso than the armpit, has a whole bunch of hair, and has the same kind of sweat glands as the armpits. Plus, it's generally contained beneath at least two layers of fabric, one of which is generally at least a little snug, either way providing a means for sweat to stay in the general vicinity for extended periods of time. The result is a bacterial rain forest, rich in a variety of species.

I can't speak to whether or not the swampy crotch is cleaner or dirtier than the door handle or faucets, or even whether or not it's cleaner than your hands. Those questions would require experimental studies that I haven't looked for or tried to carry out. I can't even say that crotchal region bacteria are more or less harmful than other bathroom-based microbes (although as a general principle, "harmless" or "helpful" bacteria often stop being harmless when introduced into a foreign environment, like the E. coli in your gut or the Staphylococcus on your skin). What I can say is that the argument presented in the comic and elsewhere, that your dick stays clean and pristine from the time you leave the shower to the time you unzip your fly, is prima facie absurd, and contradicted by the bacteriological evidence of the groin as a microbial Amazon.

Or, in other words, wash your damn hands!

Quotes to ponder on the anniversary of September 11th, 2001

2010-09-11T15:30:00.006-05:00

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they stopped coming altogether,
and everything was awesome for everyone.

Except for the Commies, but fuck them.

--Martin Niemöller

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, are really just being prudent. I mean, what kind of idiot doesn't want as much security as possible?

--Benjamin Franklin

Give me liberty, but not those other guys.

--Attributed to Patrick Henry

Don't tread on me. Instead, let's all tread on those people over there.

--Christopher Gadsden

Unless you've got something to offer, stay the hell out.

--Inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of religious minorities and politicians with whom we disagree.

--Thomas Jefferson

Religion and government are like chocolate and peanut butter, and thus are even better the more they are mixed together.

--James Madison

I disapprove of what you say, and so I will do everything I can to stop you from saying it.

--Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except when it would be in bad taste; or abridging the freedom of popular speech, or of the corporate press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to scream at government officials and make thinly-veiled death threats unless they kowtow to unreasonable demands.

--First Amendment to the United States Constitution

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross, and dangling a set of Truck Nutz.

--Attributed to Sinclair Lewis.

Dear Skeptical Community,

2010-09-03T22:17:00.002-05:00

I'll keep this open letter brief, unlike most of my posts. Just three quick things, said entirely generally and not directed at anyone in particular, except, you know, the people I'm obliquely talking about.

It's all well and good to talk about being reflective and critically examining our beliefs and practices to determine whether or not they're right and well-supported and rational. But it's just empty words if you don't follow through with it. As skeptics, we ought to be willing almost to the point of eagerness to be criticized, to be proven wrong with evidence, and to admit our mistakes, change, and move on. You can talk about the value of critical self-examination, but it's worthless if you don't actually do it.
To the Don't Be a Dick crowd: from what I've seen of the vast majority of you, we have a very strong disconnect regarding what it means to be a dick. I get it, Phil didn't clarify, and so you were forced to read into his comments whatever you think is dickish behavior, and assume he was calling out the same kind of things you would in that position. Me, I think that Rorschach Test quality of his speech qualifies it for the recycling bin, but your mileage may vary. The one thing I'd caution, though: when avoiding being a dick, try not to be a douche.

See, you have dicks, right? Dicks are pointy and kind of simple and not really much to look at. Dicks are often hard and unyielding, and they have a tendency to pop up at the most inopportune moments, and sometimes they overstay their welcome. Dicks sometimes go where they're not wanted, and they often make a big mess. Some people really like dicks, and some people don't, and that's fine. Dicks are an acquired taste.

But then you have douches. Douches go in most of the same places as dicks, but they tend to look very different. Douches are sleek and clean; they're more flexible than dicks, and they're a lot easier to handle. Douches smell better than dicks, and they say they just want to make everything better, to clean things up with their refreshing, summery demeanor. The problem with douches, though, is that they really aren't adding anything. In fact, they're generally pretty unnecessary. They thrive in large part because they've convinced a lot of people that they need douches, because everything has just gotten so dirty recently--mostly because of those awful dicks. Douches might look and smell nice, but ultimately they're just cold, artificial plastic, and outside of their limited realm of actual necessity, they subsist on feelings of self-loathing and dirtiness that they've helped cultivate.

In more specific terms, I don't see how false politisse, passive-aggression, holier-than-thou moralizing, and hegemonic "ur doin it wrong" edicts are any less negative than the name-calling, screaming, and whatever else gets attached to the "dick" label. Whether or not you call them retarded, passive-aggressive bullshit like criticizing people in general terms and making veiled insults is at least as dickish as calling them out to their face and being forthright with your beef. Don keeps reminding me of this quote from "Hamlet": "That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain." It's true, and the veneer of polite discourse and moral high ground doesn't turn passive-aggressive attacks into non-dick behavior.

By the way, if you read between the lines there, you might have noticed that this "open letter" to a general-but-specific set of people falls under that description as well. So yes, this time, I'm intentionally being a dick. At least I'll own up to it.
Finally, I think this is the only reasonable response to the "Don't Be" crowd--hereafter referred to as the DBs. It's really amazing how apt this is:

Sincerely,
Tom

Please feel free to dismiss the following

2010-08-31T17:46:00.007-05:00

What should have been a relatively academic conversation has become a feud, and I'm already finding it rather tiresome. I'm Phil Plait's proverbial "dick," you see, because I referenced an obscure little movie from twelve whole years ago made by a pair of independent directors with only, like, two Academy Awards to their names, and starring a bunch of unknown Oscar-winning actors, which only ranks #135 in IMDB's Top 250 films of all time. Maybe it would have been better if I'd referenced a series of porn videos of drunk young women.

Also, because I'm snarky and sarcastic. Well, okay, guilty as charged.

So I'm exactly what Phil Plait was referring to, even though Phil's clarifications make me suspect that even he doesn't know exactly what he was referring to, and his speech has become a Rorschach Test for whatever tactic(s) any particular skeptic wants to authoritatively decry. Sure, fine, whatever. I've been called worse. By myself, no less.

Anyway, Junior Skeptic's Daniel Loxton weighed in on Skepdude's tweet:

Now, I'm no great fan of Loxton. I was; I enjoy Junior Skeptic, and I like his Evolution book. But I disagree with nearly everything he writes on skepticism, I think he tends to adopt a very condescending tone and a very authoritarian attitude over the skeptical movement (such as it is), and I lose a great deal of respect for anyone--especially a skeptic--who blocks people for disagreeing with them. You can read through my Twitter feed, if you like; I defy you to find any abuse or insult which would justify blockage.

So that's my stated bias out of the way. I address Loxton's point here not out of bitterness, but out of genuine surprise that someone who is so vocal and respected in the skeptical movement could be so very wrong about basic logical fallacies like ad hominem and poisoning the well. I also can't help but feel a little prophetic with that whole last post I wrote about sloppy thinking.

Edit: I also want to offer a brief point in defense of Daniel Loxton: being a Twitter user, and knowing the limitations of the medium, it's possible that truncating his thoughts in that medium impeded what he was trying to say, and that the mistakes are due less to sloppy thinking or misunderstanding, and more to trying to fit complex thoughts into ~140 characters. That being said, the proper place to make such a complex point without sacrificing clarity would have been here, at the linked post, in the comment section.

Loxton's first claim, as I understand it, is that most insults belong to the "poisoning the well" subcategory of the ad hominem fallacy. This is wrong on a couple of levels. While poisoning the well is indeed a subcategory of ad hominem, neither category can be said, by any reasonable standard, to include "most insults."

A little background: the ad hominem fallacy belongs to a category of fallacies of relevance, which are arguments whose premises offer insufficient support for their conclusions, and which are generally used to divert or obscure the topic of a debate. Ad hominem accomplishes this in one of two related ways: attempting to draw a conclusion about someone's argument or points or claims by relying on an irrelevant personal attack, and by attempting to divert the topic of a debate from claims and arguments to the character of one of the debaters.

It becomes fairly easy, then, to see why "most insults" do not qualify as the ad hominem fallacy: most insults are not arguments. A logical fallacy, by definition, is an error in reasoning; in order for something to qualify as a fallacy, it must at least make an attempt at reasoning. If I say "Kevin Trudeau is a motherfucker," I'm not making any actual argument. There are no premises, there is no conclusion, there is no attempt at reasoning, and so there can be no fallacy.

In order for there to be fallacious reasoning, there must first be some attempt at reasoning, which requires some semblance of premises and a conclusion. "Kevin Trudeau says colloidal silver is a useful remedy. But Kevin Trudeau is an idiot. So, yeah," is more obviously fallacious (even though, as Skepdude would happily and correctly point out, the conclusion--"therefore Kevin Trudeau is wrong about colloidal silver"--is only implied). The implied conclusion is not sufficiently justified by the premises; that abusive second premise says nothing about the truth or falsehood of Kevin Trudeau's claim. Even if it's true, even an idiot is capable of valid arguments and true statements.

I could leave this here, I suppose; if poisoning the well is indeed a subcategory of ad hominem fallacies, and "most insults" are not in fact ad hominem fallacies, then "most insults" could not also be part of a subset of ad hominem fallacies. But poisoning the well is a tricky special case, and if there's one thing I'm known for, it's belaboring a point.

So what of poisoning the well? It's a way of loading the audience, of turning a potential audience against your opponent before they even get a chance to present their argument. You present some information about your opponent--true or false--that you know your audience will perceive as negative, before your opponent gets a chance to state their case. The implication (and it's almost always implied, as Loxton rightly notes) is that anything your opponent says thereafter is unreliable or incorrect.

Here's where it gets tricky: it barely qualifies as a fallacy, because all the speaker is doing is offering an irrelevant fact about his opponent's character. As we said, in order for something to be a logical fallacy, it has to contain an error in reasoning. The point of poisoning the well is not to actually commit a fallacy, but to make the audience commit a fallacy, specifically to commit an ad hominem fallacy, by dismissing your opponent's claims and arguments based on the irrelevant information you provided at the beginning. So poisoning the well is a subset of ad hominem fallacies, where the fallacy is committed by an audience at the prompting of the well-poisoning speaker.

Here's where Loxton gets it wrong--and only fairly slightly, I might add. I had to do a fairly large amount of research before I felt confident that this was a key point--is that the key feature of poisoning the well is that it's done pre-emptively. Insults offered after your opponent has stated their case may be an attempt to manipulate the audience into the same ad hominem fallacy, but they do not qualify as poisoning the well.

An example: You open up a copy of "Natural Cures THEY Don't Want You To Know About" by Kevin Trudeau, and someone has placed inside the front cover a description of Trudeau's various fraud convictions. Consequently, everything you read in the book will be tainted by your knowledge that Trudeau is a convicted fraud. The well has been thus poisoned, and now you're prompted to dismiss anything he says on the basis of his personal characteristics.

If someone places that same note halfway through the book, or at the end, and you don't encounter it until you finish or partly finish, then you may still be inclined to commit an ad hominem fallacy based on the contents of that note. However, this is not poisoning the well, which requires preemption.

There's an issue here, and it touches on all the talk I've been doing recently about using arguments based on ethos in various situations. See, the fact that Kevin Trudeau is a convicted fraud is relevant if the point is whether or not you should trust what he has to say, or bother spending time and effort listening to it. The truth or falsehood of his arguments absolutely stand on their own, but his past as a huckster is of great relevance to the consideration of whether or not to take his word on anything.

It is a sad fact of life that no one person can conduct all the relevant research necessary to establish or refute any given claim or argument. Consequently, we must often rely on trust to some degree in considering how to direct our efforts, which claims merit deep investigation, and which we can provisionally accept based on someone's word. This splits the hairs between the matter of whether or not a claim is true and whether or not a claim warrants belief. While it's a laudable ideal to make those two categories as close to one another as possible, that goal remains impractical.

What this means is that, when considering whether or not to believe a claim or accept an argument (again, not whether or not the claim or argument is true), we generally use a person's credibility as a piece of evidence used to evaluate whether or not belief is warranted. It's rarely the only piece of evidence, and it only really qualifies as sufficient evidence in particularly ordinary claims, but it's a relevant piece of evidence to consider nonetheless.

But, and I want to make this abundantly clear, it has nothing to do with the truth of a claim or the validity of an argument, it has only to do with the credibility of the speaker making the claim and whether or not the claim warrants belief. We should be very clear and very careful about this point: Kevin Trudeau's record as a fraudster has no bearing on whether or not his claims are true. It does, however, have a bearing on whether or not you or I or anyone else should trust him or believe what he has to say.

In other words, if most people told me it was sunny out, I'd take their word for it. If Kevin Trudeau told me it was sunny out, I'd look up. And I'd wonder if he had some way of profiting off people's mistaken belief about the relative sunniness of a given day.

So, back to the issue of insults. There's one more problem with saying that "most insults" are a subcategory of any fallacy, and that's that, at least with fallacies of relevance, the fallacious nature of an argument is in the argument's flawed structure, in its failure of logic, and not in the words which are used. An ad hominem fallacy is not fallacious because it contains an insult, but because the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Containing the insult is what makes it "ad hominem," but it's the flawed logic that makes it a fallacy.

For instance, take this argument:

If a person copulates with his or her mother, then that person is a motherfucker.
Oedipus copulated with his mother.
Therefore, Oedipus is a motherfucker.

The fact that this argument is vulgar and contains an insult has no bearing whatsoever on its validity. And it's clearly valid; and within the context of "Oedipus Rex," it's also sound. An insult alone does not make an argument into an ad hominem fallacy.

Take this argument, then:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates smells like day-old goat shit, on account of his not bathing.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

A valid argument is one in which the conclusion is logically implied by and supported by the premises. The conclusion here is, in fact, logically implied by the premises, and is justified by them. The insulting third premise does not support the conclusion, but the conclusion also does not rely on it. Its inclusion is unnecessary, but including it does nothing to invalidate the argument.

Finally, take this argument:

All men are mortal.
Plato is a really smart guy, and he says that Socrates is mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

This is a fallacious argument--a pro hominem argument, sort of the opposite of ad hominem--because the conclusion is not sufficiently supported by the premises. The conclusion relies upon an irrelevant premise, which renders the logic invalid--obviously, despite not being insulting at all.

I hope I laid that all out in a way that is clear, because I really don't think I could make it any clearer. It bothers me to see terms which have distinct, specific, clear meanings being applied inaccurately by people who ought to know better. It further bothers me to see skeptics, who of all people should relish being corrected and doing the research to correct prior misconceptions, digging in their heels, committing style over substance fallacies, and generally misunderstanding basic principles of logic and argumentation.

But because I like to belabor a point, and because it's been several paragraphs since I've been sufficiently snarky, let me offer one more example--pulled from real life, this time!--to clarify poisoning the well.

Here, the speaker offers a link to an opponent's argument, but primes the audience first by obliquely calling his opponent a dick, and moreover, suggesting that the opponent is using tactics specifically identified by an authority in the relevant field as unacceptable and ill-advised. The speaker's audience, on clicking through to the opposing article, is thus primed to read the article through the lens of the author's suggested dickishness, and to dismiss it as dirty tactics from a dick, rather than actually considering the merits of the argument. This is classic poisoning the well, which, you'll recall, is intended to cause the audience to commit an ad hominem fallacy.

We skeptics take pride in our allegiance to logic and evidence; we are aware of our own shortcomings; we are aware that we are fallible and that we make mistakes. In my opinion the above comments about Jenny McCarthy are a mistake that we should own up to and make amends, and stop using it. If you really want to counter Jenny’s anti-vaccine views, choose one of the claims she makes, do some research, and write a nice blog entry showing where she goes wrong and what the evidence says, but do not resort to ad-hominem attacks. We are skeptics and we ought to be better than that.

--Skepdude, "Skeptics Gone Wild," 8/23/10.

An incomplete list of sources used for this post:

The Nizkor Project: Fallacies (Various Pages)
Fallacy Files (Various Pages)
Poisoning the Well at Wikipedia
Fallacy at Wikipedia
Poisoning the Well at About.com: Agnosticism/Atheism
Poisoning the Well at ChangingMinds.org
Fallacies of Relevance at PhilosophyPages.com
LogicalFallacies.info

In which I piss on the 'Dude's rug

2010-08-29T19:16:00.014-05:00

I've recently had a bit of a back-and-forth with the Skepdude that eventually spilled out onto Twitter. I started writing this post when it appeared that my last comment might languish in eternal moderation, but it has since shown up, so kudos to Skepdude for exceeding my pessimistic expectations. If this post hadn't turned into a larger commentary before that bit posted, I might have deleted the whole thing. As it stands, I've used poor Skepdude as a springboard.

In any case, you can go ahead and read the relevant posts, then come back here and read my further commentary. It's okay, I'll wait.

Back? Great. Here's the further commentary.

I think this conversation touches on a few key points relevant to skeptical activism. The first is this trepidation regarding basic rhetoric. We tend to throw around "rhetoric" in a disparaging fashion, often in the context of "baseless rhetoric" or "empty rhetoric." And those can be to the point, but I think we run the risk of forgetting that rhetoric is the art of argumentation, the set of tools and strategies available to craft convincing arguments.

We've heard a lot from skeptics and scientists in the past few years claiming to be communications experts and saying that skeptics and scientists need to communicate better; we've all seen and complained about debates and discussions where the rational types fail because they can't argue or work a crowd as well as their irrational opponents. These are both, to some degree, failures of rhetoric. Scientists are trained to argue in arenas and fora where facts and evidence are the most important thing, and the only convincing thing. That's great if you're defending a dissertation or critiquing a journal article, but as we've seen time and time again, it doesn't translate to success in debates outside the university. Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort and Deepak Chopra may be blinkered idiots without a fact between the three of them, which would mean death in a scientific arena, but in the arena of public discourse, it becomes a strength. Because when you have no facts to work with, you have to make sure that the rest of your techniques have enough glitz and flash to distract the audience from your lack of substance. Scientists ignore the style, knowing they have substance, unaware or naïve about audiences' universal love for shiny things.

We in the skeptic community, such as it is, have spent a lot of time recently debating whether it's better to use honey or vinegar; one lesson we should all take away from that, however, is that facts and logic are bland on their own. You need to dress them up with spices and sauces if you expect anyone to want to swallow them. If one of your goals is to convince human beings--not, say, robots or Vulcans--then you can't rely on pure logic alone.

Moving back to Skepdude, he seems to be in two places in this argument. On one hand, he seems to think that we can ignore ethos and pathos, and argue on logos alone. Depending on his purpose, this may be enough. I don't know what his goals are, in particular, but if he is content with arguing in such a way as to make his points clear and valid to any philosopher, scientist, or skeptic who happens to be reading them, then arguing with pure logic might be all he needs. Heck, he could break everything down and put it into those crazy modal logic proofs, and save himself a lot of typing.

But if he's hoping to make his arguments convincing to a broader swath of people--and the amount of rhetorical questions and righteous anger in some of his other posts suggests that he is, and that he already knows this--then he's going to need to slather those bland syllogisms in tasty pathos and savory ethos.

But here's where I have the problem, and nowhere was it more apparent than in our Twitter conversation, while he elevates and venerates logic, he doesn't understand a pretty basic principle of it, which is how fallacies--in particular, the ad hominem fallacy--work.

The whole post revolves around skeptics saying that Jenny McCarthy claims to oppose toxins yet uses Botox. Skepdude calls this an ad hominem fallacy. And I can see where it could be. Where he makes his mistake--and where most people who mistakenly accuse ad hominem make the mistake--is in failing to understand that ad hominem fallacies are all about the specific context. It's true; if my only response to Jenny McCarthy's anti-toxin arguments were "Yeah, well you put botox in your face, so who cares what you think," I'd be dismissing her arguments fallaciously, by attacking her character--specifically, by suggesting that her actions invalidate her arguments.

But that doesn't mean that any time I were to bring up McCarthy's botox use would be fallacious. Let's say I said, for instance, "You claim to be anti-toxin, yet you use botox; that suggests you're a hypocrite, or that you don't understand what toxins are." Now, if I left it at that, it would still be fallacious; saying just that in response to her anti-vaccine arguments would be fallaciously dismissing them on the basis of her character.

Now, let's imagine I said: "In fact, all the evidence demonstrates that the 'toxins' you insinuate are in vaccines are, in fact, present in non-toxic doses. Furthermore, the evidence shows that there is no link between vaccines and any autism spectrum disorder." This bit addresses the substance of her argument, and does so using facts and evidence. If I further added "Also, you claim to be anti-toxin, yet you use botox; either you're a hypocrite, or you don't understand what toxins are," I would most definitely be attacking her character, but it would not be fallacious because I wouldn't be using it to dismiss her arguments.

The ad hominem fallacy requires that last part: in order for it to be fallacious, in order for it to render your argument invalid, you must be using the personal attack to dismiss your opponent's arguments. Otherwise, it's just a personal attack.

Skepdude disagrees:

This is what he linked to, by the way.

I replied:

And these were my links: 1 2 3.

And then I walked away from Twitter for a few hours, because I'm getting better at knowing when to end things.

And then I started writing this post, because I'm still not very good at it. I'd respond to the 'Dude on Twitter, but I feel bad dredging up topics after several hours, and I know what I'm going to say won't fit well in Tweets.

Anyway, the 'Dude responded some more:

Oh, I'm so glad to have your permission. I would have tossed and turned all night otherwise.

Yes, you can infer what someone's saying from their speech. I can even see some situations where the implication is strong enough to qualify as a logical fallacy--of course, the implication has to be an argument before it can be a fallacious one, and that's a lot to hang on an implied concept--but that is, after all, the whole point of the Unstated Major Premise. However, (as I said in tweets) there's a razor-thin line between inferring what an argument left unstated and creating a straw man argument that's easier to knock down (because it contains a fallacy).

Skepdude even found a quote--in one of my links, no less!--that he thought supported this view:

He's right, the ad hominem fallacy there doesn't end with "therefore he's wrong;" most ad hominem fallacies don't. His point, however, isn't as right, as a look at the full quote will demonstrate:

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral--yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it.

Did you catch it? Here's the relevant bit again: "If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem." The point isn't that the anti-atheist arguer attacked the atheist speaker to justify rejecting his argument.

So, once again, context is key. If, for instance, the atheist had argued "all atheists are moral," the "you abandoned your wife and children" comment would be a totally valid counterargument. The key in the example given was that the anti-atheist respondent used his attack on the atheist arguer to dismiss their argument, in lieu of actually engaging that argument. A point which my other links, which went into greater detail, all made clear.

I'll say it again: in order for it to be an ad hominem, the personal attack has to be directly used to dismiss the argument. Dismissing the argument on other grounds and employing a personal attack as an aside or to some other end is, by definition, not an ad hominem. You don't have to take my word for it, either:

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments. (Source

For instance, ad hominem is one of the most frequently misidentified fallacies, probably because it is one of the best known ones. Many people seem to think that any personal criticism, attack, or insult counts as an ad hominem fallacy. Moreover, in some contexts the phrase "ad hominem" may refer to an ethical lapse, rather than a logical mistake, as it may be a violation of debate etiquette to engage in personalities. So, in addition to ignorance, there is also the possibility of equivocation on the meaning of "ad hominem".

For instance, the charge of "ad hominem" is often raised during American political campaigns, but is seldom logically warranted. We vote for, elect, and are governed by politicians, not platforms; in fact, political platforms are primarily symbolic and seldom enacted. So, personal criticisms are logically relevant to deciding who to vote for. Of course, such criticisms may be logically relevant but factually mistaken, or wrong in some other non-logical way.
[...]
An Abusive Ad Hominem occurs when an attack on the character or other irrelevant personal qualities of the opposition—such as appearance—is offered as evidence against her position. Such attacks are often effective distractions ("red herrings"), because the opponent feels it necessary to defend herself, thus being distracted from the topic of the debate. (Source)

Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy. The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed instead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone.(Source)

And so on, ad infinitum.

To return to the original point, let's say a skeptic has said "Jenny McCarthy speaks of dangerous 'toxins' in vaccines, yet she gets Botox shots, which include botulinum, one of the most toxic substances around, right on her face." Removed from its context, we cannot infer what the arguer intended. I can see three basic scenarios:

The skeptic has used the phrase as evidence to dismiss Jenny McCarthy's arguments about "dangerous 'toxins' in vaccines," and has thus committed an ad hominem fallacy.
The skeptic has used the phrase as an aside, in addition to a valid counter-argument against her anti-vaccine claims. This would not be an ad hominem fallacy.
The skeptic has used the phrase as evidence for a separate but relevant argument, such as discussing Jenny McCarthy's credibility as a scientific authority, in addition to dismissing her arguments with valid responses. This would not be an ad hominem fallacy.

There are other permutations, I'm sure, but I think these are the likeliest ones, and only one out of the three is fallacious. Moreover, trying to infer such a fallacy into those latter two arguments would not be valid cause to dismiss them, but it would probably demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension or a predisposition to dismiss such arguments.

Let's say I've just finished demolishing McCarthy's usual anti-vax arguments, and then I say "She must not be very anti-toxin if she gets Botox treatments on a regular basis." Would it be reasonable to infer that I meant to use that statement as fallacious evidence against her point? I think not. If I've already addressed her point with evidence and logic, how could you infer that my aside, which is evidence- and logic-free, was also meant to be used as evidence in the argument I've already finished debunking?

On the other hand, let's say I've done the same, and then I say "plus, it's clear that Jenny doesn't actually understand how toxins work. Toxicity is all about the dose. She thinks that children are in danger from the miniscule doses of vaccine preservatives they receive in a typical vaccine regimen, and yet she gets botox treatments, which require far larger dosages of a far more potent toxin. If toxins worked the way she apparently thinks they do, she'd be dead several times over." Same point used in service of a separate argument. Would it be reasonable to infer here that I meant the point to be used as evidence against her anti-vaccine claims? Obviously not.

The only case in which it would be reasonable to make that inference would be some variation of me using that claim specifically to dismiss her argument. Maybe I say it in isolation--"Obviously she's wrong about toxins; after all, she uses botox"--maybe I say it along with other things--"Former Playboy Playmate Jenny McCarthy says she's anti-toxin, but uses botox. Sounds like a bigger mistake than picking her nose on national TV"--but those are fallacies only because I'm using the irrelevant personal attack to dismiss her argument.

So why have I put aside everything else I need to do on Sunday night to belabor this point? Well, I think that it's a fine point, but one worth taking the time to understand. Skepdude's argument is sloppy; he doesn't seem to understand the fine distinctions between fallacious ad hominem and stand-alone personal attacks or valid ethical arguments, and so he's advocating that skeptics stop using arguments that could potentially be mistaken for ad hominem fallacies. That way he--and the rest of us--could keep on being sloppy in our understanding and accusations of fallacies and not have to worry about facing any consequences for that sloppiness.

I can't help but be reminded of my brother. When he was a kid, he did a crappy job mowing the lawn, and would get chewed out for it. He could have taken a little more time and effort to learn how to do it right--heck, I offered to teach him--but he didn't. Rather, by doing it sloppily, he ensured that he'd only be asked to do it as a last resort; either Dad or I would take care of it, because we'd rather see it done right. He didn't have to learn how to do a good job because doing a crappy job meant he could avoid doing the job altogether. By avoiding the job altogether, he avoided the criticism and consequences as well.

The problem, of course, is that the people who actually knew what they were doing had to pick up the slack.

This is the issue with Skepdude's argument here, and I think it's a point worth making. I disagree with those people who want to make skepticism into some academic discipline where everything is SRS BZNS, but that doesn't mean that I don't think we shouldn't have some reasonable standards. Argumentation is a discipline and an art. It takes work, it takes research and effort, and it requires you to understand some very subtle points. It's often hard to distinguish a fallacious argument from a valid one, especially in some of the common skeptical topics, since some of the woo-woo crowd have become quite adept at obfuscating their fallacies. It's not enough to get a general idea and move on; logic and science require clarity and specificity from both terms and arguments. "Ad hominem fallacy" means a certain, very particular thing, and it's not enough to get a general idea and figure that it's close enough. If you know what the fallacies actually are and you structure your arguments and your rhetoric in ways that are sound and effective, then you don't need to worry about people mistaking some bit of your writing for some logical fallacy. You get to say, "no, in fact, that's not a fallacy, but I could see where you might make that mistake. Here's why..." When you do the job right, when your arguments are valid and stand on their own, then you don't need to fear criticism and accusation. Isn't that what we tell every psychic, homeopath, and theist who claims to have the truth on their side? "If your beliefs are true, then you have nothing to fear from scientific inquiry/the Million Dollar Challenge/reasonable questions"? Why wouldn't we require the same standard from our own points and arguments?

Skepdude, I apologize for making this lengthy, snarky reply. I generally agree with you, and I obviously wouldn't follow you on Twitter if I didn't generally like what you have to say. But on this point, which I think is important, I think you're clearly wrong, and I think it's important to correct. Feel free to respond here or in the comments at your post; I obviously can't carry out this kind of discussion on Twitter.

God dammit, CFI

2010-08-28T12:22:00.004-05:00

I was going to write a post about the CFI's indescribably stupid statement on the Park51 building in New York, and I still might, but Orac did it for me. Go read it.

I will repeat this exchange that I had with Don, which sums up my current feelings on the subject (not to step on Don's "Me & Tom" series or anything):

Me: At this point, I think they ought to put a minaret on the goddamn Freedom Tower. And on it, carve "I disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it."

Don: With a picture of that guy from Futurama whose body parts were all artificial.

Yes. Absolutely.

A serious question

2010-08-23T22:49:00.000-05:00

This is an honest question that I seriously doubt any of my readers would know, but I think it's worth asking (it'll also be worth looking up on Wikipedia after I post this):

Do Jains drive?

Jains are, after all, notorious for going so far in their quest not to kill any living thing that they sweep the ground before them so they won't kill bugs and limiting even what vegetables they eat so they can avoid killing plants.

So, are there Jains who drive? I ask this because I have seen my car after I drive in the spring and summer, and the front of it is typically covered in dead bugs.

There's no real judgment to this, except my usual thought that the Jain principle of non-violence is necessarily impossible for a human to achieve. We kill by existing; we must kill to fuel our bodies, and our bodies kill through no action of our own just to maintain basic health. I appreciate the good intentions of the philosophy, I really do.

I just hope, for their peace of mind, Jains all live within walking distance of work.

The R Word

2010-08-21T11:01:00.003-05:00

The term "mentally retarded" was coined around 1895. Eventually it became the preferred euphemism to refer to people with various developmental and cognitive disabilities. It was used to replace the then-current clinical terms, which had gained wide use in the general culture as pejoratives. Those earlier terms? "Moron," "idiot," and "imbecile."

Today, "retarded" is joining those terms, and for the same reason, called the euphemism treadmill. We have something that is perceived negatively by the general public, and so we develop terms to describe it. Those terms eventually take on connotations that denote the generally negative feelings, and so we develop new terms which lack those connotations, and the cycle begins anew.

And so we have it that "moron," once a neutral term, is now a common epithet. "Cripple" gave way to "handicapped" gave way to "disabled" gave way to "differently abled," as each new euphemism took on the negative connotations that caused the rejection of the previous ones.

I can understand the people on any given side of this issue. There are those clinicians and others trying to develop new terms so as to stay ahead of the pejoration of the previous terms, and that's fairly necessary in writing academic, judgmentally-neutral papers and reports. There are those who try to reclaim old terms, using them as points of pride or power, which has some limited success. The problem is that words then come to carry two related sets of connotations: when Dan Savage calls one of his writers a "fag," the result is very different from when a bully does the same thing to a kid on the playground. So the word--at least for a time--becomes taboo for some, or in some contexts, but not always, and that really slows down the "reclaiming," which is (at least in part) an attempt to strip the word of the oppressive power it has from being taboo. There are those who develop new, more positive euphemisms, which are often subject to even quicker pejoration due to their transparent purpose and their use sardonically--for instance, terms like "handicapable" and the use of the word "special" to refer to those with mental disabilities quickly became dismissively pejorative themselves--to the point where a phrase like "She's special" can have two very different meanings depending on my tone. This can also create terms with other problems; "African-American" was coined as a euphemism to replace "black," but the consensus seems to be settling on the latter term, since it is more accurate than the term which suggests that many natural-born citizens are originally from Africa. I suspect this is also a part of why the term "people of color" has experienced some resurgence, probably to replace "ethnic."

And then there are those who try to bring clinical terms into common use, using them to escape the same pejoration as the clinicians, but ultimately starting the cycle up again.

There are some ways to hinder this, I suppose. The more lengthy and multisyllabic and technical a term is, the harder (I think) it becomes to make it into a pejorative. A current preferred term like "developmentally delayed" is unlikely to become a playground insult, but it may still gather that pejorative baggage. Especially since "retard (v.)" means "to delay." Using a synonym has the obvious danger of making the terms synonymous.

The problem with all of these positions--developing new euphemisms, reclaiming old ones, etc.--is twofold. First, language is a tricksy thing, evolving in a very similar way to the way organisms do. It's possible with either to exert some selection pressure, but it's not entirely clear how language will respond to those pressures. For instance, the term "gay" originally meant "happy" or "carefree," and gradually adopted sexual connotations ("carefree" turning to "uninhibited." It became somewhat linked to homosexuality during the life of Oscar Wilde, and became the preferred term by homosexuals during the 20th Century. "Gay" was subtle enough to go under the radar for quite some time, positive, and a better alternative than the more obviously pejorative terms like "queer." And I'd say it was pretty successfully reclaimed, becoming a point of pride, with the homosexual connotation completely eclipsing the original meaning, and even the more pejorative "sexually uninhibited" connotations of the late 19th century.

But in the hands of schoolchildren, it has become synonymous with "lame" or "stupid," due to its association with the perceived negative of homosexuality. "Gay" as a term is now on its second cycle of pejoration.

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't try to reclaim words or exercise some control over what words mean and how language changes. I would only caution such people that such change is slow and unpredictable at best, and in many cases eventually leads to new problems analogous to the ones that you're trying to solve.

Which brings us to the second prong of the problem: by exerting influence over language: it's only addressing a symptom of the real problem. The issue of pejoration will occur and the euphemism treadmill will keep spinning until we correct the root of the problem: the social attitude that holds some people to be generally negative or inferior. The reason that we've seen the same thing happen to "retarded" that once happened to "moron" isn't because the words themselves have some kind of power, it's because people consciously or unconsciously see the developmentally delayed and disabled as less than people. Until people become so familiarized and accepting of their fellow humans with developmental disorders that they no longer see the difference as negative, the cycle will continue.

Attacking and altering the language we use is a necessary step in these kinds of situations; Richard Dawkins talks about how feminists' insistence on gender-neutral terminology was a key component of the consciousness-raising aspects of the women's rights movement. But I think people have a twin tendency to focus on the words more than the attitudes behind them, and to (consciously or unconsciously) blame the problem on the words we use. This ends up making the words taboo, which gives them a power to offend, which only really perpetuates the problem of the connotations which made them taboo in the first place.

In order to combat prejudice, fear, and hate, you can't stop at correcting the language of the prejudiced, fearful, and hate-filled. That only creates a class of words that are associated with prejudice and starts off a new set of words down the same path. You have to correct the attitudes alongside the language if you want any kind of lasting change.

I'd like to see a world where we don't ascribe greater power to particular arrangements of letters than others, where we don't use descriptions of differences between individuals as pejorative terms, and where we all accept each other as equals because of those individual differences. I'd like to buy that world a Coke.

Until then, I suppose we'll all keep running on this treadmill, naïvely believing that we're making progress.

Meme Debunking #2: Publicity

2010-08-20T12:00:00.003-05:00

I liked my post on the toxic immigration meme that I think I'm going to turn it into a series. I won't say "regular series," but when I come across phrases and memes that deserve a little skeptical examination, I'll spend a little time debunking them. Consider it a paltry companion to Bronze Dog's Doggerel series.

You know that saying "any publicity is good publicity"? People actually believe that. I see it a lot in discussions about bad comics especially: "it may be bad, but at least it has people talking." And that sort of thing.

And yet, it's obviously false. Painfully obviously.

Think about it this way: if there's no such thing as bad publicity, why are there PR firms? Why does the term "damage control" exist? Why is there such a thing as spin?

When oil started pumping into the Gulf of Mexico, BP started running frequent ads championing their efforts to clean it up. When Toyota had to recall a bunch of their cars because of gas pedal problems, they released ads championing their responsibility and safety record. When GM was just coming out of a bankruptcy scare, they released ads about their stability and commitment to innovation.

If any publicity really were good publicity, would any of these companies spent so much money to contain the potential damage to their images?

It's true that bad publicity gets people talking, and in some cases, to some degree, it might get people checking out the subject out of morbid curiosity. Hell, it's why I saw "The Last Airbender." But there's a point where people aren't just talking, they're talking about how bad the subject is, and that has a major negative effect.

We've seen how bad PR has directly negatively affected vaccination rates, GMOs, High Fructose Corn Syrup, nuclear power, and various other topics under the typical skeptical purview. There's no reason for anyone with the capacity for critical thought to believe that it's true. So I think it's high time we put this meme to bed--or at least subjected it to some bad publicity.

Sarah Palin is Fucking Retarded

2010-08-19T17:19:00.005-05:00

I've mentioned before that when I was a kid, riding in the car with my parents, they were almost always listening to talk radio. And talk radio, as you probably know, is almost always conservative. My dad listened to Rush Limbaugh, which didn't leave much of an impression on me (I remember the theme song and some parodies, and a bit about how left-handed people were breastfed too much, which I later realized must have actually been about left-wingers). I rode with my mom more frequently, so I remember more of the frequent shows. One, the only one I ever actually enjoyed, was Dr. Dean Edell's show. He's an actual medical doctor who talks straight and gives good advice and is generally awesome. The other was Dr. Laura Schlessinger.

I listened to a lot of Dr. Laura as a kid. I remember all of the "I am my kid's mom/dad" calls; I remember all her advice that sometimes seemed reasonable and spot-on and other times seemed ridiculous and reality-challenged. I know that she's a doctor of physiology, not anything relevant to giving advice, she's not much of a fan of "shacking up" or divorce (some irony there) or gay people, she generally sides against men (unless she thinks the woman in a situation is somehow impure) and that she's generally pretty prudish and puritanical for someone who has some topless pictures floating around. Finding the letter to Dr. Laura that circulated around the Internet several years back and was adapted into a West Wing scene was a major step in getting over my homophobia (and, frankly, my religion, since prior to that my main use for the Bible was condemning homosexuality).

So, when Dr. Laura had her latest bigoted flame-out recently, I can't say I was either surprised or disappointed. In fact, the only potentially surprising thing is that this particular instance was racism instead of homophobia.

For those who have somehow avoided the latest non-story in the news cycle, here's the scoop: On August 10th, Schlessinger took a call from a black woman named Jade who was offended by racially insensitive comments made by her white husband's family, which her husband remained silent about. Here's the full call:

So, Schlessinger's immediate reaction was to suggest that Jade was just being hypersensitive, so she asked for an example. The caller said they had a neighbor who comes over and says things like "how do you black people like doin' this" and so forth. Schlessinger immediately says that she doesn't think such comments are racist.

Let me pause here and suggest that "you people" is probably the most bigotry-infused phrase in the English language. It suggests that the person you're talking to is not an individual, but a member of some larger collective who are all the same--as the rest of this neighbor's relayed comment suggests he thinks. "You black people" don't all like the same things or do things the same way, because they're individuals. The whole edifice of bigotry is built on treating people like they're not individual people.

Schlessinger continues, suggesting that a lot of black people voted for Barack Obama just because he was half-black, not because of his politics (Dear Dr. Laura: without contradicting yourself, please explain how Obama defeated Alan Keyes in his 2004 Senate race). "It was a black thing. You gotta know that. That's not a surprise." She then proceeded to make a "white men can't jump" joke regarding her black bodyguard, and the caller asked "what about the n-word?" Schlessinger then says that "black guys use the word all the time." And then Schlessinger, who is not a black guy, says it three times. She trots out the usual racist faux-confusion regarding the word: "I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it's affectionate. It's very confusing."

No, it's not very confusing. The "n-word" has a lot of baggage, because for so long it was used by white people to disparage black people. It's a symbol of black oppression. The movement among blacks to use the word themselves has been a reclaiming of that symbol, a way of demonstrating that the word doesn't have the power to keep them down, that they can rob it of its oppressive connotations. But we are not yet to the point where a white person can throw it around without invoking those negative connotations. White people still have a privileged position, and racism--institutional, personal, casual, and political--still affects blacks. When that's no longer the case, maybe the term will become harmless enough that white people can just throw it around.

Moreover, that some black people use the word does not suggest that all black people are comfortable with the word being used. Making that assumption is, once again, seeing black people as some kind of hive mind where they all think the same because they all have similar amounts of melanin in their skin. Which is racism.

After a commercial break, Schlessinger continues talking over Jade in order to trot out her false equivalency canard, complain about how racism should be over because we elected a black guy, and to accuse Jade of having a chip on her shoulder. After saying the n-word four more times, she then complains that she can't finish a sentence, something she's failed to allow her caller to do repeatedly--note that she hasn't addressed the original fucking question yet at all, she's just used the caller as a springboard to complain about how black people can't just sit down and shut up and be happy that they got one of their own into the White House.

Ah, yes, Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous dream. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where a black guy is President, and that'll be enough."

Schlessinger then tells Jade not to take her out of context, not to "NAACP" her (whatever the fuck that means), and hangs up. She then says "if you're that hypersensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, don't marry out of your race."

She then goes off on how, if you belong to a minority, people are going to ask you what that minority thinks about things. Being a woman who converted to Judaism, I would think that Schlessinger would have some kind of handle on the problem with that kind of thinking, but about the closest she comes to understanding it is "Of course there isn't a one-think per se. But in general there's 'think.'" Okay, perhaps that's true with, say, a religion, which has doctrines and dogmas that everyone is supposed to believe--not all Catholics will share the same position on any given issue, but there may indeed be an "official Catholic position" on that issue--but it's not even slightly true when you're talking about race or gender or other inborn traits. There is no black dogma. There is no doctrine of womanhood. There is no reason to expect that all, or even a majority, of people in non-religious minorities will think the same thing about any topic. And the assumption that they would is bigotry.

Schlessinger proceeds to say the n-word four more times, then attempts to excuse it by saying that it's okay because she didn't call anyone that. She was just using the word as a word, nothing wrong with that at all. I can think of a particular k-word and c-word that I might throw around, and I'm sure someone like Laura Schlessinger would have absolutely no problem with that.

Her rant meanders on into conspiracy mongering and more complaining about how Obama's election should mean that all black people need to shut up about racism, not in so many words.

So, Schlessinger took a bunch of flak for her remarks and gave a typical notpology the next day. As they did in 2000 after her homophobic screeds, some people suggested boycotting her sponsors, and specifically called for the sponsors to demonstrate whether or not they endorsed her statements. At least one, General Motors, dropped her show in the aftermath. Schlessinger then announced on Larry King's show a few days later that she was going to quit radio. Her reason?

SCHLESSINGER: The reason is: I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what's on my mind, and in my heart, what I think is helpful and useful without somebody getting angry, some special interest group deciding this is a time to silence a voice of dissent, and attack affiliates and attack sponsors.

[...]

SCHLESSINGER: You know, when I started in radio, if you said something somebody didn't agree with and they didn't like, they argued with you. Now, they try to silence you. They try to wipe out your ability to earn a living and to have your job. They go after affiliates. They send threats to sponsors.

KING: That's their right, too.

SCHLESSINGER: Yes, but I don't hatch the right to say what I need to say. My First Amendment rights have been usurped by angry, hateful groups who don't want to debate. They want to eliminate.

Ah, yes, her First Amendment rights have been violated, so she's going to quit. I'm a big fan of the First Amendment, and that's why I know what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Also, certain people are entitled to a national radio talk show, and the people have no right to hold those people accountable for their speech." Those Founding Fathers, always looking ahead.

The First Amendment is pretty damn clear on how it applies. It's very straightforward, and yet conservatives in particular seem to have a lot of trouble understanding what it means. It says that government isn't allowed to make laws impinging on free speech. Nowhere in this debacle has government done anything. Schlessinger's rights remain intact. What she wants, and what she can't have, is for her speech rights to trump other people's speech rights. She wants to be able to speak without consequence, but the beautiful brilliance of the First Amendment is that it guarantees everyone the same right to speak freely. Moreover, it gives everyone the right to assemble and speak freely, including speaking to the sponsors of radio talk shows. Schlessinger is entitled to speak her mind; what she is not entitled to is a platform from which to do that. She has that platform only so long as her sponsors continue paying for it. If the sponsors decide that she's no longer profitable, whether it's because she's become irrelevant or because her association with them is bad PR, then it's well within their right to stop giving her money. And the sponsors wouldn't know she was bad PR if the public wasn't relating their bad feelings to them.

So, what Schlessinger really has a problem with is free speech, free assembly, and the free market. Why do conservatives hate our freedoms?

But honestly, I never would have commented on this idiocy if noted Constitutional scholar Sarah Palin hadn't chimed in:

Volumes could be written about the insensitive idiocy it'd take to use the words "reload" and "shackles" in the context of white-on-black racism. But I'm going to ignore that to hit on the Constitutional point. Activists trying to hold Schlessinger responsible for what she says are not "Constitutional obstructionists," and at no point in this did Schlessinger's First Amendment rights cease "2exist." In fact, given how much exposure she's had because of this, she's been able to exercise those rights more often and to a wider audience than she has in about a decade.

Keep in mind that this woman was the Governor of a state for a short time, and was fairly close to being Vice President of the United States. And she doesn't understand the most basic points of the First Amendment.

But the real irony is in her obvious hypocrisy. After a tiff with David Letterman over some jokes that she found "offensive" and "contribut[ing] to some of the problems we have in society," she took umbrage with Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. See, Rahm called the plans of a group of liberals "fucking retarded," and Palin's youngest son has Down Syndrome. She said that Emanuel's remarks were "unacceptable" and "heartbreaking" and called for the President to "eliminate" him (presumably by firing, and not firing squad). In fact, in the full quote, Palin even draws a parallel to another kind of situation that we would find appalling:

Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.

Yes, surely if a public figure as famous as a one-time Illinois Congressman and White House Chief of Staff, someone with the combined fame of Danny Davis and Evelyn Lieberman, used the "N-word," we would all be terribly appalled! Why, we'd probably even ask for them to be fired!

Or not. Instead we'd defend them, call them "powerful" and "effective," and chastize those who criticize them and call for their termination. Clearly, former Governor Palin's views have changed on the subject, and that's understandable. We all change our minds now and again. So I'm sure, Mrs. Palin being a person of consistent, steadfast values, that she would have no problem with people throwing around those terms which she once found "appalling."

So throw off the shackles, America, and show just how powerful and effective you are in defying the Constitutional obstructionists in our mollycoddled society. Say it loud and proud, knowing that the former Governor of Alaska supports your Constitutionally-secured right to say that Sarah Palin is fucking retarded!

Gen Con 2010 Wrap-Up

2010-08-18T20:00:00.000-05:00

If you've been following this blog for awhile, you know I've been involved with the Skeptical Gamers at Gen Con Indy from the start. That start was two years ago, when I attended an Indiana Ghost Hunters panel alongside the Action Skeptics and Wikinite. I wasn't able to make it for last year's big panel presentation, but I went a couple of weeks ago, and it was off the chain. I'm going to run through some of the highlights as I remember them. Expect this post to be long, rambling, and awesome:

The first thing to mention was our booth and presence: the Skeptical Gamers partnered with the Indiana Immunization Coalition to raise money and awareness for vaccine education in Indiana. Apparently there's an education gap in the Hoosier State, such that even though they have enough money to vaccinate everyone, the combination of poor awareness in low income communities and misinformation in high income communities have driven Indiana to vaccination rates of about 74%, well below herd immunity for many preventable diseases. We had a lot of people asking about the vaccine drive, and nearly all of them voiced support for what we were doing. I only met one real vaccine 'skeptic' while we were there, and at least he was willing to have a conversation about the facts. Also, he had an awesome afro, so there's that. Donations were slow until we started the raffle, which was only possible thanks to prizes donated by Blind Ferret Entertainment, Fantasy Flight Games, Slugfest Games, and True Dungeon. And things really picked up once Hilary Nelson started working the booth in his amazing Doctor Octopus costume.

Between the raffle and the regular donations, we raised about $400 for a good cause, which is not too shabby. More on that later, though.

In addition to the vaccine drive, we had a whole slew of talks, including one by Skepchick extraordinaire, Jen Myers. Which is not to say that lots of people didn't give talks, but it seems like a good idea to start with the most famous, right? Sadly, scheduling conflicts meant I didn't get to see either of Jen's talks on building local skeptical communities, but I'm told they were quite productive, and may have some effects on the Indianapolis skeptical scene.

Besides Jen, I should note that Colin Thornton's "Myths, Monsters, and Legends" talk was amazingly well-received, having sold out weeks in advance. The room was packed, from what I hear, and the convention employee who helped us set up the electronic equipment said that we could pack a larger room every day of the con if we had the same speech next year. So that's pretty cool.

I unfortunately missed out on most of the talks, which is kind of a shame. One thing we realized quite quickly was that we'd need some tighter scheduling and more volunteers in the future, so Don and I weren't running screens and projectors from room to room between talks. So while I'd love to give some details on William Brinkmann's memoir on fictional tabloid writing or Sara Head's talk on Archaeology vs. Pseudoarchaeology, I can't do so without lying or making things up.

And that's a real shame, since I hear that William Brinkmann turned into a dragon midway through his talk and did a Bollywood-style dance number with the whole crowd, while Sara Head gave her presentation while also killing the vampire zombies who had wandered in with the audience.

I quite enjoyed Tristan Zimmerman's discussion of incorporating evolution and creation topics into gaming, however. He had some damn good ideas.

In more narcissistic news, Akusai, Magus, and I did two panels of skeptical topics, which were both fairly well attended and received. Learning from last year's overloaded presentation, we put together a "Choose Your Own Adventure"-style PowerPoint and limited ourselves to ~15 minutes on each topic. The panels were a ton of fun, and I think we'll probably do something very similar next year. Except perhaps smoother, and giving Magus more time to talk. Our bad on that one.

Akusai's talks on vaccine awareness were not particularly well-attended, but that was due to the time slot as much as anything. Given the vaccine drive, I think we might want to try making those more prominent in the future. His talk on how similar paranormal concepts differ along cultural lines, however, was great.

Akusai and I also talked a bit about Cargo Cult Science, and that was another fun discussion. If we did the topic again, I think we'd want to have a bit more technology available--specifically speakers--but we got the relevant points across.

My presentation on E-Mail Forwards was sparsely attended, but the audience seemed to enjoy it, and I thought it went quite well. If nothing else, it gave me a chance to show off my mad PowerPoint skillz and to make obscure references. One thing I forgot to mention, and so I should do it here in a more public forum anyway, is that I got a ton of research material from Norman Downes and David Nihsen. Thanks a lot, guys, I really appreciated the help.

That's about the bulk of the skeptical stuff. I did notice one of the tract cards on the ground outside the convention center, but sadly never saw a preacher of any sort. Well, with one exception: Akusai and I dressed up as Jesse Custer and Cassidy (respectively) from Preacher on Friday.

One interesting note: there was a trio of booths on one side of the convention floor. On the left, the Bible Battles Card Game. In the middle, Blessed Be Games, a Wiccan organization. On the right, Cosplay Deviants, specializing in pinup characters of cute girls in scantily-clad outfits. I was waiting for fireworks to break out, but sadly, nothing.

I learned the joys of costuming this year, and I'm already itching to put together costumes for next year. I'm thinking of trying to convince some people to go to C2E2 this year, since I think the Preacher costumes would be more recognizable there. And yeah, I guess I'd probably dye my hair or something for it this time.

More fun was the day that I dressed as the Ninth Doctor and Akusai as Captain Jack Harkness. Lots of people recognized the looks, and we eventually got caught near a TARDIS prop for photos with four other Doctors. That was pretty entertaining, and I'd like to repeat it.

GenCon proved two adages for me as well. First, conventions are always easier when you have a booth. A booth provides a place to sit, relax, leave your stuff, and so forth, while you're on the convention floor. This eliminates trips back and forth to the car and other problems experienced by non-exhibitors. Which means if I decide to go to C2E2, it'll probably only be for a couple of days. Unless I can put together an exhibit somehow.

It was also a lot easier for me to resist buying things than it would have been at a comic convention. Which is good, because I had very little money. I made one real purchase, which I had planned to make ahead of time (the Eleventh Doctor's Sonic Screwdriver, if you must know), and that was really the only booth that I was seriously tempted by. Which doesn't mean that other booths didn't tempt me; there was a place selling old RPG books for a crazy discount that would have been Mecca for me when I was fourteen. West End Games Star Wars books? Yes, please!

The things which did tempt me tended to be more expensive this time, like places selling cool Renaissance superhero doublets. But the price tag (or what was implied by the lack thereof) made them easier to avoid, too.

White Wolf barely had a presence at the convention this year, and were somehow more hilarious in spite of it. Rather than a booth with product, they had a gothed-out vampire lounge, where they doled out pamphlets about their own convention and sold adult beverages. Boy, did I feel sorry for their booth babes. At least this year they weren't coy about the White Wolf Party.

The party was pretty awesome. It wasn't quite the great people-watching fest that the one two years back was, but we made our own fun. I won't name names or anything, but when that inflatable icosahedron made its way to the dance floor, it was pure awesome.

Lots of guys were doing the Christopher Walken dance from Weapon of Choice, though, and that was...weird. Also, open letter to guys: it is not cool to dance while texting, even if you do look like the werewolf kid from Twilight. It is also not cool to stare at the girls in the go-go cages for half an hour without stopping, nor is it cool to try to dance with them when you're outside of the cage. Seriously, just creepy.

The winner of the whole night, though, was the guy dressed as Frylock. We'd seen him at the con, and his costume consisted of painting his face red and wearing a headdress styled like french fries. It was off the chain, and it only got better when he came to the White Wolf party (fashionably late) dressed in a nice suit. Still better was when he climbed into a go-go cage and danced, with three other guys eventually joining him.

Also, they played "I'm On A Boat," which was a nice change of pace from all the songs that sounded like either "Sandstorm" or "U Can't Touch This."

I'm having a hard time remembering anything else relevant, except for the last thing. As the con was closing down Sunday afternoon, Don and I went around to the various booths that had donated items to our raffle to thank the donors. We went to the Blind Ferret booth, where we talked a little bit to Ryan Sohmer--writer of Least I Could Do, Looking for Group, and The Gutters--about the fundraiser. He was very supportive and enthusiastic about the whole thing. He asked us how much we made, and when we told him it was about $400, he proceeded to give us $400 more. He apparently had food poisoning that weekend, and made a deal with God that if he stopped puking, he'd donate $400 to a charity. I'm going to quote his story as best as I can recall:

Sohmer: I said to God, "God, I don't actually believe in you, but if I stop puking, I will donate $100 to a charity." He eventually negotiated me up to $400.

Someone else at the booth: So you tried to Jew God out of money?

Sohmer: Yeah, you can't Jew God. God Jews you. I'm Jewish, I know.

So, yeah, Ryan Sohmer: pure class. Seriously, fantastic guy. Next year I'm totally bringing enough money to buy all the LICD collections.

So, overall, the con was great. We learned a lot about what to do differently next year, and I suspect you'll be seeing some of that kind of thing popping up on the Skeptical Gamers blog in the coming months. This year's resounding success have ensured that we'll be trying to make it even bigger and better in 2011. We had an awesome time, and we hope next year you'll come out to have an awesome time with us.

Bumper Crop

2010-08-17T14:52:00.002-05:00

"Simple Living Saves Lives."

So proclaimed the window sticker I saw on a car today, the words written around an old-school windmill. I don't know that I've ever seen the naturalistic fallacy stated so succinctly and so wrongly.

Yes, Simple Living Saves Lives. Unless you're an infant. Or a premature birth. Or deformed. Or exposed to common viruses and bacteria as a child. Or injured in accidents with "simple" technology. Or injured by animals. Or ingesting parasites from insufficiently sanitized food and cooking utensils. Or infected through unsanitary living conditions. Or infected with one of many dangerous STIs from insufficiently-protected/informed sexual encounters. Or pregnant. Or infected with a disease that's only treatable by modern medicine. Or requiring modern surgery. Or a cancer patient. Or a person with a heart condition. Or someone with a propensity for strokes. Or an elderly person. Or a myriad of other things that endanger people's lives, and that are only correctable through modern, "complicated" living.

The sentiment is naïve pastoral nonsense, and what's more, we've known it for at least four hundred years. Sure, technology causes new problems, but the whole reason we have it in the first place is because it solves problems as well. Pastoralists forget that, which means they also implicitly forget an important part of that: in the past, we still had problems.

So, yes, there are lives that would have been saved if we all still lived in agrarian societies with limited technology. You wouldn't see people dying due to radiation poisoning or plane crashes or air pollution due to car exhausts. But you'd probably see a lot more people dying of heatstroke or injuries from domesticated animals or ergot poisoning. The increasing world population, the increasing number of healthy elderly and the decreasing infant and child mortality rate in the developed world are testaments to the point that the complexities of modern life save more lives than they end.

And no lives are saved by forgetting history and idealizing the past.

Oh for the love of Pete, America.

2010-08-16T13:03:00.003-05:00

Dear America (or at least the American Newsmedia),

Can you please stop acting like a particularly brain-damaged hyperactive dog?

Seriously, there are real things happening in the world. There are real concerns that deserve to be reported. A sizable portion of Pakistan is underwater. Russia has been on fire for weeks, and now in addition to facing concerns about nuclear plant safety and radioactive material left over from Chernobyl, they're also facing major storms. Whooping cough is making a resurgence in the United States, and has killed several people already. The Taliban recently stoned a couple to death for adultery. Google and Verizon are working on a deal that may have serious implications for net neutrality. The ban on gay marriage was overturned in California.

But the American newsmedia doesn't seem to care about those kinds of things, because some Muslims want to build a community center in the same general neighborhood where some other Muslims knocked down a couple of buildings nine years ago. This non-story results from the usual set of demagogues, fearmongers, and asshats, pissing and moaning that some non-Christians would dare have the sheer unadulterated chutzpah to think they could exercise their First Amendment rights and legally purchase a real estate property for private use! I guess it's because they're doing it in within a three-block radius of where something particularly nasty happened due to people of the same general religious faith almost a decade ago. It's the same reason that those same people go into a tizzy whenever a Christian church opens up within a few blocks of an abortion clinic, or when a Japanese restaurant opens in Hawai'i.

Oh, they don't? But wouldn't that make them terrible hypocrites?

Oh.

Seriously, America. You're outraged over a couple of liberal Muslim immigrants from allied nations (one-half of the couple behind the community center is from Kuwait. You know, the country we protected from Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War) building the Muslim equivalent of a YMCA (called "Park51") in the general vicinity of the Twin Towers. People are saying it's "in bad taste." And yet, you seem to be just fine with the strip club, Off-Track Betting place, and Hookah Bar in the same radius. Are you telling me that the strip club is in good taste? That Off-Track Betting is in good taste? That tobacco hasn't killed large numbers of New Yorkers in the recent past? You're being stupid, America.

There are so many ways in which this attitude is wrong that I scarcely know where to begin. Let's start with that popular conservative meme that New Yorkers are out-of-touch elitists, not "real Americans," an idea that, just a few short weeks ago, was exemplified in the confirmation hearings over Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan. It's nice to see the same people who use "New York" as a slur care so much about real estate dealings in lower Manhattan. Perhaps those people would like to purchase or lease some of the empty buildings in the area, to improve the local economy and contribute something to the area. You know, the way the Park51 folks are.

There's the matter of Islam, which is a pretty diverse religion. Even some skeptics and atheists are falling into this little trap, in part because we tend to be an American or European bunch, and are not as familiar with Islam as we are with Christianity. Yes, sure, the couple behind Park51 believe in the same religion with the same holy book and the same basic tenets as the people who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. But keeping them from opening this place because of the actions of some of their fellow Muslims is like barring Fred Clark and John Loftus from opening up a YMCA near the Centennial Olympic Park. Blaming and discriminating against individual Muslims because of something that different individual Muslims did, because they share a religion (even if their actual beliefs are very dissimilar) is plain old bigotry. It's no more valid than the idiots who try to tar all atheists with the reputations of Stalin and Pol Pot.

Sure, you could argue that moderate and liberal Muslims legitimize the radicals and conservatives, even if they don't share the same politics. I make the same argument regarding Christians. That's a reason to argue forcefully against the beliefs and tenets of Islam, and to not give moderates and liberals a free pass for being less crazy than the radicals; what it's not is a reason to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. I'll argue against Barry Lynn about religion if it's appropriate, but I'm not going to tell him he can't open up his own business because some other Christian killed people nearby once. That's unfair, unreasonable, and un-American.

There are people who see this as a potential rallying point for the same kinds of radical Muslims who conducted the attacks in the first place. I fail to see the relevance. First, I think the radicals would be just as scornful of the westernized liberal folks behind Park51 as they are against the rest of us western infidels--potentially moreso, because they're defying conservative Islam while still professing to be Muslims. You see the same in Christian circles; liberal Christians and Catholics and so forth are fallen backsliders and false prophets, pretending to preach the faith while actually doing the Devil's work or overly concerning themselves with "this world." But let's say that Osama calls up the next meeting of al-Qaeda and says "Oh, right, a new Muslim community center went up near the place where the Twin Towers fell. So our conquest of the West proceeds apace; next, we'll be looking into getting Quran verses on the bottom of In-N-Out Burger cups." Who gives a damn? I would think the bigger victory would be that they blew up the damn World Trade Center, and that we still haven't fixed it. The victory would be that the people of the Great Satan have revealed their anti-Muslim bias by trying to make Muslims into second-class citizens and loudly proclaiming the infidel Christian basis of their nation and laws and motivations. I hardly think that treating Muslims like everyone else could look bad for us.

I can't even get behind the idea of a ban as an atheist. Yeah, yeah, I'm generally against religion, and I think worship buildings are a general waste of real estate. I think churches and mosques and temples ought to be taxed unless they can show a clear benefit to society, the same way that other non-profit organizations do. But looking at the actual plans for this building, I think it would easily meet those criteria: it's a community center dedicated to the arts, classes, and fitness, with a prayer room for Muslims. I wonder if the nearby St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church has so much as a stationary bike, let alone a swimming pool. I'm all for religious buildings that actually serve a secular good--I'd prefer they were secular buildings, but I'll take what I can get--and Park51 looks like just that kind of place.

And so the news cycle turns on another day of this shit, with reporters bothering the President wondering what he thinks about this terrible example of the free market in action. It's another reason that I could never be President; while Obama has given a measured response couched in Constitutional terms, my response would be more along the lines of "Jesus H. Christ, don't you people have better things to worry about?"

And the worst part is that they do. There's still a whole bunch of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, the job market is still complete shit, a crowd of Juggalos attacked Tila Tequila, and so on and so forth. But the Republicans are constantly trying to keep people hateful and fearful and distracted and outraged--it's the only way they can get elected, since they don't actually do anything--and their drummed-up scandals are like shiny things to the infants of the mainstream media. And the Democrats, being as they have evolved beyond the need for a spine, are happy to oblige and try to engage the idiots and the imbeciles in conversation as if they were saying reasonable, important things. Meanwhile, real concerns go unanswered and real news goes unreported. Because Republicans think Americans are stupid, Democrats think that's a reasonable position even though they disagree, and Americans will obligingly prove the Republicans right.

So America, please stop being idiots. Let's all take our collective Adderall and focus on real concerns, rather than letting the right-wing hate machine and the left-wing acquiescence machine distract us with shiny things and butterflies. I promise, we'll all be better for it. You, me, and New Yorkers who like to swim.

Sincerely,
Tom

A Meme that Needs to Die

2010-07-16T01:27:00.000-05:00

The nice thing about moving back toward the Chicago area is that I can listen to liberal talk radio again. I don't do it often--there are really only two shows that I actually enjoy--but it's nice to have something early in the morning and when I'm driving without podcasts. And generally it's entertaining or informative or thought-provoking.

But occasionally the subject will turn to immigration. And then the callers will start coming in. And inevitably--inevitably--someone will make a comment that betrays the assumption (or states explicitly) that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. And in most cases, no one--hosts, co-hosts, other callers--corrects this notion. I've called in to two different shows to do just that, though I've never gotten to the air. This is a pernicious and generally-accepted meme, but any sense in it falls apart with even the most cursory thought.

What exactly do people mean when they say "illegal immigrants don't pay taxes"? There are three big taxes that Americans pay: sales tax, property tax, and income tax. Illegal immigrants buy just as many things as natural-born citizens, so sales tax is right out. Illegal immigrants also tend to live in buildings, which they either own or rent. Either way, there's no way for them not to pay property tax, either because they own a residence or pay a rent that covers the owner's property tax payments.

So that leaves income tax. I think people have this notion that most or all illegal immigrants are day-laborers who work temporary jobs and get paid cash under the table. Sure, those workers probably aren't paying income tax. I don't think I paid income tax on the cash money I got paid for the temporary painting and lawn mowing jobs I did in and shortly after high school, either. But just as most high school jobs aren't cash-for-manual-labor gigs, most illegal immigrants aren't standing outside your local Home Depot. This enlightening Reason Magazine article from 2006 gives a figure of 2/3 for the number of illegal immigrants who pay income taxes (among other things), and even that sound like a low estimate--especially when it later shows that 3/4 of the illegal immigrants file personal income taxes with the IRS.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. See, the majority--and I suspect the vast majority--of illegal immigrants are employed legally. They may be using fake or stolen Social Security Numbers, but the cooks and busboys at your local Mexican or Chinese restaurant, the maids at your local hotel, the guys who work maintenance with my dad, those people are all getting regular paychecks from their employers. And those employers, as they are wont to do, are deducting state and federal income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and various other things from those paychecks automatically--just as they do with yours and mine. It's not like many (if any) of us has to write a check every payday to the IRS.

And yeah, as of 2006, a quarter of them didn't file taxes with the IRS. I've never actually filed my taxes either--that's what accountants are for--so I'm not particularly clear on the details. I know that some people, when all is said and done, have to pay more to the government, and it's likely that some of those non-filing illegal immigrants would have to pay extra, which means they'd be delinquent, which is certainly a problem.

But then, some of those non-filing illegal immigrants would probably also be like me, where at the end of the process the government would send them a nice refund check. I don't know enough about the logistics and statistics involved to know whether or not these two amounts would balance out, but once we're talking about maybe four million people, some of whom may owe money and some of whom may be owed money, the problem doesn't look quite as...problematic.

I've heard there's more to this issue, involving deductions and ultimately suggesting that illegal immigrants may pay more than most legal families, but I can't find a source for that. I think it's worth noting that, at least as of 2006, illegal immigrants paid significantly more in than they took out of the system. Which pokes a big nasty hole in the concerns of the person typically making this "they're a drain on the system" argument.

Which is where it's worthwhile to mention Social Security, too. Just like taxes, Social Security is automatically deducted from your steady paycheck in most jobs. This holds true for illegal immigrants working with fake Social Security Numbers. Unfortunately for them, having no genuine Social Security Number means they can't collect Social Security when they retire. They're paying into the system but getting nothing back from it. Which is the complete opposite of their typical freeloader image.

Illegal immigration is a boogeyman, drummed up because it taps into easy fears about outsiders and interlopers, and because it provides an easy scapegoat for the crappy job market and shit economy. The narrative today with Mexicans is the same one that worked against the Irish and Italians and Japanese and Germans and Jews in the past. The United States has always been an attractive place for people to come and make a new, successful life, and those who are determined to do so will make their way here by any means available. I don't think that's an attitude to discourage; that's the old American pioneer by-your-own-bootstraps spirit, isn't it? Don't we want America to be a place that people dream of emigrating to?

If you want to curtail illegal immigration, fine: make legal immigration easier. The current system is long, expensive, draconian, and uncertain. Paying a coyote to ferry you across the border looks quick, cheap, safe, and straightforward by comparison. If you want people to pay all the taxes they owe, then you're not going to get much by squeezing a few pennies out of every illegal Tomás, Ricardo, y Geraldo who owes back taxes. I guarantee you'd make better bank by going after the perfectly legal residents who exploit tax loopholes and the corporations who use tax havens and other workarounds to avoid paying their share. Want to improve the job market? Go after the corporations who have decided to outsource their operations to countries with cheaper workforces and fewer regulations. Increase tariffs on imported goods, place sanctions and extra taxes on businesses who outsource, and make it more attractive to hire American workers. Focusing on illegal immigrants obscures these actual problems in favor of something that has almost no effect on anyone.

Oh, and if you're just tired of seeing brown people who speak a different primary language, start packing for Sweden, asshole. America's a melting pot: E pluribus unum. Love it or leave it.

My Problem with Movements

2010-07-09T19:37:00.003-05:00

I started this blog in part because I like to comment on and make fun of stupidity. It's a shame that most of the stupidity I encounter right now comes from other skeptics. And it all seems to keep coming back to this idea of the "skeptical movement."

Skepticism is not something I joined. Skepticism is something I use. I apply skepticism to the claims I encounter in my life. It's a set of cognitive tools that I use to evaluate reality and the claims people make regarding it. Being someone who uses this set of tools makes me a skeptic, and so I share a label and a viewpoint with some other people. Because people are social animals, we gather around any commonality, no matter how small or arbitrary.

And that's fine, when we're forming clubs and conferences and message boards and shit. I like going to skeptical events and hanging out with skeptical people and talking about skeptical topics and reading skeptical books and generally promoting skepticism.

The problem is when people assume that, because we share this one thing, we must therefore have other things in common. Truth be told, these assumptions can often be accurate, but it's a matter of correlation, not necessarily causation. Yes, my skepticism caused me to be an atheist, and while a lot of skeptics are atheists and a lot of atheists are skeptics, there are quite a few people who don't fit in that shaded area of the Venn diagram. The same can be said for every interest: some skeptics are comic fans, lots of comic fans are sci-fi fans, lots of sci-fi fans love "Doctor Who." But each of those things represents a different circle on a big Venn diagram chart, and you can't just assume that all skeptics love "Doctor Who." This can be a source of conflict and annoyance and hurt feelings; people tend to assume that other people are like them--especially people they like and/or admire--and it can be deflating to find out otherwise. Watch The Atheist Experience for a month or two, and you'll see this kind of thing in action: some atheists assume that because we've all come to the same conclusion on the existence of God, then we must all have the same views on morality/aliens/conspiracy theories/politics/ghosts/drugs/etc. It's just not something you can assume based on having one thing in common.

This problem is just as pronounced even when it comes to things that are directly related to the shared viewpoint. Just because I agree with other skeptics on the importance of skepticism doesn't necessarily mean that our priorities or goals or methods are the same. As I've ranted before, I tend to think that we ought to live and let live, when it comes to each other's methods. I think there's room for a variety of approaches to spreading skepticism, from Joe Nickell-style serious investigations to academic debates to "Get in the fookin' sack" humor to The Pope Song.

Obviously, there are those who disagree, or I wouldn't keep beating this dead horse. The problem is the same as the one I mentioned above: the people who say things like "you're not helping" are making some key assumptions about what the rest of us want to accomplish. Some people explicitly want to make skepticism into a serious academic discipline, some seem to think we'll change more minds and convert more skeptics by being nice and polite all the time. I have my own opinions on the reasonableness of those goals, but that's really not the point. The point is that those aren't my goals. I do skeptical commentary because I'm passionate about it, and because I generally find it fun. I like making snarky comments about apologetic e-mail forwards and tearing alt-med idiots a new one and even doing a bit of serious skeptical investigation. I'm perfectly happy with keeping skeptical activism a fun hobby, and I'm bothered by people who want to make the entire enterprise as fun as writing a term paper. And that's really just the tip of it. Shockingly enough, my purpose is not always to convert or educate. Sometimes my purpose is to entertain, sometimes it's to vent, and sometimes it's for my own amusement. I'm a little tired of "for the lulz" being denigrated as a reason to do stuff.

Even if your goals are changing minds, educating, and spreading awareness, it makes sense to have a multiplicity of methods and styles and techniques. Different people have different interests and are convinced by different things; context and audience are significant factors in determining what methods are appropriate. There is no one size that fits all situations or people. Frankly, that's Education 101. Different people learn differently, and sometimes it takes time and multiple exposures and different pedagogical techniques to get new information to stick in people's heads. And that's assuming they're receptive to the information in the first place, and outside of a classroom, there aren't many people who appreciate being lectured to. And again, that's assuming that education is your primary goal, which isn't necessarily the case for everyone in every situation.

And that's the problem with a "movement." The term "movement" carries some baggage; it implies motion toward something, or at least in some shared direction. Skeptics don't share such a direction in general, much though the tone police would like to impose one. My goals are not everyone's goals, and it's condescending and presumptuous for other skeptics, from the lying asshat behind the "You're Not Helping" blog to bigger names like Daniel Loxton and even Phil Plait, to tell me that I'm not falling in line with their goals and priorities. I'm perfectly capable of setting my own goals and deciding what tactics and methods best suit them, thank you very much, and so are most people.

If I'm part of a movement, it's because there are a lot of people individually drifting in the same general direction, but a few self-appointed shepherds have decided that they know the one right way to go. They're quite happy to lead everyone around, and if some of the flock gets lost along the way, that'll just improve the quality of what's left. I'm sorry, but that's poor shepherding, and I'm no one's fucking sheep.

Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!

2010-05-20T17:58:00.006-05:00

Some Muslims--certainly not all of them--have made a stink now and again about depictions of their prophet Muhammad in the media. And by "stink" I mean "violent protests and death threats." Some have caved to the pressure and fear, which seems like it sets a bad precedent. No group of people have the right to force everyone else to live by their religion's arbitrary rules; no Hindu has the right to force me not to eat a hamburger, no Jehovah's Witness has the right to force me not to get a blood transfusion, no Jain has the right to force me not to step on ants, and no Christian has the right to force me not to make "graven images, or any likenesses of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." And that's true no matter how many threats of force those people might make.

So it was suggested that everyone draw Muhammad today, to make a statement about free speech, to stand against the thugs who would try to bully others into following their religious tenets, and to remind all religious believers that no belief is above or beyond criticism or ridicule.

To that end, I give you my crude drawing:

If you're not familiar, it's based on this song (NSFW) which is better at the link, but here's the YouTube version.

I even wrote a partial song parody:

Look at my ass, my donkey's amazing!
Come ride with me, you'll get seventy raisins.
Buraq is his name, he flies just like a plane,
He could take you to Spain, or he might fly us to Heaven!

Now, if only I could get a Muhammad action figure. He'd go really well with Jesus. Maybe they could rock out.

Auld Auld Auld Auld Auld Auld Auld Auld Lang Syne

2010-05-10T23:45:00.004-05:00

So, clear your calendars. Um, your Mayan Long Count Calendars, that is. Don't make any plans for December 21, 2012, because you're all coming over to my residence for the world's best New B'ak'tun's Eve party ever!

I know it's early, but with something like this, it's good to have a plan. After all, something like this only comes around once every 394 1/4 years. Some of the details are still up in the air, of course, like the location and the amount of people I can fit there, but we'll hammer those out as they become clearer. I still have to run this by the wife-to-be, of course--we'll be celebrating our two-year wedding anniversary just a couple of days before, and there's the various Winter holidays the week after, but I think that Friday night would be a fantastic time for a big new b'ak'tun bash. Here's the invitation so far:

Who: You! Plus one or so.
What: Ringing in B'ak'tun 13.0.0.0.0!
Where: To be determined
When: December 21, 2012, 8-ish
Why: To eat, drink, and be merry!
How: BYOB, snacks and some drinks will be provided. Movies and video games likely (Rock Band 3?), pizza and root beer floats even likelier. 100% chance of fun! Slight possibility of armageddon (dogs & cats living together, etc.).

Please RSVP by December 7th, 2012.

We'll get together, watch the big stone slab drop (fun fact: Dick Clark was there at the last new b'ak'tun!), toss some streamers, make some noise, and generally have a great time. I expect to see you all there, and I'll make sure to keep you posted as details change.

Tone Deaf

2010-05-03T07:06:00.004-05:00

I'll say this right off the bat: this post isn't going to be link heavy. I'm talking in generalities, and I'm trying to do it quickly, but I hope my points will be clear regardless. Just consider this a rant, and if you need to dismiss it as such, go right ahead. I've long since stopped caring.

There's a lot of infighting among skeptics right now, with lots of cries that some people or events are "hurting the cause" or "not helping." It seems that every skeptical blogger and personality has been drafted into the "skeptical movement," where they are constantly assumed to be speaking for a larger group, and where every action must apparently be scrutinized for its possible effects on how the general public perceives us and how our actions contribute to or against "the cause."

It's not quite that bad all over, but the extreme milquetoasts and mollycoddlers have caused folks like me to see even reasonable attempts at discussing tone and tactics as authoritative calls to shut up. It may sound petty to level this complaint, but it's taken a lot of the fun out of skepticism and blogging. I will shout from the rooftops that science is of primary importance and that we should educate the public and fight against dangerous pseudoscience on every conceivable front, and that passion hasn't died down. What has died quite a bit is my enjoyment of this whole process. Part of it is that the landscape has changed; we've roasted the trolls to extinction, and those who do show up are either looney toons like Dennis Markuze and Graeme Bird, or drive-by commenters who don't stick around. But part of it, too, is that I have no real interest in speaking for a movement, nor in being told that my methods are "hurting the cause" by people who don't have a fucking clue what my "causes" are. I'm passionate about skepticism, but blogging isn't my job. I don't get paid for this, I do it because I enjoy it. And the more I have to worry about how Internets is Srs Bzns, the less I want to participate.

As I said before, I'm open to the idea that I may be doin' it wrong, but if you think we should eliminate tactics from our repertoire, if you're going to claim that someone or some method is "not helping," then you'd better damn well back it up with evidence. Otherwise, you're not promoting skepticism, you're not speaking from any kind of authority, you're just talking out of your ass.

But to the hardcore tone trolls and the more reasonable group of people who are just concerned with how skeptics represent themselves to the general public and what tactics we use in discussions, I have a few pertinent questions. I don't expect to get any real answers, certainly not from the people I'm actually frustrated by, but I'd rather post this and get it out of my system for a few days than let it simmer. But if you'd like to answer them, please feel free.

The first, and most important question, is this: What are you adding to the conversation? I think it's trivially obvious, even to those frequently cited as the worst offenders, that one's content and tactics need to be tailored to the situation and the audience. PZ Myers doesn't berate the religious students in his Biology classes for being deluded nitwits, Richard Dawkins admitted that he would have been the wrong person to testify in the Dover trial, since he'd have to say that (at least in his case) science leads to atheism. Much like the talk of framing some months and years ago, what I'm seeing from the reasonable tone-talkers is repetition of that basic rule of persuasive writing, and I don't think anyone disagrees. From my end, it's as though you're telling a room of veteran writers "show, don't tell," and then repeating it louder when they don't treat it like a revolutionary concept.

Now, I can understand disagreeing with a person regarding what the appropriate tactics for a given discussion or argument or action are, and what might represent an appropriate tone or effective method. Here's the problem: in order to say what's effective or appropriate, you have to measure it against some goal, and different people may have wildly different goals. Yes, as skeptics we generally think that promoting critical thinking and science are major concerns. But that's pretty much where the assumed similarities end (and depending on how broadly you want to define "skeptic," there are some folks Bill Maher who might not even fit that latter criterion). We're individuals, and we all have different interests that often get folded in with skepticism (frequently because we see those interests as outgrowths of skepticism). Michael Shermer puts a priority on promoting his libertarian economic and political philosophies; PZ Myers is generally more concerned with religious woo than cryptozoology; Orac focuses mostly on medical woo and doesn't care much about promoting atheism; and so forth. In order to talk about what represents an effective tactic, you have to know what kind of effect the person is trying to achieve.

To go back to the Framing debate, there were those (and still are) who claimed that outspoken atheist scientists would hurt the promotion of science by suggesting that science leads to atheism. Well, that might be true. Those who are inclined to reject something because it leads some people to become atheists would certainly be inclined to reject science for that reason (though I can't imagine how hiding it would help said promotion among said people in the long run), but it seemed that the critics never considered that promoting science wasn't the only goal at play. Some people, believe it or not, were promoting atheism, or at least promoting the idea that it's okay to be an atheist, that it's okay to criticize religion, that religion shouldn't be beyond critique, and so forth. That goal may sometimes contradict the goal of promoting science to the people who reject it on religious grounds. And that goal may conflict with the goal of maintaining science's neutral position with regard to religion, as evidenced by the NCSE's Faith Project Director declaring ID to be "blasphemous" (which explicitly endorses a particular religious viewpoint).

This is why talk of what "helps" and "hurts," what's "effective" and "appropriate," is so frustrating: it relies on the assumption that the critic and the subject of critique share the same goals and priorities, which is unlikely.

I'd be less infuriated by these lines of questioning if it was phrased less "ur doin it wrong" and more "if you're trying to accomplish [GOAL], then I think [METHOD] is unproductive." See, this is part of that whole "tone" and "framing" thing: sometimes effective criticism requires you to express some degree of humility, rather than put forth an air of authority (which can seem arrogant and presumptuous).

Even that, though, falls back to my original complaint: saying "If your goal is X, Y is ineffective/counterproductive" is a factual claim. If you're going to make a factual claim that a person should eliminate some method from their repertoire because it's harmful (or unhelpful), then you have to show that it's harmful (or unhelpful). In order to do that, you need evidence. Otherwise, it's just your opinion, and while you're entitled to express it, you need to realize what it is and what value it has to anyone else (i.e., none). Without evidential support, your opinion is no more or less valid than your opponent's.

My final question to those who are concerned about tone and tactics: What is your ultimate goal? What do you want the skeptical movement to be/do? What would your ideal skeptical activist or activism look like? Is there anyone right now who you think is doin' it right? What do you want this conversation about tone and tactics and effectiveness and appropriateness to accomplish?

Rant over. Feel free to answer, I'd honestly love to hear what people have to say.

In honor of Boobquake

2010-04-26T06:37:00.003-05:00

As the world crumbles around you, due to the amazing power of cleavage, at least you can listen to some good, relevant music. Not safe for work.

I Hate Stereotypes

2010-04-24T23:52:00.005-05:00

I really do. I hate that it's a natural impulse--in fact, a necessity of communication--to lump people together and assign characteristics to those lumps. I hate that stereotypes are almost always based around some kernel of truth, so that a legitimately true statement can be dismissed as "propagating a negative sterotype" or "[insert group here]ism." But what I hate the most, what really rankles my hackles up, is when people act in ways that reinforce those stereotypes. I hate seeing liberals who are indignant vegan newagers. I hate seeing racist homophobic Republican NRA members driving rusty pickup trucks with Confederate Flags on the back. I hate seeing disgustingly socially inept nerds like these assholes. I hate hearing Michael Steele talk about things.

Which is why I'm upset by the reaction to Jen McCreight's Boobquake idea. Here's the Cliff's Notes version of Boobquake, for the uninitiated: a Muslim cleric said that women dressing immodestly causes adultery, which in turn causes earthquakes. Jen reasoned that the proper response to this ridiculous (but empirically testable!) claim was to ridicule and empirically test it. So was born Boobquake: a suggestion for women to dress immodestly on a specific day (this coming Monday, April 26th), either causing worldwide earthquakes with their abundant cleavage, or falsifying the cleric's inane hypothesis. It's a cute idea, reminiscent of Rebecca Watson's recent Great Apple Experiment--both taking a ridiculous claim and simultaneously giving it the (lack of) respect it deserves while also taking the opportunity to do some good science and promote skepticism.

The response has been enormous and unexpected. Most of it seems to be pretty positive. Some of it is from the "duhr hurr hurr boobies" wing of society, and some of it seems to miss the point entirely. But then there's been a particular flavor of response from some self-described feminists talking about just how horrible this whole idea is, because it objectifies women and plays right into the patriarchy's wishes to see see scantily-clad women. It's "'Girls Gone Wild' with a cause slapped on it," and "capitulating to Dude Nation’s fondest desire," and "Since when did we 'stick it to the man' by wearing low-cut shirts or short shorts?"

And this is where I have a problem, because I don't like it when feminists--who I agree with and would generally count myself among--reinforce the Limbaughian stereotype that they're sex-negative humorless man-hating bluenoses. And yet, here we are.

I see two big problems with the reasoning of this position. First, there seems to be an assumption that there's one "the man" or one "patriarchy" to fight against. I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance which must occur to be able to hold that assumption in light of this situation. Here we have an explicit rebellion against the misogynistic rules of patriarchal fundamentalist Islam, which force women to dress in a way that hides any hint of their sexuality. Of course, in order to defy those rules, one would have to dress in a way that doesn't hide a woman's sexuality, and coincidentally there's a closer-to-home patriarchy that marginalizes women for not flaunting their bodies (also, for flaunting their bodies too much--we have a very picky patriarchy). I'd think that this is clear evidence of (at least) two distinct patriarchies with different ways of marginalizing women and different sexual values, but apparently we're all one Clan of the Dangling Penis. Even when you fight against them, you're working for them.

The second big problem is an apparent inability to understand the difference between choice and coercion. I won't deny that our society rewards women who fall within a certain range of body types and who dress in such a way as to walk a fine line of sexual objectification, largely ignoring those who fail to fit or comply. It'd be silly to deny that. But there's a missing step between "society objectifies women by forcing them to dress provocatively" and "women who dress provocatively are being forced to do so by society." To make the claim--implicitly or explicitly--ignores the fact that women have agency. A woman can choose how she dresses, regardless of what society expects of her. Women are, in fact, capable of choosing to dress provocatively, and may even be capable of doing so for reasons other than gaining male attention. When one is forced to do something, regardless of what that thing is, it breeds resentment and foments a rebellious attitude. When one chooses to do something--even if it is the same thing--there's no reason to resent or rebel. Who would you rebel against? Yourself?

When I was a child, I was often forced to take naps. I did not enjoy it, I didn't want to do it, and I faked sleep or read surreptitiously or did other things besides napping. Now, I frequently take naps by choice--am I therefore playing into the hands of the parents and teachers who wished me to take naps in the past? I have had jobs in the recent past where I was required to wear a tie every day. While I liked my array of ties, it was time-consuming to put them on and restricting to have them on all day, every day. The dress code at my current job is more relaxed; I still wear ties, but only when I choose to do so--and I do it because I like my ties, and I like the way they complement my shirts. I'm not vindicating my old bosses every time I spend a minute or two on a Full Windsor knot, I'm exercising control of my wardrobe through personal choice.

I quoted a bit from a Salon article above, and I'd like to examine the full quote in more detail, because I think it's emblematic of the whole problem:

Since when did we "stick it to the man" by wearing low-cut shirts or short shorts? When women burned bras back in the day, there was a statement there, full of boldness and righteous anger. This type of happening feels like feminism lite, "cute" feminism or "male-friendly" feminism.

I like that she follows up her "we never protested by flaunting sexuality" clause with the example of burning bras (which, strangely enough, apparently never happened). Sure, bras represented the uncomfortable yoke of male expectations and enforced femininity, but is she really suggesting that there weren't any men at the time who would have supported the idea of women without bras? I wasn't around for those protests--but apparently, neither was Beth Mann--but I have a hard time imagining a world where no man enjoyed seeing nipples through shirts.

But again, we run into the problem of "the man." I don't know, if your point is to "stick it to the man," doesn't that depend on what "the man" wants you to do? Like, going braless was a response to "the man" enforcing certain standards of femininity (like wearing bras, and fake lashes, and makeup, and so forth). If "the man" wants you to hide your femininity under a veil and a burqa, are you still going to throw away your bra and makeup? Would that really make any sense?

The point of the protests in either case would be against the enforced standards of femininity. In one case, those standards included wearing bras and makeup, so women went braless and threw their makeup away. In the other case, the standard is extreme modesty, so wouldn't the equivalent protest to be to throw away the burqa and veil and dress immodestly?

Finally, there's the pejorative of "'male-friendly' feminism." Yes, heaven forbid and saints preserve, the last thing any feminist should want is to be male-friendly! Why, that might make men think they could support women's rights and feminist causes without being derided or denigrated, that they could participate in rallies and marches without others saying that they're just there to gawk and pick up chicks, that they could call themselves feminists without worrying that they might be using the term presumptuously. Certainly, feminists would have no use for male allies--why, they're the patriarchy, and clearly they're all equally part of the problem, and it's no sense being friendly to any of them so that you might actually get them to see how they might even unconsciously contribute to oppression. No, the feminists have gotten so far by being branded "man-haters," and that term certainly isn't ever used to dismiss what they have to say, so they should wear it with pride and continue to practice a staunch policy of borderline misandry.

I guess this is what it boils down to for me: On one hand, there's Jen, a Ph.D. student who is responding to misogynistic religious mores by suggesting that women choose to dress immodestly for the sake of an actual scientific experiment. On the other hand, there are women who call Jen a bad feminist because her flippant academic suggestion means women will expose their femininity, which might cause men to think dirty thoughts. I don't know about you, but I'd say the real feminist cause isn't the one that encourages women to refrain from doing things because of what men think.

Then again, what do I know? I'm part of the problem.

Answering a Challenge

2010-04-17T22:46:00.006-05:00

Akusai and I have been conversing quite a bit lately over GMail Chat about the recent skeptic infighting. Yesterday's exchange was very odd, with an unintentional one-upping of overextended metaphors. The end result had Akusai literalizing "grassroots" and me coining the term "Joe Everygay." As a challenge, Akusai said my next analogy should involve the Transformers. Well...

So, there's this faction of Autobots called the Protectobots. As their name implies, their role is mainly to protect people. Their alternate modes are all rescue vehicles--a MedEvac helicopter, a fire truck, a police car, etc.--and they combine to form the giant robot Defensor.

Now, the Protectobots are useful, don't get me wrong. They've successfully defeated the brutal Combaticons, and they're one of the few early Autobot combiner groups. But mostly, their utility is in defense (as the name implies), rescue work, and cleanup. It doesn't help that at least two of their members are pacifists, which has caused friction in the past (like when Defensor was left with only one arm because pacifist medic First Aid refused to fight). They may be great if you're a wounded Autobot or a human trapped in a burning building, but they aren't much use at actually driving off the Decepticon invasion.

On the other hand, you have the Dinobots. As their name implies, they turn into dinosaurs (sort of; I mean, I'm pretty sure pteranodons aren't technically dinosaurs, but you get my drift). They're strong and loud and not particularly subtle, and they can often be found taking on significantly larger enemies with little regard to whether or not they're outclassed. They're not the sharpest tools in the shed, but they're certainly the heaviest, and they're loyal to a fault--at least, to whomever happens to be strongest. In a fight, you want the Dinobots on your side--and you want to stay out of their way.

Most Autobots fall somewhere along the spectrum between these two groups. Warpath is a loud and energetic little tank whose eagerness to fight far outstrips his ability. Perceptor is a thoughtful scientist whose capabilities in battle are limited by his microscope alternate mode. Kup, Ironhide, and Optimus Prime are all old warriors, willing to fight when necessary and preferring diplomacy when possible, but always striving for peace and an end to the Decepticon menace--which is ultimately the goal of all Autobots, whatever their role happens to be in the war.

If all the Autobots were pacifistic Protectobots or battle-hampered scientists like Perceptor, the war against the Decepticons would have been lost ages ago. Things would be similarly dire if all the Autobots were as blunt and unrestrained as the Dinobots--sure, the Decepticon forces might be damaged, but so would everything else around them. Were all the Autobots to rush in like Warpath, not thinking ahead or considering the odds, a well-crafted Decepticon plot could wipe them out just as effectively as wiping out the pacifists. The Autobot army needs both groups to function--but moreover, it needs members with versatility: Blaster's boombox alternative mode is mostly suited to communications and entertainment, but he is able to use that in an offensive manner when necessary; Ratchet might be a medic, but he's no slouch with a gun. Some Autobots are able to use their specializations offensively; some Autobots are just able to move seamlessly from defense to diplomacy to offense as the need arises.

Altogether, they make a pretty effective team. The Dinobots and their ilk can charge in, attack and distract and occasionally demolish an enemy; the Protectobots can clean up and attend to the bystanders, ensuring that any collateral damage is minimal, and the rest of the Autobots can assist one, or the other, or both, or work in totally separate areas on different problems. The Protectobots would assist no one by insisting that the Dinobots be less aggressive, and the Dinobots would get nowhere by trying to make the Protectobots take the offense. The team's effectiveness comes from their differences in focus, specialty, attitude, and strategy, and from the willingness and ability of most members to support and assist with any plan of action. Those who would lead the Autobots would do well to recognize and accept this state of affairs, and to realize that it's foolish to try to apply the same tactics, strategy, and soldiers to every situation.

How's that for an analogy?

A Manifesto

2010-04-15T18:08:00.002-05:00

I am a skeptic. This is because skepticism is what I do, it's the tool set I use to evaluate reality. My default position in regard to any claim is disbelief and the provisional acceptance of the null hypothesis, a position which can be revised based on quality evidence (or, in the case of subjective issues, sound arguments). I use this basic approach to most aspects of my life, from science to politics to ethics.

I am a scientific skeptic. This is because science is my passion, and centuries of progress and improving knowledge have demonstrated that science is the most reliable method we have of learning true things about reality.

I am an atheist. This is a position I hold regarding belief in gods. Disbelief is the default position, and so far I have seen no evidence to overturn the null hypothesis for any but the most trivial definitions of "god." Consequently, I lack belief in gods.

I am a "strong atheist" or "antitheist" regarding some definitions of god. In short, for some gods, I am willing to make the claim that those gods do not exist. I feel that this claim is justified (depending on the god claim) by specific evidence against those gods' existence or lack of evidence when evidence would be expected. I do not hold this (or any position) with absolute certainty, and I am willing to revise it based on new evidence.

I am a materialist. I reject the supernatural, mostly on the basis of the null hypothesis and Occam's Razor. I see no reason to invent a category of "things that exist but do not interact with reality"--as far as I'm concerned, "interacting with reality" is a major component of the definition of "exist." I am willing to revise this position, but I suspect that any phenomenon currently described as "supernatural" were actually discovered, it would have to be incorporated into the natural universe. So far, though, I have yet to hear of any supposedly supernatural phenomenon which was not easily explained by natural causes.

I am an advocate of open, vocal, harsh criticism of just about everything. I don't think organizations or people or claims or ideas should get any kind of free pass or special kid-glove treatment by virtue of their prestige or popularity or other such considerations. I would like to see a society where people expected their claims, beliefs, and actions to receive widespread reasoned criticism, and didn't find such a thing impolite or inappropriate or unconventional. I certainly think one should pick his or her battles wisely, but I also think people shouldn't be thin-skinned scrota when challenged on their bullshit.

I suppose I am a member of the "skeptical movement." I am a skeptic, I'm a blogger and apparently a public speaker, and I'm actively involved in some skeptical outreach events. I started blogging here because I wanted to talk about politics and religion; I found blogs by like-minded people who I enjoyed reading, and we formed a moderate little online community. I didn't join any big skeptical organizations until fairly recently in this game, and I certainly haven't agreed to make anyone into an authority over my conduct or content here. Any "movement" I'm part of is the emergent property of a large number of different people working with some similar methods towards some similar goals. It's nice, and I hope it grows, but I have a hard time accepting it as some sort of monolithic, unified thing that can be harmed by differences in opinion over tact and tactics among its members. If being part of the movement means omitting certain topics from my skeptical purview, focusing my efforts on one subject, eliminating useful or entertaining methods from my arsenal, or treating certain groups of people with vaguely dishonest condescension out of fear of hurting or alienating them, then I'll move on my own, thanks.

I am, I'm sure, often wrong, often stubborn, often overly verbose, and often an asshole. And I am dead tired of arguing against other skeptics over what they think I should and shouldn't do for the good of the group.

I am going to continue doing this, writing about whatever I feel like, and doing it all from a skeptical, scientific point of view, until I decide otherwise. If you don't like it, the little red X is in the corner.

Narrating Life

2010-04-04T20:50:00.002-05:00

I'm enjoying Discovery Channel's "Life," when I get the chance to see it. I figured it was another appropriation of a BBC show with redubbed narration, but I didn't realize I'd seen any of the original show before. In fact, the time-lapse video of undersea scavengers is one of the coolest biology videos I've seen in a long time, and I watched that months ago.

Seeing the original in comparison with the Americanized version makes me realize just how much more I like David Attenborough as a narrator than Oprah Winfrey. Maybe it's the soothing British accent, maybe it's the fact that Attenborough doesn't spend the rest of his time promoting all manner of dangerous pseudoscience, all I know is that I hope it's Attenborough when the DVDs come out.

Happy Saturday!

2010-04-03T20:47:00.002-05:00

Today is a weird day.

You know, we've got Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday, but what of Saturday? I'm sure it probably has a traditional name; the fannish authors of Christian dogma over the centuries are far too meticulous to leave such an obvious day unnamed and uncatalogued. But that name is at least uncommon enough that I've never heard it or seen it referenced anywhere.

If I were to offer a cynical suspicion, I'd say that Christians don't want to draw attention to it. After all, this Saturday represents o e of the most obvious and silly contradictions in the Christian narrative. According to the story, Jesus was crucified sometime on Friday (exactly when depends on which gospel you read), buried in a cave where he lay for three days, and then resurrected on Sunday morning. No matter how you slice it, there's no way to squeeze the necessary number of days out of that schedule. It's a trivial mistake, only significant because of how much emphasis is placed on the "three days in the tomb" part of the story.

So I propose a name for this Saturday, a magical day that somehow became two: Lengthy Saturday. Go ye now and celebrate it in the traditional fashion: by pointing out the silliness and inconsistencies of the 'inerrant' book that serves as the foundation of monotheism. Just don't forget that, regardless of the story, there's still only 24 hours in this day, just like any other.

Losin' it

2010-03-30T20:30:00.006-05:00

I'm overweight. I've had a couple of recent epiphanies regarding that fact, and I haven't been comfortable with how I look (or what size pants I have to buy) for quite a long time. Finally, I've decided to do something about it, and I wish I'd made the decision--or rather, the commitment--earlier. So I've looked up some decent science-based nutrition sites, followed Greta Christina's advice, and downloaded a couple of calorie-counting apps. I also walked close to three miles today on a whim (it's shocking how short a trip that actually is), even though the exercise plan I developed on DailyBurn doesn't have me exercising on Mondays.

I've thrown myself into this pretty wholeheartedly, and I'm fairly confident that I'll be successful. I owe that confidence to my skeptical, scientific mindset. First, I'm going to be seeking out solutions and practices supported by evidence. That's going to require the second thing: lots of research. I've already been hitting the websites of some of my favorite restaurants for nutrition information, and I've gotten calorie recommendations from three or four different sources (haven't talked to a doctor yet, but that's on my agenda). Finally, I'll be collecting and recording data regularly and diligently, so I have some objective idea of how well I'm doing. I've set reasonable goals and I have a reasonable attitude about what I can (and am likely to) achieve, and I'm not starting on a crash diet that I know won't work in the long term.

Unfortunately, I have already hit a couple of stumbling blocks. First, the estimates for my healthy weight are all over the damn map (I can't imagine what I'd look like at 6' and 138 lbs, but I suspect I wouldn't have all my limbs), which means the numbers I've gotten for a daily calorie intake are similarly widespread. I've settled on the DailyBurn recommendation of 2458-2708, though I think I'd like to keep it closer to 2200, which was the ballpark of another program's estimate. So far it seems more than doable.

The other big problem I've hit is a lack of data. Sure, I can find nutrition information for a huge number of things, but the milkshake I got tonight to round out my calorie count (and in hopes of increasing my protein intake)? Not a nutrition pamphlet in sight. I used a reasonable facsimile in my count, but I think the solution is going to have to be avoiding some of those little mom-and-pop places with food of unknown value. I hate this whole dearth of information thing, and I really hate guessing--it goes against my instincts.

I don't have any kind of conclusion (talk to me in a few months). I'm just sharing one more way that a healthy skeptical, rational attitude can help you out, and hoping that anyone with more/better information, estimates, and so forth can share their findings as well. Yay science!

Putting the call out

2010-03-29T17:47:00.001-05:00

I've decided that I'll be doing a talk at GenCon about e-mail forwards and chain letters, and how they make a great introduction to skeptical thinking.

But years of responding to forwarded e-mails have left my inbox relatively bereft of them. So I put the call to you, dear readers: forward me your favorite (or least favorite) glurges, bad luck chain letters, hoaxes, 419 scams, ads for unlikely products, missing children notices, prayer requests, and so forth. Send them to this address:

Spread this around; I'd like as many bad e-mails as I can get without trawling Snopes! And thanks!

Just a quick rant

2010-03-28T17:30:00.003-05:00

I've got some posts percolating, but I need a moment to vent about something that's been bugging me recently. I can't really remember the last time I actually had a decent online argument with a believer of one form or another. I've had one or two exchanges that looked promising, and some that went around in frustrating circles, but mostly my recent arguments have been with other skeptics.

And it's getting tiresome.

It'd be different if there were some other topic, but it's always the same damn point: outspoken atheists are hurting the skeptical cause/making skeptics look bad/tearing the skeptical movement apart/overstepping the bounds of science and skepticism.

Suffice it to say, I disagree. But in my disagreement, I'm not chastising other skeptics for being too soft on religion. I'm not telling other skeptics that I think the future of skepticism lies in hardcore affirmative atheism. I'm not crafting bizarre strawmen about how accomodationist skeptics want to kick out all the outspoken atheists so they can purify the party. I'm not trying to redefine science to say that it must weigh in negatively on all god hypotheses. I'm not attaching "-gate" to every minor disagreement on message boards or blogs or Twitter. I'm not suggesting that the only way to combat woo is through ridicule and derision. I'm not arrogantly asserting that my way of approaching skepticism and atheism is the right way or the only way--or even that there is some single better way--to do so. And I'm certainly not telling other people in the movement that they're going to tear the movement apart by being insufficiently outspoken about their godlessness.

See, I can disagree without thinking that everyone else should share my opinion or methods. Why the hell does this seem to be such a rare position?

Look, skeptics come from a bunch of different backgrounds. We have a bunch of different beliefs and personalities and philosophies. We ought to embrace that, not try to shove everyone into one pigeonhole or another. And the last thing we should do is set aside the beliefs or ideas of one group of people as beyond the reach of critical questioning, whether for reasons of politisse or apparent impossibility. I think we should be as willing to question Hal Bidlack's faith as we are Penn Jillette's climate change "agnosticism" or Bill Maher's anti-medicine stance or Michael Shermer's libertarianism. In fact, I'd say that most aspects of libertarianism (and politics in general) are much farther outside the range of science than, say, religious belief or assertion of a deity's existence, and yet I think we should apply the same skeptical approach to it as we would to any other worldview.

But other people disagree, and that's okay. Just don't tell me I'm doing it wrong because my priorities and philosophies differ from yours. Don't tell me that science and skepticism have some magical invisible boundaries that you've dreamed up (and that the vast majority of scientists and skeptics would disagree with). Don't tell me that certain methods--such as ridicule, parody, and the occasional angry rant--are counterproductive when those methods are among the most visible and popular (even outside the movement). Don't tell me that I'm tearing apart the movement when my philosophy is "everyone should be able to do their own thing, but nothing should be exempt from questioning." Don't tell me--in any variation of terms or degree of subtlety--that your way is the one right way to do things.

And if you want to tell me any of those things, then I've got one demand: present the data, or shut the fuck up. Because the one thing I haven't seen from any of these self-proclaimed etiquette cops and method masters is evidence. Strange that people who want to define skepticism and set the stage for the next phases of the movement would omit such a key component of any skeptical argument.

Woo Triage

2010-02-28T11:58:00.005-06:00

I commented on the recent thing at the Universe blog, but I think the author's comments in the section where my post never quite materialized warrant some additional commentary, spinning off into something a little more in-depth. I have two fairly distinct things to say with regard to the matter, so in the interest of actually finishing a post in a timely fashion, I'm writing this as a two-post series. Let's begin!

First, the sour grapes:

I don't want to seem like I'm backtracking (and I'm very sorry to have typecast Skeptics as fuddy-duddies), but it seems I've made too broad an argument about something specific. [...] I hate to say that the authoritarian, joyless zeal with which you've taken to shredding my point of view is, in effect, exactly what I'm talking about.

Yeah, far be it from a group that you've painted negatively with a common, obnoxious, tiresome stereotype to respond to that stereotype with some degree of authority (i.e., being relatively sure of what we're talking about) and without joy. I suppose we should append a little smiley emoticon every time we sigh, roll our eyes, and start drafting the usual response to inane comments like 'you just want to tear things down' and 'what's the harm of UFO belief'. What if I said that women make terrible scientists and science fiction authors because they're too emotional and romantic and not analytical enough? Or that a woman can't be President because she'll make the White House pink and bomb someone every 28 days? I wonder if debunking those common, inane canards would make you particularly joyful.

:D

Of course, I tried really hard to infuse my response with joy and humility and giving-the-benefit-of-the-doubt (it's hard to noun that verb), but it never got out of moderation. Further, the first video in your post--the one which sparks your criticism of skeptics--is apparently presented to criticize Bill Nye the Science Guy. Because as everyone knows, no one is more joyless or authoritarian a mere "debunker" as Bill Nye the Science Guy. And maybe it's just that my heart is shriveled to a third of its normal size due to years of cynical debunking, but I thought Treppenwitz and Skeptical Ginger also tried to inject some joy and humility into their posts. But I suppose it's easier to broadly dismiss anything that doesn't fit your preconceived bias than to concede any point. "I'm sorry for what I said, but this proves that what I said was right" is not an apology.

:D

On to the more substantive points:

In any case, I'm not speaking to any political form of pseudoscience -- excuse me, in my bubble, I forget this is a charged subject. Anti global warming "science," the dinosaurs-and-humans-together stuff, health quackery: clearly a worthy cause for debunking of all kinds.

I guess this may be a place where the sort of hardcore skepticism we typically engage in can seem unwarranted and off-putting. If you divide the woo-world into "harmful woo" and "harmless woo," then using the same approach for both sets might indeed seem over-the-top.

But skeptics on the whole, I think, don't make that distinction--at least, not with regard to arguing against it. It's the same question/criticism that atheists face: why go after the liberal religious people when they're mostly on our side? In both situations, the answer is basically the same. A person's beliefs do not exist in a vacuum. The beliefs we hold--and the way we arrived at those beliefs--affect the other things we're willing to accept and the actions we take. If people could just hold compartmentalized beliefs that had no real effects, then we'd have no real impetus to argue against them.

But that's not the case. You needn't look any farther than, say, Mike Adams to see how irrational beliefs beget irrational beliefs. I don't know enough about Mike to know what beliefs or system for accepting beliefs kicked the whole thing off, but if I had to guess I'd say that his belief in the healing power of alternative medicine led to his rejection of science-based medicine, which led to his distrust of the pharmeceutical industry, which led to his distrust of the government, which is why he thinks 9/11 was an inside job. On one hand, it's hard to see how "these herbs made my cold go away" can lead to "WTC 7 must have been a controlled demolition," but the intermediate steps are incremental.

Mike's an extreme example, sure. And I freely admit that my impression here is based on anecdotes rather than data. But I imagine it'd be the experience of most skeptics that crank magnetism is a strong force indeed: religious fundamentalists seem more likely to believe in possession and witchcraft, newage crystal enthusiasts seem more likely to believe in alternative energy medicine and psychics, and so forth. I'd be interested in seeing a rigorous study done, but I'm not aware of any.

See, it's not that people just have some irrational belief, it's that the irrational belief is emblematic of larger potential problems. People have standards for what beliefs they're willing to accept and what ideas they're willing to entertain. For skeptics, these standards are set by science and evidence; for believers of various stripes, the standards are set by the tenets of their religious beliefs or the details of their conspiracy narratives, and so forth. The beliefs--and thus, the standards which inform those beliefs--inform how the people who hold them will act, think, worry, vote, and otherwise affect other people around them.

And the effects range from the trivial (Bigfoot enthusiasts buying books on Cryptozoology, Spiritualists buying Ouija Boards) to the wantonly destructive (parents killing their children through religious-based medical neglect, governments condemning people to death through HIV/AIDS denial). No one denies that, which is why you're more likely to find outrage over Jenny McCarthy than Jeff Meldrum.

But how much does a belief or belief system have to impinge on other people's rights and well-being before it warrants debunking? Does it need to be death, as in the case of antivaxxers and HIV/AIDS denialists? Does it need to be widespread impending catastrophe, in the case of climate change denialists and GMO fearmongerS? You see no problem, apparently, with the New-Agers and the cryptozoologists; is it similarly unproblematic when legislators waste time and resources on protecting Bigfoot or investigating remote viewing? How much of my tax money has to go to pseudoscience and quackery before I have legitimate cause to be upset?

One of my biggest problems with all kinds of woo-woo is that it has this tendency to completely invert people's priorities by providing them with imaginary worries and concerns that supersede real worries and concerns. Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists become more concerned with remaining pure and sinless than with treating their life-threatening diseases; religious fundamentalists become more concerned with the coming Apocalypse than with helping create peace in the Middle East or fight climate change; conspiracy nuts become so fearful and distrustful of the secret plots of their governments that they overlook real harm that the governments are doing under the light of day. One of the best examples I can provide personally comes from Debra, the conspiracy theorist whose belief in a vague Satanic Illuminati plot to kill most of humanity and enslave the rest, led her to stockpile canned goods, panic over being potentially followed by Men in Black, and seek out truth in comic books and satirical videos. Meanwhile, she had a fairly young son, and had altered her plans of travel and family vacations and entertainment so that she could instead spend the money on supplies for when things got bad.

On one hand, the only people she's harming are herself and her family, so why should I care? It's her money, and she can do with it as she pleases, and it's really no skin off my nose. What purpose is served by arguing against her beliefs if they don't harm me?

And on the more relevant hand, why wouldn't I care? Here's a relatively normal, relatively healthy woman whose irrational beliefs have caused her to make major alterations to her life in order to prepare for a coming catastrophe that will never actually come. In doing so, she misses out on time with her family and causes herself all manner of considerable, completely unnecessary fear and worry. What kept hitting me, over and over in the conversation with Debra, was how tragic her story was. I felt really sad for her, and angry at the Alex Joneses and Jim Marrses who had actively harmed her life by spreading these false beliefs. I argued with her not so I could prove that I was right, but so that I could convince her to seek professional help and maybe have more time to spend with her son than with the phantom enforcers of the Illuminati. I argued with her not because her beliefs harmed me, but because they harmed her.

This is why we argue against even harmless woo: because it so rarely is. Even if it isn't influencing legislation or policy, even if it's not killing people or speeding along environmental catastrophe, it's still affecting people's lives and doing so in a negative fashion. I "debunk" because I think people's lives are generally better if they're employing critical thinking and scientific reasoning. I "debunk" so that I can help people stop living and thinking according to the dictates of fictional narratives and start living in the real world. "Debunking," as I said in my comment, is a first step--and a necessary one--in the general process of education. And education, as far as I'm concerned, rarely needs justification.

:)

Skepticism and Language

2010-02-28T10:19:00.002-06:00

Something has become apparent to me in some conversations recently: being a skeptic changes the way I use particular words and phrase things. I am very particular about the words "belief" and "faith," for instance, being careful not to use the former when talking about things like science (where it's a matter of acceptance, not belief), and being careful to use the latter...pretty much never. When I talk about things I remember, I often preface or qualify the statement with a phrase that recognizes how flawed and malleable memory is.

So, dear readers, I put the question to you: How has your skepticism changed the way you talk?

An interesting experiment

2010-02-26T21:09:00.005-06:00

A friend of mine and fellow vocal atheist has started up a new blog as a sort of religious exchange program. He agreed to read the Bible if his friend agreed to read The Blind Watchmaker. Both are blogging about it, and I'm interested in how it all turns out. There's not much there yet, but I know that steady comments and regular readers are a pretty good impetus to keep writing, so please go check it out:

Understanding the Christian
And the Christian counter-blog is at:

Understanding the Skeptic
Enjoy!

Skeptical Current Events

2010-02-25T22:14:00.005-06:00

Despite my absence from blogging lately, big happenings are...happening in the skeptical world. Here's a brief run-down of some of them:

First, my good friend Akusai of the Action Skeptics will be appearing on Skeptically Speaking ~~this Friday~~ next Friday, March 5th, at 8 PM EST to talk about the Skeptic Symposium we're doing at Gen Con this year. Give it a listen; I certainly will!

Did I mention the Skeptic Symposium at Gen Con? Because it finna be off the chain, yo! Akusai, Magus, myself, Jon Maxson, and various other skeptical folks will be gathering together for a variety of presentations, talks, and events, including an awesome vaccine fundraiser. Akusai has done all the heavy lifting to get this whole shebang together, while I've slacked off so much that I can't even return e-mails to important organizations in a timely fashion, so make sure to give him oodles of kudos for his efforts while I ride his coattails to skeptical stardom.

Speaking of me riding coattails, Akusai has also been working on Skepchicamp, a Chicago-based event featuring presentations by some of the biggest names in the Skeptosphere, including Akusai, Bug Girl, various Skepchicks and Hemant Mehta! Also, I'll be there to talk about something or other, but you can skip that bit if you want. Heck, I might even skip it, depending on how long the book-signing line around Hemant is, so I can't blame you. In any case, you know you want to come, so get your ticket and show up at the Brehon Pub in Chicago on March 6th (next Saturday) from Noon to 10 PM CST.

In other news, the forums over at RichardDawkins.net have shut down amidst a great deal of drama. I first learned of this from Peter Harrison, a former moderator on the blog who provided an in-depth look into the ugly politics and dirty dealings surrounding the whole event. He presents a level-headed account backed up with direct quotes from people involved, and it doesn't look good for the administration team at the Dawkins site.

Which is why I was so puzzled when PZ wrote a post about it, saying he didn't want to get involved, and making a series of irrelevant points that displayed either an ignorance of the complaints (despite linking to the Peter Harrison post) or an amazing strawman of the complainants. The situation was exacerbated when Dawkins himself did much the same thing, painting all the disgruntled commenters with the violently colorful and abusive language of a few, and citing those over-the-top comments as justification for the forum's closing when, in fact, the comments came from a different forum after the RD.net forums had been closed and mangled.

I didn't have a horse in this race, really. I haven't ever been a regular visitor to those forums. If I'd heard about the situation from PZ first, I likely would have just rolled my eyes regarding another overreaction by peoples on the Internet to trivial wrongs. But reading the Harrison account gave me a different perspective, and (as I mentioned in the Pharyngula comments) made me want to find out both sides of the story.

Unfortunately, I couldn't. See, apparently in shutting down posting on the RD.net forums, the admins deleted several users, thousands of posts, and at least one thread critical of the coming changes. So, as much as I would have liked to have seen if the critical threads on the RD.net forums were as abusive as they supposedly were, I couldn't. The evidence had been destroyed, which further confirmed at least part of the Harrison account.

This made me realize something important: nothing will cause me to distrust a person or organization faster than seeing them hide or destroy relevant evidence. The moderators and posters who have since flocked to boards like Rationalia may have all been overreacting potty-mouthed nutcases, whose abusive behavior led to the premature locking of the board, but without the offending thread, no one but the admins has any way of knowing that. Given the dearth of evidence to support what little explanation or argument has been put forth by the admin side, and actions like destroying evidence that at least seem quite dishonest and do nothing to promote trust or the appearance of trustworthiness, it seems to me that the only justified position would be to accept the moderators' account of the events. Which, again, reflects rather poorly on the administration.

Ultimately, yes, this is a trivial thing, but it's a microcosm for similar behaviors and situations outside of the Internet. If we're being good skeptics, then our natural drive should be to doubt any story regarding events, examine the evidence, and draw our own conclusions about whom to believe. Consequently, destroying evidence--even (or perhaps especially) if that evidence is of hateful comments and angry dissent--should be anathema to the skeptic. If anything should be sacrosanct to skeptics, it should be evidence.

So when a major voice in the skeptical movement engages in apparent quote-mining and at least apparently suborns the destruction of evidence, it really casts them in a negative light, more than most things they could do (kind of like when they fail to quickly or adequately respond to a pseudoscientific buffoon being given a science award in their name).

This should be an object lesson in skeptical advocacy, especially in the Internet age. Skeptical blogs shouldn't be afraid to allow negative and dissenting comments, and skeptics should be aware that allowing idiots and assholes to speak for themselves ultimately shows them to be idiots and assholes to any reasonable person. We often talk about how debates aren't for the people involved so much as they are for the audience, and this is true even when it's not actually a debate. Silencing critics, banning dissidents, and throwing evidence down the memory hole is what they do on Age of Autism and Uncommon Descent and Natural News. It should not be standard practice on any site that values reason, evidence, science, and skepticism.

Finally, for tonight, I stumbled on a post at an apparently recent addition to the ScienceBlogs community, Universe. I'll admit that the blogs I follow on Sb are relatively limited; I rarely venture outside of Pharyngula, Respectful Insolence, and Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Sure, I hit up ERV occasionally, and I've recently become a fan of Tomorrow's Table, but I don't usually tool around the Seed Media conglomerate looking for new hangouts.

But I followed a sidebar link to a post called "No Skepticism Policy" that was about the last thing I would expect to find on the media group which plays home to so many skeptical and scientific voices. It's ignorant in the purest sense, in that I don't think there's a lot of malice involved, just a general unawareness of what the skeptical movement is about (and a lack of desire to find out) and what the harm is, coupled with a willingness to smear an entire intellectual movement with the same Doggerel we hear from every quack with a blog and a degree in pomposity. I posted a comment in response to the post, but it hasn't made its way out of moderation yet. I'm reproducing the comment below because I'm kind of proud of it, and I think it underscores something that even budding skeptics often forget: that debunking is the first step, not the last. Enjoy!

I can't recall which skeptical luminary said it (I've heard it repeated several times, however), but the point of good skepticism shouldn't be just "debunking," and good skeptics understand this. Debunking is a necessary step, however; it clears out the garbage so that something better can be built. I won't lie and say that there aren't people in the movement who forget this essential second step, but to broadly paint all skeptics with the "just debunking," "you just want to tear things down" canard is ludicrous and ignorant. Go to any of the major skeptical sites, shows, or podcasts, and what you'll find is exactly what the advice I started out suggests: debunking presented alongside or as an introduction to quality education and enthusiasm about reality and good science. For instance, the UFO video you present was also "debunked" by Captain Disillusion, who discussed the same point as the video above while also demonstrating just how impressive the CGI artistry was, providing an object lesson in how knee-jerk skepticism can be just as wrong as blind belief, and being damned entertaining.

And you don't even have to scratch the surface to find the same thing on any skeptical site, forum, or outlet, whether it's Brian Dunning's concise explanations of real science or the Novella brothers' infectious enthusiasm about birds and nanotechnology and solar power or PZ Myers's pictures of beautiful aquatic fauna or Orac's Tales of the Hitler Zombie, I propose you'd have to do a pretty thorough search of the skeptical movement before you found any major voices who were just "debunkers." Those who are, I suspect, are much like the author of the video you cited: uninteresting. There wouldn't be a skeptical movement if it were just about "debunking." I have a hard time imagining anyone buying a book or attending a convention or booking a cruise to hear nothing but people lambasting pseudoscience.

It's all well and good to "believe in good science," but the layperson cares as much about that as she does about UFO-man's idiosyncratic belief system. The goal of good skepticism--and the practice of each and every popular skeptic--is to correct that latter problem, by being unashamed promoters of reality and hoping that their enthusiasm will infect others.

It's that time again

2010-02-17T19:25:00.003-06:00

Happy Wednesday, everyone!

Disillusioned

2010-02-01T00:30:00.002-06:00

Over the last several months, I've gotten into watching a lot of scientific and skeptical videos on YouTube. I've become quite the fan of Thunderf00t, C0nc0rdance, AronRa, potholer54, dprjones, QualiaSoup, and a dozen other great YouTubers, but the first one I watched regularly was Captain Disillusion. Captain D has produced quite a few great, smart, funny videos with high production values, debunking popular videos and whatnot. It's been pretty awesome. Unfortunately, he hasn't been around for several months, and that's part of what made me seek out the rest of YouTube's prodigious skeptical community.

Well, he's back, and with a five-video recap of TAM 7 that is fantastic. The first video is embedded below, but watch 'em all; they're worth it.

Finglonger?

2010-01-30T18:28:00.002-06:00

I have to imagine that everyone's heard of the various studies and reports that claim that men tend to have longer ring fingers than index fingers, then go on to link any number of other traits and factors--athletic ability, sexuality, spatial reasoning, stock market success, autism--to digit length ratio. The Wikipedia page has some relatively plausible information about why the correlation might exist--at least between gender and digit ratio--but also notes that there's a large overlap in the ratio distributions between genders.

Frankly, there's not much in modern pop culture notions of science that sets my bullshit detector ringing quite like this stuff. It stinks of phrenology and palmistry, though I haven't yet found anyone claiming a causal link between digit ratio and any of these other things (except that supposedly the ratio is evidence of prenatal exposure levels to masculinizing hormones). And despite this, I haven't been able to find much of anything--support or skepticism--in the usual skeptical sources. There are a couple of threads on the JREF forums that bat it around a little, but no one seems to have anything solid one way or another on the subject. The one thing that seems to pop up every time I find this topic is a chorus of comments from people for whom the supposed correlation fails; anecdotal, uncontrolled, and self-selected though such a population is, it does suggest to me that the correlation might be less strong than the popular understanding suggests.

So I put the question to you, dear readers: Know of any solid research definitively supporting or debunking the digit ratio connection stuff? In addition, what do you think about it?

A relevant and somewhat political comic

2010-01-29T22:22:00.002-06:00

Not to keep banging the same drum too much, but this recent Dinosaur Comic mentions something that Mike Adams somehow didn't understand.

Yes, the water in our toilets--provided we've cleaned the bowl--is just the same as the water from the faucet. And you know, that is quite ridiculous. I mean, I suppose it saves on weird plumbing systems to have all water-using appliances drawing from one source as opposed to internally recycling, but the dinos really have a point here.

Minor things

2010-01-26T21:22:00.005-06:00

First, this column at Slacktivist is amazing.

Second, tomorrow is Wednesday, January 27th. At 10:00/9:00 Central is the mid-season premiere of Psych on USA Network. I've been planning to write up a full post about Psych for some time, but every time I pop in one of the nifty DVDs I got for some recent winter gift-giving festival, I get a little distracted. I hesitate recommending the show only because it sometimes feels like it's targeted directly at my weird '80s-reference-based sense of humor, and I don't know if that works for many people. It certainly doesn't work for a lot of the people who hear my weird '80s-reference-based attempts at humor. In any case, the relevance to this blog is that Psych is one of the best skeptical shows on TV. Now, it's not hard science or skepticism like Mythbusters or anything; it's more skeptical in the vein of the original Scooby-Doo. For those who don't know, it's a mystery series following a fake psychic detective who works with a somewhat credulous police department. The protagonist is hyper-observant, which serves him both in the over-the-top psychic pantomime and the whole mystery-solving routine. Despite having some potential rooting in woo-woo, the show has tackled "real" psychics, ghosts, mummies, and other "paranormal" topics without ever giving credence to the supernatural. In the end, it always turns out to be the dude who owned the abandoned amusement park.

To recap: tomorrow night. Catch it!

Finally, I never quite managed to write up my review of They Might Be Giants' newest album, the absolutely incredible "Here Comes Science." Had I done so, I would have mentioned that my only real problem with the entire album was that their video for the song "Put it to the Test" used the word "theory" when they really meant "hypothesis." See for yourself:

Well, once again¹, They Might Be Giants have demonstrated their commitment to modeling the self-correcting process of science: they fixed the video.

Simply fantastic. If you like science and quirky music, the album comes highly recommended, and you should pick it up. If you don't like quirky music, then the album comes highly recommended, and you should pick it up for your kids!

Gosh, this post comes across sounding like a commercial, doesn't it? I hope my corporate paymasters are paying attention.

1. If you don't know already, They Might Be Giants recorded a song in the '80s called "Why Does the Sun Shine? (The Sun is a Mass of Incandescent Gas)." It was a cover of an educational song from the '50s, and they rerecorded it for "Here Comes Science." The cool part is that, recognizing how much we've learned since 1951, the next track on the album is a follow-up called "Why Does the Sun Really Shine? (The Sun is a Miasma of Incandescent Plasma)." Not only do they update and correct the earlier tune, but they manage to work the line "that thesis has been rendered invalid" into verse.

Truth in Advertising

2010-01-25T21:55:00.005-06:00

So, one of Mike Adams' wonderfully hysterical articles loaded up on my browser when I restarted Firefox. I'm not entirely sure what happened in the process, but the serendipity was delicious (the emphasis, but not the text, is mine):

Now if only we can get "fractally wrong" and "intended for entertainment purposes only" disclaimers on there, we'll be in business.

You like me, etc.

2010-01-25T15:41:00.003-06:00

As of this writing, my last post has been awarded the Internet by The Atheist Experience, has been Tweeted by Phil Plait and retweeted by Grassroots Skeptics, and has gotten commented on by Zeno and Heathen Mike. All that, plus my usual skeptical friends like Bronze Dog and Skeptico, and lots of new people. I've had 1,145 page views today, over an average of 60 (I'm surprised it's that high, given my low output of late).

I feel like the belle of the ball.

So, if nothing else, this has inspired me to get off my tuchus and write a little more frequently, so I can hopefully retain some of the new influx of readers. If you're new here, take a look around, feel free to comment on old posts. I'll be responding to the comments and criticisms in the Mike Adams post, I'm planning to follow up (a little less comprehensively) on his smug response to the skeptics, and I promised to do a post on GMOs. After that, I'll see about dusting off some of the posts I've been meaning to finish for weeks.

Thanks for the compliments and the kick in the ass, everyone!

This is the worst Ranger since Turbo

2010-01-24T10:24:00.001-06:00

Update! In my haste to get away from the bastion of woo that is NaturalNews.com, I missed the link which said that the craziness continues if you register. I've added the new commentary between the horizontal rules down below, and many thanks to commenter blf in PZ's comments for notifying everyone else of the unabridged version.

So, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, doesn't like skeptics. He doesn't like them so much that he decided to write a scathing article about "what 'skeptics' really believe" without actually bothering to find out what skeptics really believe. Apparently he has his knickers in a twist because of the Twitter-based Shorty Awards, where he was winning until it was discovered that a bunch of his votes were coming from dubious Twitter accounts, and supporters of actual medicine voted an actual doctor into the top spot. So, after accusing science-based medicine advocates of lying about the fraudulent votes propping him up, Adams decided that the best course of action would be to do some lying himself, in the form of an article that boasts more strawmen than a Wizard of Oz convention. It's easy pickings, and I'm sure Orac and Steve Novella will be all over it soon enough, but I figured it'd give me a chance to exercise some atrophied snark muscles.

(NaturalNews) In the world of medicine, "skeptics" claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth.

Citation please.

Everyone who disagrees with them is just a quack, they insist.

No, not everyone, just the ones claiming to provide medical services without the backing of evidence. We don't call Creationists quacks, for instance, we call them wackaloons. There's a detailed taxonomy, remind me to send you the poster.

Briefly stated, "skeptics" are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy.

You could have said "skeptics are in favor of real medicine" and saved yourself some typing.

They are opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, chiropractic care, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer and therapeutic touch.

And again, "they are opponents of things which haven't been shown to work, or have been shown not to work." Sure, it's only one word shorter, but it's far more accurate.

But there's much more that you need to know about "skeptics." As you'll see below, they themselves admit they have no consciousness and that there is no such thing as a soul, a spirit or a higher power.

I don't think "consciousness" means what you think it means. But again, "they don't believe things for which there is no evidence" would be more economic.

There is no life after death. In fact, there's not much life in life when you're a skeptic.

Actually, there's a lot of life in life when you're a skeptic. In fact, thanks to modern science-based medicine, there's a lot more life in life than there used to be. I get to live a lot longer than my ancestors did, and thanks to all those treatments you dismiss--vaccines, mammograms, chemotherapy, etc.--I get to live through things that would either shorten (cancer, influenza, meningitis) or negatively impact (polio, shingles) my life. There was a time when prayer, herbal remedies, and such were the standard medical practice. Around the same time, 2/3 of Europe died of the plague. Perhaps there's a connection.

What skeptics really believe

Note: this is not what skeptics really believe.

I thought it would be interesting to find out exactly what "skeptics" actually believe, so I did a little research and pulled this information from various "skeptic" websites.

"I also neglected to provide actual quotes or links to said sites, so you'll just have to take my word that all this is totally representative, I swear."

What I found will make you crack up laughing so hard that your abs will be sore for a week. Take a look...

I have a feeling that you're right, but not for the reasons you think.

• Skeptics believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective (even if they've never been tested),

Really? Show me a vaccine available for public consumption that has never been tested. Then, show me a homeopathic remedy that has been tested and found both safe and effective. I'll even give you a tip: don't start with Zicam.

that ALL people should be vaccinated, even against their will,

That's getting to murky legal and ethical waters. Obviously people shouldn't have medical procedures inflicted on them without their consent. On the other hand, people who have taken reasonable measures to protect themselves from preventable diseases shouldn't have their lives endangered because anti-science quacks have convinced people that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. And the children of antivax kooks and suckers shouldn't be endangered because their parents couldn't sort out science from nonsense.

and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given. So injecting all children with, for example, 900 vaccines all at the same time is believed to be perfectly safe and "good for your health."

I'd like to know who you're quoting there, Mike. Sure, there's a limit to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given. I mean, at some point you're going to be diluting the blood to a dangerous degree. And I'm sure there are dosages of any chemical in vaccines which would be dangerous--after all, anything is deadly in large enough amounts. This is why we have guidelines and tests and studies to determine what the safe limits are, and why we keep any dosages well below those limits. You're almost right in one respect, though, and that's that skeptics understand that the human body's capacity for dealing with pathogens is many orders of magnitude greater than what's present in vaccines. I mean, the immune system is dealing with countless attacks from all fronts 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Adding a few weakened or dead viruses into the mix--or even more benign, some bits of viral coat or surface proteins--barely even registers. It's just enough for the body to take notice, build up defenses, and continue dealing with the real threats.

• Skeptics believe that fluoride chemicals derived from the scrubbers of coal-fired power plants are really good for human health.

What does the source of a chemical have to do with how healthy it is? A fluoride molecule from a coal-fired power plant is exactly the same as a fluoride molecule from anywhere else--including from the natural fluoridated water sources that first tipped people off to the idea of fluoridating water. Moreover, you do realize that coal comes from plants, right? Don't you like plants?

They're so good, in fact, that they should be dumped into the water supply so that everyone is forced to drink those chemicals, regardless of their current level of exposure to fluoride from other sources.

Who's forcing anyone to drink tap water? You don't like it? Buy bottled, get a filter that traps fluoride, move overseas. If you can't accept the basic chemistry and biology behind water fluoridation--not to mention the clinical evidence supporting its safety and effectiveness--then you have plenty of options available to you.

• Skeptics believe that many six-month-old infants need antidepressant drugs.

Citation please.

In fact, they believe that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time: Antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping drugs and more -- simultaneously!

Do you know how science-based medical practitioners can make those claims? Because we've done the legwork to find out how different medications affect the body, and how they might interact with one another. See, when you rely on science and evidence to guide your medical practices, you're able to make specific diagnoses, specific prescriptions, and specific warnings and predictions about how different drugs will interact. Tell me, Mike, what kind of interactions can I expect if I see both a chiropractor and an acupuncturist? Is there a chance that by fixing a subluxation I might end up blocking a chi meridian? If I'm taking an herbal sleep remedy and a homeopathic sleeping pill, am I at risk for overdose? What happens if I pray during all this? Does God consider any of these things to be witchcraft or magic or otherwise verboten?

When your "medicine" is based on fairy tales and fantasies, it really doesn't matter how they combine, does it? Just go ahead and pay your naturopath, chiropractor, acupuncturist, Ayurvedic healer, reflexologist, TT practitioner, and homeopath simultaneously; there's no danger of harmful interactions except between their hands and your wallet.

• Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines.

This is absolutely hilarious, because it really goes to show just how little the Health Ranger knows about basic, grade-school science. The reason vaccines work is because of the immune system. When the immune system is exposed to new pathogens, it develops weapons to fight them, so it's already prepared the next time there's an encounter. What vaccines do is make the initial encounter harmless. Instead of encountering the pathogen in the wild and hoping your body survives long enough to develop the virus-specific weaponry, you encounter the virus--or parts of the virus--in a controlled situation. Your body is made aware of the threat and prepares accordingly, so that when you do encounter the wild pathogen, you're already ready.

It's the difference between trying to fashion wooden stakes and crosses in the middle of a full-on surprise vampire invasion, and finding a weakened vampire crawling into town so you can stockpile stakes and garlic before the dangerous ones show up. I know which situation I'd rather be in: forewarned is forearmed.

• Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis. (They are opponents of natural childbirth.)

Define "natural childbirth." I mean, I may be radical in thinking that pain is generally a bad thing, and if we can lessen or avoid it, we should. I also think that pregnancy is a medical condition, which necessarily requires medical care and supervision if the child is to be born as safely and healthily as possible. Or are you opposed to folic acid supplements too? Childbirth is dangerous for both mother and child, and so it should be supervised by people who know what to do if a baby is born strangled by its umbilical cord, not people who think that the best environment for a newborn is a lukewarm bathtub contaminated with feces and afterbirth. And if we can make the process go down without all the natural pain that derives from a series of evolutionary compromises, so much the better.

• Skeptics do not believe in hypnosis. This is especially hilarious since they are all prime examples of people who are easily hypnotized by mainstream influences.

Wow, an equivocation on the term hypnosis. And used in such a witty way! Yes, buck that mainstream, Mike! Screw germ theory and sanitation and the scientific method, what we really need are some health rebels!

• Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness.

I beg to differ.

They do not believe in the mind; only in the physical brain.

This is simply asinine. It's equivalent to saying "they do not believe in sight, only in the physical eye." The mind is what the brain does. It's an emergent property of the physical brain. This doesn't mean there's no such thing as consciousness, it just means that consciousness isn't some supernatural mystery.

In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves are mindless automatons who have no free will, no soul and no consciousness whatsoever.

The matters of free will and the existence of the soul are ones that skeptics debate freely and frequently; the former depends largely on how we define "free will," the latter depends on various factors including the religious convictions of the skeptic. In any case, since my soul has never had a broken bone or a headcold, I don't see how this is relevant to medicine.

• Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).

This is hilarious, for lots of reasons. First, it's patently untrue. Skeptics (and everyone else) recognize that living foods and dead foods have very different nutritional properties. For instance, living foods have lots of bacteria and parasites and other things living on and in them, which is why we tend to cook chickens instead of just biting their heads off. Second, aside from carnival geeks and Ozzy Osbourne, who eats "living foods"? I suppose we could quibble about when exactly a lettuce leaf or apple is no longer living, but as soon as it's plucked and plated, it certainly isn't going to be carrying out its life functions much longer. By the time any foods, living or otherwise, get to any part of the digestive tract where nutritional properties matter at all, I think we can safely call them dead. Finally, what is the big nutritional difference between a dead food and a living food? There are certainly different chemical processes that take place in different stages, and cooking obviously changes various properties (denaturing proteins and all that), but the lettuce leaf example really underscores the problem: when is a food "dead"? At what point does the nutritional value change? Living things are made of the same cells and chemicals as dead things, and living things necessarily become dead things on the way toward the intestines, so what is the general nutritional difference between the two?

Maybe you're just not eating its soul. That must be it.

• Skeptics believe that pesticides on the crops are safe,

Safer than the pests. Pests don't rinse off.

genetically modified foods are safe,

All foods have been genetically modified. Most of it was done crudely, haphazardly, and in a totally undirected fashion by natural selection over millions of years. Eventually, humans came on the scene and invented agriculture and animal husbandry, and we've been genetically modifying food ever since. Nowadays, we can just do it a whole lot better, quicker, and safer than we could before, since we're working on genotypes instead of phenotypes. So yes, skeptics think genetically modified foods are safe, and if you've ever eaten a banana or an ear of corn, you do too.

and that any chemical food additive approved by the FDA is also safe.

Well, more or less. Certainly safer than dietary supplements and herbal remedies not approved by the FDA.

There is no advantage to buying organic food, they claim.

We don't claim that, the evidence does.

• Skeptics believe that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration. Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).

That's right, skeptics hold the shocking belief that chemistry is true and water isn't magic!

Quacks, on the other hand, believe that if you shook the water from your toilet just right, it might make a great cure for diarrhea¹.

• Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert, having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health. (The ignorance of this intellectual position is breathtaking...)

No, skeptics understand that many of the chemicals in plants certainly do have effects. Some of those effects may have great therapeutic value--say, salicylic acid from willow bark--and some of those effects may be extremely dangerous--say, the neurotoxin coniine from hemlock. What we need to do is subject plants with possible therapeutic effects to careful systematic tests to find out exactly what the effective chemicals are, exactly what effects they have, and exactly what dosages are safe and useful. Then, we isolate the effective chemical, purify it, and put it into specific dosages. That way, we can ensure that people are getting those phytochemicals in safe, effective dosages for specific ailments, not getting unregulated, potentially contaminated samples with unknown effects for general symptoms in unknown dosages, as they would with herbal supplements.

As to the nutrients, I like salad just as much as anyone else. I doubt that you'll find a skeptic who doesn't believe in the value of a balanced diet.

Edit

• Skeptics believe that the moon has no influence over life on Earth.

This is just ridiculous. Of course the moon has effects on living things--gravitational effects show up as tides, animals like moths use its light for direction, etc. These effects, however, are physical and validated by scientific observation.

Farming in sync with moon cycles is just superstition, they say. (So why are the cycles of life for insects, animals and humans tied to the moon, then?)

This, on the other hand, isn't. The Skeptic's Dictionary has a good article on lunar effects, what they are and aren't. The life cycles of humans, insects, and animals aren't tied to the moon (what you've heard about menstruation is myth and coincidence. The moon's effects on living things are nearly all due to the light it gives off, not some magical, metaphysical connections.

• Skeptics believe that the SUN has no role in human health other than to cause skin cancer. They completely deny any healing abilities of light.

That's right, skeptics disbelieve in photosynthesis and the production of vitamin D. The strawmen are getting more desperate.

• Skeptics believe that Mother Nature is incapable of synthesizing medicines.

Not incapable, just not very good at it. Evolution isn't in the business of manufacturing pure pharmeceuticals in discrete doses for specific ailments. Evolution is in the business of manufacturing organisms which reproduce themselves. Any natural medicines are byproducts, which is why we need to isolate the effective chemicals, purify them, and...well, I mentioned all that above. I assure you, no skeptic disbelieves in aspirin.

Only drug companies can synthesize medicines, they claim. (So why do they copy molecules from nature, then?)

Good question; maybe it's because your claim of what skeptics claim is entirely baseless. Yes, we copy chemicals from nature. We test them, isolate them, and improve on them. We figure out what effects they have on the body and find other chemicals that produce the same effects more efficiently. What we don't do is grind up random leaves, put them in unregulated capsules, and call them "treatment" or "medicine."

• Skeptics do not believe in intuition. They believe that mothers cannot "feel" the emotions of their infants at a distance. They write off all such "psychic" events as mere coincidence.

Skeptics don't disbelieve in intuition. We just recognize it for what it is: "a bridge between subconsciously processed information and the action of conscious thought." Hunches are not entirely unreliable--nor are they magical sources of perfect knowledge. They also aren't psychic phenomena, which for some reason always turn out to be indistinguishable from coincidence, trickery, or fallacious thinking when tested. We withhold belief in "psychic" events because there is no plausible mechanism behind them and because they always fall apart under careful investigation. If someone presented some good evidence of psychic phenomena, we'd change our minds--and give them a million dollars.

As to mothers feeling the emotions of their children at a distance, I have a question: why do baby monitors exist? If this intuitive ability were reliable or consistent, then why would any mother need a device that allows you to listen in on a baby in another room?

• Skeptics believe that all healing happens from the outside, from doctors and technical interventions. They do not believe that patients have any ability to heal themselves.

Dude, you're repeating yourself. Get a damn editor.

Thus, they do not ascribe any responsibility for health to patients. Rather, they believe that doctors and technicians are responsible for your health. Anyone who dismisses doctors and takes charge of their own health is therefore acting "irresponsibly," they claim.

Yes, skeptics think that the people best equipped to diagnose and treat disease are the people who have been specifically trained in how to diagnose and treat disease, and who do so with the backing of scientific evidence. We also think that the people best equipped to design buildings are the architects who have been specifically trained to draft structures with careful consideration of the materials involved and the potential complications of the building site, and who do so with the backing of scientific evidence. Just as it's irresponsible to build your own house with no training in architecture, design, or engineering, it's irresponsible to "take charge of [your] own health" with no training in medicine, anatomy, physiology, pathology, etc. Is it really so radical, so surprising, to suggest that tasks which require expertise are best done by experts?

• Skeptics believe that cell phone radiation poses absolutely no danger to human health. A person can be exposed to unlimited cell phone radiation without any damage whatsoever.

Shorter: Skeptics understand how the electromagnetic spectrum works. If low-energy, nonionizing, low-intensity microwaves that aren't even enough to cause heating had detectable physiological effects, then we'd experience it from natural sources--which are far more intense--as well. Furthermore, if low-energy microwaves could have terrible physiological effects on human health, then the far more intense visible radiation should be orders of magnitude more dangerous. And yet, you claim that light has healing effects. Strange how that is.

• Skeptics believe that aspartame and artificial chemical sweeteners can be consumed in unlimited quantities with no ill effects.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Dude, aspartame? Really? Sigh, okay, here goes: No, no scientifically-minded person thinks that anything can be consumed in unlimited quantities with no ill effects. Even your vaunted spring water is deadly in high doses (and depending on what's in it, possibly low doses as well). Scientists understand that toxicity is all a matter of dosage, not so much of substance (or the absurd dualist notions that you seem to employ). The Acceptable Daily Intake of aspartame, as determined through actual scientific investigation is 50 mg per kg of body weight. A can of diet soda contains 180 mg. For a 75 kg (a little over 150 lbs) person to exceed the ADI for aspartame, they'd have to consume 3750 mg of Aspartame, or about 21 cans of diet soda. I don't know anyone who drinks that much pop in a day on a regular basis, do you?

See, again, when science is the basis for your recommendations, you can actually make informed statements about the safety of various substances, rather than assuming that all natural things are okay and all artificial things are dangerous in any amount. If you're looking for more info on aspartame, here's a good place to start.

• Skeptics believe that human beings were born deficient in synthetic chemicals and that the role of pharmaceutical companies is to "restore" those deficiencies in humans by convincing them to swallow patented pills.

Citation please.

• Skeptics believe that you can take unlimited pharmaceuticals, be injected with an unlimited number of vaccines, expose yourself to unlimited medical imaging radiation, consume an unlimited quantity of chemicals in processed foods and expose yourself to an unlimited quantity of environmental chemical toxins with absolutely no health effects whatsoever!

First, you're repeating yourself again. Get a damn editor.

Second, all those things you mention have known safe dosages. No one believes that you can, for instance, be exposed to unlimited X-rays with no ill effect. That's why they give you a lead apron, that's why radiologists and technicians stand behind the shielding when they give you an X-ray, you boob. Every treatment carries with it some degree of danger, and thanks to science-based medicine, that degree is quantified before you ever lay down on the X-ray table.

All the beliefs listed above were compiled from "skeptics" websites. (I'm not going to list those websites here because they don't deserve the search engine rankings, but you can find them yourself through Google, if you wish.)

Ah, "I'm not going to document my sources, because I don't want them to feel special." One more difference between you and scientists. See, real medicine requires people to be explicit about their research and experiments, documenting every source of information. Imagine the uproar among alt-med proponents if a medication were released with documentation this sloppy. The truth is that you don't want to link to your sources because your readers might actually check them and find out that your statements are either ridiculous exaggerations of what skeptics say, or outright fabrications.

But you can prove me wrong, Mike: post your list of sources. Shut all the skeptics up by demonstrating that every one of your points is drawn from actual quotes from actual skeptic websites. I won't hold my breath.

Skeptics aren't consistently skeptical

Pot, meet kettle.

If you really look closely at the beliefs of "skeptics," you discover their skepticism is selective. They're really skeptical about some things -- like vitamins -- but complete pushovers on others such as the scientific credibility of drug company studies.

No, we're equally skeptical about both, requiring rigorous scientific evidence for either. When the rigorous scientific evidence validates a drug's effectiveness, we accept it (tentatively). When the rigorous scientific evidence shows vitamins to be largely unnecessary, we accept that too (tentatively). Where's the inconsistency?

Here are some of the many things that "skeptics" should be skeptical about, but aren't:

I'm sure this will be enlightening.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the corruption and dishonesty in the pharmaceutical industry. They believe whatever the drug companies say, without asking a single intelligent question.

Citation please. Drug companies are businesses like any other, and they have the bottom line as their main goal. Drug advertisements, despite the regulations, are just as prone to being misleading and slanted as ads for anything else. This is why we don't really care about drug companies so much as the scientific research behind the drugs. See, the research isn't conducted by just one company or just one scientist or just one group. It's conducted by a variety of people and validated by independent research. Drug trials have to be evaluated by a host of independent scientists and agencies who aren't concerned with Astra-Zeneca or Pfizer's bottom line, but who are concerned with safe and effective treatments validated by rigorous scientific evidence.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about medical journals. They believe whatever they read in those journals, even when much of it turns out to be complete science fraud.

Hey, you know who exposes science fraud? Skeptical scientists. Skeptics tentatively accept medical research that makes it to reputable journals, because most of us aren't trained medical researchers and don't have the resources to repeat every experiment that comes down the pipe. We trust the experts provisionally, just as we'd trust what the mechanic says when he examines our cars. And if something is hinky, we trust the scientific process to eventually expose it--to give us a second opinion on our car troubles, as it were. But even despite a lack of expert training on the part of most skeptics, we're still able to pick out the hallmarks of bad studies--low sample sizes, unstated conflicts of interest, subjective measurements, uncontrolled confounders, conclusions that don't match the data, poor blinding, etc.--which show up in a number of medical studies--especially in certain journals (*cough*alt-med journals*cough*). Skeptics--and especially skeptical scientists--are just as likely to pick these studies apart as any other.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the profit motive of the pharmaceutical industry. They believe that drug companies are motivated by goodwill, not by profits.

Right, and what motivates alt-med practitioners? What motivated Andrew Wakefield or the Geiers? Rainbows and butterflies? We're under no delusions about the desires of the pharmaceutical companies; can your devotees say the same about purveyors of "natural" remedies?

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the motivations and loyalties of the FDA. They will swallow, inject or use any product that's FDA approved, without a single reasonable thought about the actual safety of those products.

The FDA is a gatekeeper, really becoming important only after all the drug testing legwork has already been done by independent scientists. It's a stamp of approval on work that has already been done. And yet, it's a step further than alt-med and herbal proponents are willing to take. Tell me, Mike, which is better: an imperfect regulatory agency, like the one for drugs, or a nonexistent regulatory agency, like the one for alternative medicine?

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the safety of synthetic chemicals used in the food supply. They just swallow whatever poisons the food companies dump into the foods.

Yawn, more repetitive dualism.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the enormous dangers of ionizing radiation from mammograms and CT scans. They have somehow convinced themselves that "early detection saves live" when, in reality, "early radiation causes cancer."

Again, the danger is in the dose, not the substance. Small amounts of X-ray radiation carry a known risk, and that risk is weighed against the benefits of early detection of dangerous diseases. People are exposed to ionizing radiation every time they walk outside (what was that above about the sun's healing properties?), and the amount of exposure to ionizing radiation during a mammogram is about what you'd get from living in the United Kingdom for a year. I don't see Brits dropping left and right from radiation poisoning or abnormal cancer rates, do you?

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the mass-drugging agenda of the psychiatric industry which wants to diagnose everyone with some sort of "mental" disorder. The skeptics just go right along with it without asking a single commonsense question about whether the human brain really needs to be "treated" with a barrage of mind-altering chemicals.

Right, there are no skeptical evaluations of psychiatry. None at all.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about mercury fillings. What harm could mercury possibly do anyway? If the ADA says they're safe, they must be!

And no skeptic has ever expressed concern over mercury fillings, even if the studies show no significant risk.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the demolition-style collapse of the World Trade Center 7 building on September 11, 2001 -- a building that was never hit by airplanes. This beautifully-orchestrated collapse of a hardened structure could only have been accomplished with precision explosives. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwSc...) Astonishingly, "skeptics" have little understanding of the laws of physics. Concrete-and-steel buildings don't magically collapse in a perfect vertical demolition just because of a fire on one floor...

Oh Jesus, you're a Truther, too.

• Skeptics aren't skeptical about the safety of non-stick cookware, or the dangers of cleaning chemicals in the home, or the contamination of indoor air with chemical fumes from carpets, paints and particle board furniture. To the skeptics, the more chemicals, the better!

Hey, dipshit, guess what: everything is made of chemicals. Paints, teflon, carpets, drugs, the sun, pets, people, even water and herbs. About the only thing mentioned here that hasn't been made of chemicals is electromagnetic radiation, which is instead produced by chemicals.

Nature is bad, chemicals are good

*Facepalm*.

Summing up the position of the "skeptics" is quite simple: Nature is bad, chemicals are good!

Okay, you've made it clear that you don't have an editor, so I'll offer my services for free, just this once:

Summing up the position of the "skeptics" is quite simple: Nature is ~~bad,~~ chemicals ~~are good~~!

If we only had more chemicals injected into more babies, the world would be a better place, they say. If we could only ban all plants, herbs, vitamins and supplements, we'd all be so much healthier because then we'd take more pharmaceuticals!

If only we could crack more spines, put more dirty needles into children's skin, expose more people to preventable diseases, and fill people full of unregulated herbs and supplements, we wouldn't have to worry about overpopulation anymore! But who's going to bury all the bodies?

Let's turn it around, Mike: are there any good chemicals? Is there anything natural which isn't beneficial? I've explained my skeptical position throughout this post, including the points that some natural remedies are effective and some chemicals are harmful. Are your beliefs so nuanced?

Seriously. This is what they believe.

Note: this is not seriously what anyone believes.

They openly admit this is their position.

Note: no one has ever claimed this as a reasonable position ever.

And all you people drinking green smoothies, and growing your own food, and getting natural sunlight, and taking care of your own health, and drinking herbal tea... well you're all just fools, say the skeptics.

Note:...okay, that one's pretty much right.

You're all just too stupid to understand "real" science. Because if you understood real science, you'd give up all those useless herbs and superfoods and healing vegetables and you'd be taking twenty different prescription medications instead.

Sigh, nice false dichotomy. No, the saddest part of all this is that real science isn't that hard to understand. Anyone can understand the basic principles of basing your claims on evidence and validating them through careful observation. The concepts behind actual medicine are quite easy to grasp, even if the specific biochemistry is more complicated. Perhaps it uses more syllables than "qi" or "soul" or "magic," but it has the benefit of being real.

Then you'd be really smart, see. Because all those chemicals make you healthy and smart. A few extra vaccine injections will make you even smarter. Then you can join the skeptics because you're smart enough at that point to understand that chemicals are the answer to all of life's problems: Depression, anxiety, digestion, sexual performance, sleep, even test-taking abilities... there's a chemical "solution" to every problem you might experience.

As opposed to alt-med and woo, which offer solutions even for made-up problems like chiropractic subluxations, qi blockages, sick auras, sin, and spiritual illnesses.

What skeptics really are

Mike, you wouldn't know what a skeptic is if one kicked you in the natural ass.

I hope it's fairly obvious to you by now that skeptics are the most misinformed people on the planet.

That sound you heard, that faint shaking beneath your feet, was the detonation of my latest irony meter.

They are the easiest people to fool. They're the easiest to hypnotize, too, because they lack independent thinking skills. Rather than thinking for themselves, they have joined a "club of skeptics" where they can be told what to think and then label themselves "intelligent" for following others in the group.

"Subscribe to NaturalNews insider e-mail alerts!"

These are the people who line up to be injected with useless H1N1 vaccines. (The joke is on them, of course. Those vaccines were a complete fraud...)

And what's your evidence for that claim?

These are the people who stand in line at the pharmacy to buy a dozen different prescriptions (costing sometimes thousands of dollars) that their doctors told them to take.

As opposed to the people who stand in line at the Whole Foods store to buy a dozen different supplements (costing sometimes hundreds of dollars) that their naturopaths told them to take.

These are the people who eat processed, dead junk food laced with chemicals that make them sick -- and then they wonder why they're sick.

I'll spare you the details of what's in the natural fertilizers and pesticides that get used on "organic" crops.

These are the people who sit at home watching television and think to themselves how smart they are because they follow the medical advice they learned in drug company advertisements.

Because no homeopathic remedies or herbal supplements are ever advertised on TV. I've certainly never seen a commercial for HeadOn or Zicam or Airborne.

These are the real "skeptics." They are so incredibly isolated from reality that they don't even believe in their body's own ability to heal itself.

These are the real "medical practitioners." They are so incredibly isolated from reality that they don't understand that water from a toilet is chemically identical to water from a natural spring.

Skeptics don't believe in a higher power of any kind: No God, no spirit, no angels, no guides, no creative force in the universe... nada.

Yeah, this is the real proof that you did absolutely no research for your article, because the schism between skeptical atheists, skeptical theists, and skeptics who think everyone should just leave religion alone has been a hot-button skeptical topic for months.

They think the universe is a cold, empty, lonely, stupid place full of soulless, mindless, zombie biological bodies who have no free will and no consciousness.

And people like you, Mike, really don't help to dispel that belief.

Gee, no wonder these skeptics are so misguided. They have the most pessimistic view possible. No wonder they seek to destroy themselves with chemicals -- they don't even think they're alive to begin with!

Skeptics are bent on self destruction. And they believe that when you die, the lights just go out and you cease to exist. Nothing happens after that. You're just a mindless biological robot whose life has no meaning, no purpose, no higher self.

This is exactly what the skeptics believe. They'll even tell you so themselves!

I...I just give up. How do you argue with someone so arrogantly ignorant?

Never argue with drones

Oh, okay. Thanks, Mike!

Realizing this, it makes it so much easier to debate with skeptics on any topic. Whatever they say, you just answer, "WHO is saying that? Are YOU, a conscious, free-thinking person with a mind and soul saying that, or are those words simply being automatically and robotically uttered from the mouth of a bag of bones and skin that has no mind and no soul?"

I like how you're giving your followers a script to follow in response to what you perceive as robotic, hive-mind behavior. Truly you have no sense of irony.

If they answer you honestly, they will have to admit that they believe they are nothing more than a robotic bag of bones and skin that is mindlessly uttering whatever nonsense happens to escape their mechanical lips. At that point, you've already won the debate because YOU have a soul, and THEY don't. You're arguing with a mindless robot.

I'm laughing on the outside, but I'm weeping on the inside.

Seriously. Think about this deeply.

That's the first good advice you've given. Unfortunately, I doubt that even you will follow it.

If you believe what the skeptics want you to believe (because they are always right, of course), then you must accept the fact that THEY have no consciousness. They are not really "alive." They are just robotic biological machines. They are drones, in other words. And drones are not equal to a being of energy with a consciousness and a soul, inhabiting a human body with purpose and awareness.

I know what all those words mean individually, but I'll be damned if I can make any sense out of them in that configuration. Seriously Mike, hire an editor.

Never argue with drones. You only waste your time and annoy the drone.

Okay, two good pieces of advice.

Skeptics... zombies... drones... different words for the same thing. Soulless, mindless, lacking consciousness and free will, having no awareness of the value of life... these are the skeptics arguing for vaccines, mammograms and chemotherapy today. They are agents of death who can only find solace in an industry of death -- the industry of modern medicine.

Yes, we are the agents of death. We, who advocate methods which have resulted in the eradication of smallpox and the near-eradication of measles and polio; we, who advocate methods that have drastically reduced infant mortality rates worldwide; we, who advocate the science that has uncovered the roots of once-deadly diseases and found ways to extend the lives of patients who even ten years ago would have been lost causes. We're the agents of death, not the people peddling treatments that were outdated and unsupported in the Dark Ages, who deny basic biology and chemistry, and who have been directly responsible for the resurgence of preventable illnesses in first-world nations.

You're a ghoul, Mike, you're apparently totally disconnected from reality, and your refusal to link or quote your opponents suggests that you're consciously aware of that. You're a coward, Mike, afraid to let your followers see what skeptics actually have to say, and so you invent ridiculous positions and lie about them. I can only hope that you don't drag too many people down with you, and that at least some of your readers are able to recognize your strawmen and ad hominem attacks for the substanceless jabs that they are.

So overall, Mike, your examination of "what 'skeptics' really believe" has almost nothing to do with what skeptics really believe. Instead, you've crafted an army of strawmen to flail against, and even then, you fail. How many of these complaints can be turned back on you, Mike? How many alt-med enthusiasts and religionists claim to have a lock on secret, ancient knowledge superior to anything produced by scientific investigation? How many antivaxxers claim to have intimate knowledge of a secret conspiracy of "Big Pharma"? How many alt-med loons think that all herbs and alternative modalities are safe and effective, even if they've never been tested (or have been tested and found to be unsafe or ineffective)? How many think that everyone needs vitamin supplements and herbal remedies and chiropractic treatments and acupuncture to maintain health rather than cure specific ailments? How many think that six-month-old infants need to have their necks and backs adjusted even though their bones haven't yet ossified? I could go on and on. You exercise so much pseudo-skepticism about science-based medicine, but you fail to apply the same criticism to your own side. And when backed against the wall, scientific medicine can show you the research, the evidence, the double-blind tests, and the rationale underlying every drug, diagnostic, and prescription. What can you show, Mike? What does any newage alt-med proponent have on his side except platitudes, fallacies, and supposed wisdom from before the germ theory?

Physician, heal thyself.

1. A strawman? Yeah, probably. I suppose it'd be more accurate to talk about water's magical selective memory that makes it somehow forget the piss and shit on the way through filtration systems, but remember stuff that was diluted out of it during homeopathic preparations. That point, however, has been done to death. This one is funnier. But at least I understand that it's not necessarily an accurate depiction of homeopathy.

Any time now...

2010-01-21T22:05:00.003-06:00

Okay, conservatives and Republicans, I'm waiting to hear you start complaining about radical activist judges now. After all, you're not terrible hypocrites who only complain when "radical", unprecedented rulings apparently benefit liberals, right?

UnbELIevable

2010-01-14T18:50:00.003-06:00

If you've been to movies recently, you've probably seen the trailers for the upcoming film "Book of Eli," where Denzel Washington plays a kung-fu monk walking across the post-apocalyptic wasteland with a copy of the Bible that Gary Oldman's character wants to use as a weapon...somehow.

I was actually optimistic about the movie when I saw trailers that played coy about what the book was. I mean, a plot that focuses on a book as some kind of all-important weapon-thing is totally primed to be a preachy "Bible is Awesome!" message, which also makes it a perfect twist to have the book be something--anything!--else. I suppose it's a better setup for a "Twilight Zone" episode than a movie, really, but all that focus on a book that some revere and others want to use for evil would be great fodder for a twist where the book turned out to be "Utopia" or "The Republic" or the U.S. Constitution or the Collected Works of Shakespeare or a book by Galen or Hippocrates or Pasteur or Salk or Gray's "Anatomy" or any number of books that would be worthy of such focus thanks to their utility--and would do what post-apocalyptic stories are meant to do: comment on modern society.

Instead, the filmmakers have apparently taken a route that makes almost no sense, by playing the whole thing straight with the Bible. I don't know about anyone else, but if I were struggling to survive in a post-apocalyptic wasteland, I'd be much more interested in "Survivalism for Dummies."

All this would be somewhat forgivable if the filmmakers were trying to present some sincere message on the nature of society or faith or religion or humanity or something, but apparently they haven't put that much thought into it. Seriously, take a look at this hilarious, enlightening interview with the directors. It's a thing of beauty. Some highlights:

Q: I'm just curious. For you, why was it more important to have a character carrying a book with a message of spirituality, versus a message of "This is how you purify water?"

Albert: I would say it's the same thing nowadays. Why is it important that people are holding that book in such high regard, or thinking that it should be spoken from, or told to others as opposed to building a church talking about irrigation? You can pose that question to anybody in any time period, post-apocalypse or now, about any religious text, or any text of any sort. "Oh, it's more important to survive. We need food. So why not build churches about survival and food?"

You shouldn't have to explain anything — poetry, art on the wall, a movie, whatever it is. You shouldn't have to explain yourself. But here I am, being a hypocrite.

Q: I read an interview with you guys in Maxim, where it mentioned that a lot of audience members might think that this is Mad Max meets The Passion of Christ, and that that is a wrong assumption to make. Why?

Allen: Yeah I don't think that [describes] the movie at all. I don't believe you can even make comparisons. First of all, Passion of the Christ is an anomaly, it's a one all. That will never happen again. That was a situation that no one ever would have foresaw. I don't think you can compare any movie to that movie. Whether you loved it or it wasn't your cup of tea. As far as Mad Max, I prefer Road Warrior. Our movie has a bit of Road Warrior in it.

And my personal favorite:

Q: If religion didn't help the people of Eli's fictional past, why do you guys as filmmakers think it will help their future?

Albert: You have some very deep, profound psychological questions there! You're applying logic to something that there is no logic in. That's part of my struggle. If you apply logic to a faith based religion — any of them — it will slowly start to fall apart. If you apply logic to Star Wars or Lord of The Rings, it will slowly start to fall apart. But if you go into it as a movie experience, as entertainment, [as] a mythology, and you don't look for the holes, and you go and believe then that's a different experience.

It's not often that you see a filmmaker outright stating that the movie falls apart if you examine the plot with logic. I have to hand it to interviewer Meredith Woerner for asking all the right questions--with follow-ups, even!--and getting the most laughably inept, inane, and incomprehensible answers from the directors. Go read the whole thing; it's a gold mine.

As to "Book of Eli," I'm actually looking forward to seeing it even more, but I'm now fully expecting it to be a Schmovie.

Crossposted at Movies Schmovies.

Dubito Ergo Sum

Anointed with Oil

What is D.J. Grothe talking about?

Is there an echo (echo, echo) in here?

The "Now What?" Phase

How the toothless eat gelato

Am I Blue?

Oh right.

What was that again?

Credulous Books by Skeptics

Gen Con 2010 and 2011

Do, or do not

Failing Massively at Language

Ch-ch-chain

The Indictment of Brian Dunning

George Lucas is a Genius

Disappeared for a Reason

XKCD tells it truly

On Educational Reform

Nothing of Consequence

The Future's So Bright

More on Movement Problems (or, Definitions Matter)

My name is Matt Foley and I am a motivational speaker!

Meme Debunking #3: Wash your damn hands!

Quotes to ponder on the anniversary of September 11th, 2001

Dear Skeptical Community,

Please feel free to dismiss the following

In which I piss on the 'Dude's rug

God dammit, CFI

A serious question

The R Word

Meme Debunking #2: Publicity

Sarah Palin is Fucking Retarded

Gen Con 2010 Wrap-Up

Bumper Crop

Oh for the love of Pete, America.

A Meme that Needs to Die

My Problem with Movements

Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!

Auld Auld Auld Auld Auld Auld Auld Auld Lang Syne

Tone Deaf

In honor of Boobquake

I Hate Stereotypes

Answering a Challenge

A Manifesto

Narrating Life

Happy Saturday!

Losin' it

Putting the call out

Just a quick rant

Woo Triage

Skepticism and Language

An interesting experiment

Skeptical Current Events

It's that time again

Disillusioned

Finglonger?

A relevant and somewhat political comic

Minor things

Truth in Advertising

You like me, etc.

This is the worst Ranger since Turbo

Any time now...

UnbELIevable