Holiday Hiatus Pt. 2

So as you can see, no post made it up this Wednesday. I've been pretty busy this week and didn't have time to prepare a good post, so you'll have to wait till next week, probably Wednesday. This weekend I'll be in Montreal. If anyone has any cool places I should visit while I'm there, please let me know.

In the mean time, things still seem lively over at the Intelligent Design post.

Reader Aaron (another Aaron) sent me a link about the dangers of bread. This parody echoes of litigation brought against the many “evils” of our time and times past. Right now the flavor being video games, but once it was dirty books and rock music. I heard of some good research done in respect to video games and violence by an MIT professor. I'll try to find out some more info, but it may turn into a post soon.

Also contributed by Aaron (still not me) was a link regarding my post on Chain Letters. BreakTheChain.org. Update is on the bottom of that post.

See you on the flip side!

Holiday Hiatus

I'm going to be quite busy over the Holidays this year. Leaving today for the weekend and then back mid-week, and out again over New Year's weekend. I may be able to get a post in on Wednesday of next week, but I think that'll be it at least until the first Wednesday of January.

In the mean time, here are a few links to keep you busy...

Check out James Randi's Swift - December 23, 2005, it's always a fun read for me. Plus it's one of the reasons I started doing this blog.

The conversation still seemed lively for Wednesday's post, Intelligent Design Shutdown, even up until last night. If the conversation keeps going, I'll probably continue the subject mater in later posts.

Here is a list from Science Magazine, Breakthrough of the Year, on evolution. I have yet to read it myself, so I'm not in a position to comment yet. But I look forward to it.

A Stellar Dendrite. Photo Rasmussen & Libbrecht collection.

Happy Holidays everyone!
~Aaron

Intelligent Design shutdown

There has been a lot of news lately about the recent court decision regarding Intelligent Design. In Pennsylvania, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching Intelligent Design was injecting religion into public schools. This reverses the Dover area school board's previous decision to include stickers in biology text books (more in a moment) and equal time teaching Intelligent Design as a competing theory. I fully support the Judges decision, but first, a few words on the previous decision by the Dover school board.

Placing a sticker in a biology textbook that claims evolution is “a theory, not a fact” is disingenuous. If it has to be stated that evolution is a theory, in this way, shouldn't they also be clamoring for physics texts to includes stickers warning students that gravity is also just a theory? Including this sticker suggests the idea that there is a vast controversy among scientists about evolution theory when there just isn't. This is a laughable idea. There is a fringe group of scientists working on competing theories, but no where near the numbers needed or the amount of respect for such competing theories to justify it being taught in schools.

There is an argument that we should teach both theories and let students decide. Fortunately, it's not up to a collective of students to rule on the state of scientific theories. Equal time for one a competing theory of evolution won't be justified until it gains equal respect in the scientific community. It won't gain any respect until it can demonstrate a testable hypothesis and useful predictions.

In my mind, this quote from Jones solidifies his responsible handling of the case:

“To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions”

Big post on Books

I'm going to take this post to talk about some of the books I've been reading lately. I'm trying to grow my personal library of books and have started with popular ones by Randi and Shermer. I also picked up a couple of reference books with topics that typically make it into the skeptical view:

• An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural
  By James Randi

• The Skeptic's Dictionary
  A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions
  By Robert Carroll

Both are fun “coffee table” type books, not really for reading cover to cover, but fun to browse through and read small sections. There is a priceless section in the back of Encyclopedia of Claims... on “Forty-Nine End-of-the-World Prophesies—That Failed”. Any time someone brings up a future prophecy, looking through the list of failures brings strong reassurance.

Last book I've read:

• Flim-Flam!
  Psychics, ESP, Unicorns, and Other Delusions
  By James Randi

A great book that acts as a personal account of Randi's experiences dealing with ... well, delusions. Chapters I enjoyed include that on the Cotttingley Glen Fairies, and that on fringe religion, like Scientology and the Jonestown cult. Some choice passages regarding Scientology make it sound crazy even back in 1982!

"...and the Church of Scientology set out on a project code-named “Operation PC Freak Out” to discredit and harass Ms. Cooper. In return for her determination to speak out, she has suffered ever since. She was robbed, threatened with a gun, and vilified in letters sent to her neighbors..." (pp. 247)

The story of the Jonestown cult and mass-suicide is a compelling reminder as to what can happen when people abandon reason. Watch out for your friends and family, don't let them fall so far they hurt themselves with non-sense.

Currently reading:

• Why People Believe Weird Things
  Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
  By Michael Shermer

So far so good, I really enjoy his writing on psychology and why people develop fallacious thinking. About to start the chapter on Alien Abduction.

Next up:

• The Science of Good and Evil
  Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule
  By Michael Shermer

• Spook
  Science Tackles the Afterlife
  By Mary Roach

Two books I'm looking forward too, but I couldn't speak to either of them.

Feel free to make suggestions to this list, I'll be adding it as a more permanent section of the blog. I'll probably also post book reviews as I finish them.

On Wikipedia

I've heard talk recently about the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. I know I've used it as a starting point for doing research, but never without external/responsible sources. On December 14, the Journal Nature had an article on Wikipedia, comparing it to Britannica's online version. They examined 42 science related articles and looked for errors in each version from the testimony of their experts.

"The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three."

I've always been a fan of Wikipedia, I believe it has it's strong and weak points. Wikipedia, for example, is bad at keeping objective articles about controversial subjects(even illegitimate controversy), since people like to deface them. On the other hand, the depth of articles on incredibly obscure topics can be amazing.

Tycho, from Penny-Arcade, the online comic strip, had some choice words on the encyclopedia today:

"The second response is: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information."”

Full text...

Wikipedia satisfies me for what I tend to use it for. A starting-point for research into obscure or topical subjects. Whatever you care to know, there is probably an article about it on Wikipedia; though it could be poorly written and just plain wrong. At the very least it might have some links to sources of better credibility.

PS: I made commenting easier and harder, at the same time. You no longer need to be a member of Blogger to comment, but you will need to enter the crazy word.

Holiday Season

This is a busy week for me, and it only will get busier. I hope to post some more news soon though.

Happy Holidays!

Party poopers in a magical world

Writing three times a week (on time) is proving to be about as hard as I imagined. Marching forward. Something caught my eye in the latest Skeptic's Dictionary Newsletter from Bob Carroll,

“So, yes, skeptics are party poopers. When we attack ID and support evolution, when we defend argument and reason over traditional prejudices, or when we challenge an alleged weeping statue of the Virgin Mary and call it a hoax without even investigating it (as Joe Nickell did recently), we are seen by many people as a threat to the beliefs that define their values. A skeptic may find it appalling that grown people believe that a red mark on a statue’s cheek is a miracle, but to the believer it’s a validation of their other religious beliefs. Challenge the alleged miracle and you’re seen as challenging the believer’s faith.”

This problem makes it difficult to have a real debate with someone when their position and beliefs are companions. I think it was Dr. Seth Asser who said that as people speaking for reason, we should stop explaining. What he means, is that when you have to explain why Evolution is good science, or why homeopathy is no better than a placebo, you're already loosing the debate. Someone with an irrational belief as the root of their world-view won't hear evidence to the contrary. Instead of explaining why water dowsing is a simple ideomotor response and not a secret science, ask the water dowser to explain why they can't find pipes in a house without prior blueprints, or why two dowsers with no communication can't track the same “natural water sources” on the same piece of land. When facing an impenetrable wall of belief, ask them to start explaining the problems in their theory. More importantly, ask them what it would really mean if their belief were true... if water or oil could really be found with sticks, if statues really cried blood, if aliens really made crop circles. Oh what a magical world we would live in. Wait ... we do live in a “magical” world! We really do stick to the earth and not fly off when it spins! We really can cure disease that once decimated whole continents! We really do send thousands of aircraft around the world with ridiculously few accidents! That's still not enough for some people's imaginations and wants.

A lot of good reading has arrived in the last week. The new issue of Skeptic Magazine came with a great interview with the Mythbusters. I've been fans of theirs for some time now, and after reading about why they do this work, I like them even more. They're making science fun! When they come up with poor data, it's explained, so when the experiment is repeated ten or twenty times, you already know why it's necessary. It's hammering home the importance of test controls and repeatability, but it's doing it with fun topics people enjoy discussing anyway. The visuals from movies are one of their prime categories for myths. Some of my favorite episodes have been where they've debunked movie myths. There are lots of bullet myths in movies, like a gunshot will throw the victim several feet backwards, or that bullets will penetrate water to hit the escaping hero. Where people didn't before have a quick reference and test to answer these questions, now they do. Most bullets become totally non-lethal in as little as 6 inches of water. A person won't get knocked backwards from gun fire, if they were the shooter would have to take the same amount of force too.

On Chain Emails

Skepticism can apply to all things really. It's about once a month I get some chain letter about a way to better my life, either with money or mysterious good luck, that requires a skeptical look. Getting this benefit always requires me to send the letter onto more people. I suppose there are two kinds of email like this. The first is about how I need to forward the letter, and the more people I who I send it too, the more good luck or whatnot I will receive within a period of time. The latest was about getting good Karma: “The mantra must leave your hands within 96 hours. You will get a very pleasant surprise.” If I search my memory, something pleasant will probably come to mind. Even if I haven't sent on the email. I'm not completely daft to the idea of Karma in a simplistic and philosophical sense. I understand that most people (westerners anyway) think of it as a way to treat people with respect. Or a way to laugh of misfortune. The actual philosophy of Karma is fairly frightening, besides having no scientific evidence to back it up. It claims that when bad things happen to you, it's a result of bad things you've done in this, or a previous life. This means that everyone that lost their lives in the Indian Ocean tsunami had it coming. This is an absurd and sad point of view of life. It's a horrific justification with zero evidence of it being true. But people often need a reason (not to be confused with reason). The idea that Earth is a volatile and random place is too much.

The second kind involves money. Either a way for me to make money, or a way to save money. I got this one recently as well:

“My name is Bill Palmer, founder of Applebee's. In an attempt to get our
name out to more people in the rural communities where we are not
currently located, we are offering a $50 gift certificate to anyone who
forwards this email to 9 of their friends. Just send this email to them
and you will receive an email back with a confirmation number to claim
your gift certificate.”

This is of course, also a lie. But what's more interesting here is that it took me all of three minutes to do the research required to know it's false! And I didn't even have to call the company. It's posted right in their Guest Relations FAQ (http://www.applebees.com/GuestFAQ.aspx?q=3)

“A fraudulent email chain message promising Applebee’s® gift certificates for forwarding the message is currently making its way around the Internet. The message promises a gift certificate and a confirmation number after forwarding the message to a specific number of email addresses. Applebee’s® International, Inc. does not sponsor or endorse this activity and is unable to fulfill these requests.”

It doesn't take much research to falsify these emails.

Update December 27, 2005:
A reader sent me a link to this site: Break The Chain! It contains general information about the harm chain letters can cause, even the "innocent" ones where you're just offering good will.

The Lazy Author

Things have been awfully busy this weekend, hence no Friday-post. It's all good though. I'll be back on track with a post Monday.