Ohio University Skeptic's Society

Where are they now? Stan Romanek and Jeff Peckman

noreply@blogger.com (Eric G.) — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:17:00 +0000

In February 2009 I gave a presentation and led a discussion about Stan Romanek and Jeff Peckman. Both men affiliated with aliens and UFOs. Stan is an abductee and Jeff is a politician. They have been on Larry King, David Letterman and a bunch of local news stations claiming evidence and proof of aliens. They teased us with a video capturing an alien peeking into Stan's house but at the time it had not been relased. It has been around 7 months and I thought it was time for an update!

From the ABC News

From August 18th 2009, well over a year since his 'spark' of fame from May 2008. Finally, the anti-climatic alien peek-a-boo video is linked in the story for all to see. Which by the way doesn't look that much different from what low budget skeptics have done on YouTube (Dispite the title, it's the skeptics version and hell here it is in context LOL ghetto recording). Let's not forget his book is out now with some talk of a second one coming (Best seller?).

My favorite part about the new article on Stan is the little bit about the camera. Apparently his camera went missing and aliens took it to take random MySpace (pun intended) pictures. To give him some credit the MySpace alien picture does seem to correlate with the figure in the video. Or they could be of one model of an alien. Who knows? Though it is an interesting update on our good friend Stan who genuinely believes he is being contacted by aliens for the past years.

Which brings me to Jeff Peckman. He teamed up with Stan during the news blitz to talk E.T.s and politics. He wants to have a Extraterrestrial Affairs Committee of sorts in place to plan and organize for any potential alien contact/invasion/shopping. Well good news ladies and gents and greys! Jeff almost has enough votes to put the issue on the ballot! Yes we can! For the more curious, here is the wensite for the committee: ExoPolitics!

And there we have it folks. Until next, keep your eyes to the skies and believe them lies!

CHUPACABRA!!!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Eric G.) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:39:00 +0000

Well, I stumbled upon this video today from Yahoo! to CNN.com.

Latest Footage
(Here's Hoping the link works)

Much to my surprise (not really) the creature shown here looks quite a bit like some previous footage of this so called "Chupacabra":

From August 2008

From September 2007

What's also is interesting is that these creatures are all found in the Texas area. It seems the past few years these creatures have been showing up, what ever they are. What's sad is that the taxidermist is keeping it after he stuffs it and is sending "samples" to some universities for identification.

I say send the whole damned thing to the proper experts for a thorough diagnosis.

Is it a fair assumption to label these things as the "mythical chupacabra" or is it just plain old scapegoating; this odd thing could be it therefor it must be it mentality? Should the mystery then be labeled "case closed"?

Or should the chupacabra mythology continue on, skipping these creatures, and still remain elusive? Isn't that the fun part of cryptozoology? The mystical creature is always one step away from capture and thus the chase continues, always remaining a challenge to find?

Of course, pseudoscience and mythological questions aside, what about the real questions in the real world? What exactly are these things? How did they become this way, if they are descendants of wolves/dogs? Is this population big? Growing? Perhaps a bottleneck population with bad genes? Perhaps a birth of a new species?

It seems like the recent popularity of finding these creatures is increasing and its only a matter of time til we can properly observe and learn from them.

The trouble with the new atheism

ar318307@ohio.edu (Andres) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:34:00 +0000

A great UK documentary on the modern atheist movement, and what the presenter has personal difficulties with.

I've been writing about this in a couple of blogs for a while now, and have commented on seeing something admirable (the legitimate criticism of the failings of religion) turn into a full-blown cultural movement. I must commend the many organizations that have started up after the publication of The God Delusion and the increasing atheist literature coming out that takes similar tones as Dawkins in trying to drive a stake through the heart of what is seen to be irrational superstitious belief. Throughout the past couple of years the blogosphere has also grown extensively with quite a few atheist/humanist blogs taking the post popular positions in the internet (Pharyngula, Friendly Atheist, Skepchick, etc.).

My personal problem with the new atheist movement is the cult-like admiration for many of these 'intellectuals' by those equally pissed off at religion. By definition, atheism cannot be a religion, yet it does not stop it from possessing religious-like traits that are slowly being picked up by its followers.
I've seen many self-professed intellectuals and skeptics take as almost a priori truth anything that many of these public atheists say, such as 'religion is the root of most wars', 'religious violence is the main threat to civilization today', 'nothing is out of bounds for anyone who believes that god is on their side', etc.

I find many of these assertions to be very problematic, and hopefully I can address them in future blogs, but it is a pity that far too many people do not seem to apply, or even want to apply their oft-talked about skepticism towards the claims made by their fellow atheists.

Atheism today seems to adopt almost uncritically certain views that are dubious at best, and not at all unanimously accepted by contemporary scholarship:

1) A war/conflict model between religion and science.
Science in this view, is the sole begetter of truth, and religion actively has and continues to suppress the legitimate search for truth.

This to me seems to be a very selective way of looking at history, of simply accepting via word of mouth certain major historical events in which religion was seen as opposing science, and thus proving that religion has always opposed science and critical thinking. As with everything though, the reality of it is far more interesting and complex than many would like to admit. I want to address this in some later blog, but some good books have been written on this topic: Science and Religion: A historical introduction

2) A view of religion as the biggest cause of wars and conflict throughout history.
Yet again, this view is a very immature and caricaturized version of reality. It is a simple view that is easy to accept because it paints the world in black and white terms, terms which we're all very much used to and feel very comfortable with; which is interestingly enough a strong criticism that atheists press against religion. Again, this is yet another interesting topic that has been addressed by contemporary scholarship, from history and sociology, that has been found wanting: The Gods of War: Is Religion the Primary Cause of Violent Conflict?, and Sins of Omission: What 'Religion and Violence' arguments Ignore

3) Adherence to outdated Freudian psychology in which belief in God is seen to be nothing more than a psychological need to feel security, purpose, power, and comfort in this life. There have been explanations that aim to show that human beings are naturally disposed towards religious belief and ritual because of certain innate or native “mental tools.” Some argue that we have these mental tools because they, or the religion that they spawn, is and/or was adaptive for our ancestors, and were thus passed down to us.
The basic argument, as summarized by William Lane Craig is thus:

(1) The development of the human mind through natural history has provided those minds with a number of special properties.
(2) When considering the natural and social world, these properties encourage humans to believe in gods.
(3) Therefore, the development of human minds has produced belief in gods (i.e., God
(4) Therefore, belief in gods is false. is an “accident” of evolution.)

However, this argument commits the genetic fallacy. This type of reasoning aims to argue for the truth or falsity of a belief simply from considerations of the origin of belief. But, of course, perfectly true beliefs can emerge even from crazy sources. To see that this reasoning is faulty, imagine you telling someone that you believe democracy is the best system of government. The person you're talking to however, replies that the only reason you believe that is because you were born in a democratic country, and thus, democracy is not the best system of government. Of course this line of reasoning is invalid, and so too is the type of reasoning used against the existence of God based on how it is that you arrived at your beliefs.

Also as a supplement to Freud, religious belief is also seen to be a virus of the mind, a contagious meme that spreads from person to person. Of course, Atheism too can be regarded as a meme, science as well, philosophy, and just about every world view. Memetic theory is not regarded to be the best explanation for why certain beliefs spread through cultures. It is dubious at best, and pseudo-science at its worst. Regardless of the fact that the argument is completely tautological, and also a genetic fallacy, it seems to ignore the fact that atheism too has served a sociological role throughout history that can be seen to be psychological in nature as well.For more, check out: The Twilight of Atheism, Three Challenges for the Survival of Memetics

4) A failure to recognize that Theism, even if false, may be rationally justified. This is something that completely irritates me and drives me away from most atheists on myspace, the sheer hypocrisy of accusing religious believers of being arrogant because they dare to profess to either knowing, or believing they may have found the 'truth'. I believe it was C.S. Lewis who wrote that if theists are to be called intolerant for believing that other theistic faiths are wrong, then it is the atheist who is the most intolerant of all for believing all faiths are wrong.

There is a difference between believing that someone posesses a false belief (and we all possess false beliefs of one kind or another), and believing that said person is wholely irrational for believing in something false. This is where the field of epistemology sheds some light. You may hold a false belief, but it does not follow that you are therefore irrational because of holding a false belief. This is a distinction that many philosophers have made, and something I think more atheists should take notice of. Philosopher William Rowe, an atheist, wrote about this in his Friendly Atheism.

5) A view of science as the sole begetter of Truth. As Peter Atkins loves to repeat "There is nothing that Science can't explain." Scientism as its called, is an offshoot of a now dead movement within philosophy called empiricism. A short summarization of this can be found in David Hume’s principle of empirical verifiability: “If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance- let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quality or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matters of fact or experience? No. Commit it to then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” Nothing not verifiable by direct empirical means or that is analytically true by definition must be discarded as nonsense. Yet this principle itself is self-defeating. We can use the same criteria to judge its falsehood: Does Hume’s criteria apply to his own doctrine? Is the principle of verifiability true by definition? No. Is there any way to confirm it empirically? No, so then we should toss his principle to the flames. A dogmatic insistence on empiricism is a flaw in much atheist thinking “There is no scientific evidence…thus it must be false” is faulty reasoning.

Science is a great tool, but by no means is it the sole begetter of truth. There are indeed several things that cannot be explained or discovered by science which we all hold to and are perfectly rational to believe in regardless:

A)Logic and mathematics: Science presupposes logic and mathematics, otherwise it could not function. Yet logical and mathematical proofs aren’t the kinds of ‘things’ that you discover through the scientific method, they are arrived at through other means by philosophers. The law of non-contradiction is not a law that could ever be discovered through science, as it cannot be judged as true by simple induction, which is what science relies on. In short, math and logic are presupposed by science. Trying to prove them by science would be arguing in circles.

B) Metaphysical truths such as ‘there are other minds other than my own’ , that the external world is real, or that the past was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. Science cannot prove or disprove these things as science can only examine the physical data available, which is the very thing that is being called into question.

C) Ethical beliefs about statements of value: Science cannot comment or make any judgments as to why the actions of Nazi medical doctors were any more immoral than the actions of American doctors. Ethical judgments are normative, and as such, are beyond the reach of science, which is confined to descriptive role. Atheists for the most part fail to understand the challenge that is presented to them by theists when it comes to morality. They severely misunderstand the challenge to explain where morality comes from by thinking the Theist means that without belief in God, an atheist would not be able to act morally or be able to recognize moral facts. Yet the challenge isn't this, the challenge is where the atheist grounds his moral theory if it isn't on a transcendent creator. This is a very important and valid challenge that more of them would do well to address.

D)Aesthetic judgments: Just like ethics, science cannot analyze what is beautiful or not. These are again value judgments that cannot be arrived at through science. Science can measure what it is that people typically find as beautiful, or what it is that they say they find beautiful, but science cannot in and of itself describe what is beautiful.

E) Science itself: Science cannot be justified by the scientific method. The method itself is not arrived at through science, to do so would be again, arguing in circles.
So, contrary to popular scientific notions, there are indeed other ways of knowing beyond the reach of science. One would be well advised to stay away from the outdated empiricism of scientists like Dawkins and Atkins.
One good work exploring this is The limits of science.

To end, I want to just say I'm in the same boat as the rest of you. I don't know if God exists or not, but I want to know. I believe the proposition "God Exists" is either true or false, and its truth or falsity is of great importance, as it would have consequences for Ethics, Cosmology, Aesthetics, and just about every realm of life we encounter. I want to also know if it is even possible to know that a God exists. And even if it is impossible to have knowledge that said God exists (which is my position as an agnostic), I want to know whether or not it is then probable that said God exists. And I also would like to know whether or not it is rationally justifiable to believe said God exists. These questions matter to me. Questions of value, meaning, ethics, justice, liberty, and morality matter to me above all else, which is why I've been so drawn to the field of Philosophy.

I want to know what is true, and I wish more people did as well, not just pay lip service to it, but actually love truth, because without it, human life itself collapses. Without truth, there can be no trust, without trust, there can be no relationships, without relationships, we are but empty solitary shells in a constant 'war of all against all'. Those who pride themselves as the sole bearers of 'reason', 'rationality' and 'truth' should value these things as much as they claim to.

However, I'm beginning to be extremely cautious and distrustful of the new atheist movement. They've become just as Fanatical as the religious fanatics they so despise. A movement that is supposed to be a knife that carves out the tragedies brought about by fundamentalist thinking is slowly acquiring those very characteristics they so despise. Look at the top blogs on myspace and tell me that people like 'God Is Imaginary', 'The Gadfly' and the rest of the more rational than thou gang resembles anything like the true lovers of truth and wisdom we've come to learn about like Socrates and Aristotle. I see more and more people jumping on the bandwagon every day, and I frankly want nothing to do with it. I have a feeling that if I were ever to change my mind and accept Theism, I would be lumped in together with Fred Phelps and the rest of the 'superstitious religious fanatics', and as Dawkin's documentary calls them, an "Enemy of Reason".

I'm an unbeliever. I'm unconvinced. But I want to know the truth. Let's try to follow it wherever it leads. Lets not just pay lip service to it. Anthony Flew's conversion is just one example of atheist intolerance. One of the leading atheists in the world became a Deist, and of course said conversion must be due to his being senile. Let us respect that search for truth.

It was very telling how very few unbelievers came out to take on my arguments in my 'Is religion a cause for good or evil in the world?' blog. I would think that something that tries to undercut the very same tired old argument atheists make on their blogs every single day would get more attention, but of course it barely got a peep, save for a few individuals who were willing to read it and try to ask if it had any merit.

As for me, I'm staying away from the atheist bandwagon. That's a sinking ship destined to blow up. A true freethinker doesn't need a scarlet letter A on their profile to let everyone knows where he/she stands. Anti-religious propaganda is everywhere, all I ask is that we learn to filter through it and be consistent in our skepticism.

*Edit*

As evidence of the type of fundamentalist atheist attitude that I'm talking about, check out my myspace post of this blog here and see the type of vilification I received from the self-proclaimed 'brights'. Yet more evidence to show that these people feel they're immune to criticism.

TAM 7, in review

dp176406@ohio.edu (David Plumb) — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:28:00 +0000

The Amaz!ng Meeting 7

The Amazing Meeting is the de facto annual meeting of the skeptical movement and is held in Las Vegas, NV every year (awesome!). For more info check out the JREF at www.randi.org.

Everyone keeps hitting me up to write a review of TAM7, especially since I keep expressing a negative opinion about it.

I want to be completely clear as I can in order to block some objections that will certainly come up: I only went to TAM 7 on Friday. This review is of Friday only, and whenever I talk about attitudes or refer to the conference generally, it is because I’ve already made the qualification here.

I want to say from the onset, that I thought a small portion of the day was fantastic, but the rest of the day (the majority of it) sucked/was disappointing.

So, I showed up a few minutes after 8pm (I was staying on the strip and underestimated how long it would take to get out there) with two friends (Adam and Eric). The reason we only went on Friday is because we were trying to conserve money so we could enjoy a vacation in Vegas and, on paper, it looked like the most appealing day to us. We had just seen Michael Shermer a few months prior and got to have drinks with him so we were okay with missing him this time around, and we really wanted to see the key note speaker (Bill Prady – Producer of the “Big Bang Theory” sitcom), James Randi, Phil Plait, Steve Novella, Joe Nickel, SGU and the other speakers we hadn’t heard of had fascinating topics planned.

Right away we ended up getting stuck sitting fairly far back, the room was already filled with somewhere around 1000 skeptics, which was certainly cool to see. Unfortunately this meant we also could not hear the SGU recording, nor could we read the power points (this is one of my biggest complaints against the organization of the conference – huge oversight, about 1/3 of the room couldn’t read it).

Because this was brunch/SGU I didn’t think too much of it, I figured the day would pick up once everyone got settled in and the speakers came up. I was looking forward to finding out who the MC was (I hadn’t heard of him before), and to hearing from James Randi and Phil Plait. Now, I’d like to make another qualification, I do not get star struck easily. I really cannot think of someone famous that would make me get super excited to the point where I would be happier to see them than, say, a friend I haven’t seen a few months. So, it really wasn’t exciting for me to just see these skeptical celebrities for the sake of seeing them in person. The reason I wanted to see them was to hear them talk and get down to business – they are among skeptics and could now do so. They know we are all science buffs and such, so they could even get technical and speak very freely about their opinions.

However, the first hour and a half or so was just the introduction people going on and on (basically repeating each other) about how we were about to have an awesome conference and how much work had gone into producing the event. They talked about past TAMs, talked about talking about stuff, and demonstrated how inescapable in-group effects are.

Essentially, the first 2.5 hours of the conference consisted of garbled noise, unreadable power points, and a lot of back-patting –wayyy disappointing.

Then, finally, it was time for the key note speaker, Bill Prady. He is the Executive Producer of “The Big Bang Theory” sitcom, which stars book-smart PhD physicists who live across the hall from a street-smart, attractive woman. I really like this show, the dynamic of these hyper nerds trying to get along in the real world while they tell quantum physics jokes and deal with their bombastic super-genius friend Sheldon is great. But anyway, Bill Prady was great. He basically talked about the show, played some clips that relate to skepticism and science, and went into the topic of the attitude NOT to have towards those that disagree with you. He pointed out that the people who believe the strange things we rail again believe them for good reasons, and often rely on their beliefs to console them and to make sense out of the world. In the show, Sheldon’s mom relies on her religion to cope with a hyper-genius she doesn’t understand. Penny (the attractive neighbor) is into pop-culture phenomena such as astrology so she can strike up conversations with people, and so on. Also, during the Q&A someone complained about they think Penny is a typical ditzy women – and he gave a great answer basically outlining the fact that she is intuitive, street-smart, and does amazing well at getting through the world (especially in contrast with the physicists on the show). He recommends taking a second looks at her character, and even reexamine what we think intelligence consists of. Great speech overall.

Then, we had Fintan Steele, director of scientific education and communications, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard talk about the recent explosion of genomic information. He touched on the advancements, misconceptions, and the ways in which some people are scamming others with this information. Essentially, there are companies out there that claim the gene is the smallest unit of our biology, and if we can understand it then we can know everything. From this, they will map your DNA and give you a read-out on your genetic propensities. However, this is false for many reasons he discussed in his speech. It was very awesome, technical, enlightening, and cutting edge – exactly what I had come to the TAM for.

So, given the last two speakers the day was getting really awesome.

We were behind schedule, which was to be expected, it would be impossible to stick to such a busy schedule, but there were announcements slotted for the next half-hour then it was time for lunch. However, they surprised us – rather than doing some quick announcements and letting us out, they put a man up there to talk about his stroke and having sex with his wife. I really feel sorry for anyone who experiences such drastic medical trauma as he did, but seriously, this was awful. I don’t think anyone wanted to hear him talk about how he had a stroke while having sex with his wife. He went on and on and eventually people were doing everything they could to get him off the stage so we could go to lunch – it even got to the point where people had to just get up and leave because he just wouldn’t stop. Jesus Christ man – it was depressing and awkward.

So we went to lunch and played some slot machines, then came back.

After lunch, it was time for a ‘conversation’ between James Randi and Jamy Ian Swiss (who I’m guessing is a magician). However, all this was, really, was James Randi showing videos of himself when he was famous for doing death-defying tricks and going on talk shows in the 60s-70s while he rambled in the background about how he felt about doing it. It was like having your grandfather go on and on about the stuff he used to do 40 years ago when he wasn’t so old. I have mixed feelings about this: I understand why some people may have enjoyed this, they are the type who probably also love their grandfathers and could listen to them ramble about the car they used to own (or whatever) all day. However, overall this felt like the cult of the James Randi. Everyone around us seemed to really REALLY like it. Also, you could, conveniently, buy everything he had for sale. Speaker after speaker from the beginning to the end of the day praised James Randi. Part of it is rightfully so – I mean, he did start the JREF and is a big part of the skeptical movement. Although I can’t give a real cut-off point where this all becomes too much, I can say it fell like it was crossed half-way through the day. Eric and Adam both felt it – and if felt like the cult of James Randi. Standing ovation after stand ovation for him made me more and more cynical.

The next speaker was Jennifer Ouellette who is a popular science writer and is a part of the Science and Entertainment exchange – a group that helps television and Hollywood get their science right. It’s a very cool group, and was surprised to learn that Seth McFarlane (of Family Guy) is part of it and a very big science proponent and outspoken atheist.

Next was the Anti-Anti-Vax panel with Steve Novella, Joe Albietz, David Gorski, Harriett Hall, and Michael Goudeau. This was essentially a comprehensive look at the anti-vaccination movement, the facts on the rumors of a link between vaccinations and autism, and where to go from here. Although extremely brief, this was very informative. There is absolutely NO evidence that suggests such a link exists now or ever, and the evidence is completely in the opposite direction. Certainly, it was nearly unavoidable to fall into the common fallacy committed by skeptics that assigns rationality to our thinking and emotional overriding to ‘their’ thinking. This is some basic in-group stuff, but the type that is very hard to avoid.

Although there were about 1.5 hours left, this was the last decent event. The rest of the conference was an auction and Joe Nickel talking about his vacation in big foot country and UFO/aliens. Maybe it is just because I didn’t become a skeptic the week of this conference, but come on… big foot and ufos?

All in all, Bill Prady and Fintan Steele were wonderful speakers. The anti-anti-vax panel was informative. All of the other parts of the day were either boring or spent worshipping James Randi. A lot of celebrity worship went into the day, and that’s just not something I can ever get into. My main complaint is that the conference lacked substance, and even creeped me out a little bit. We didn’t stay out at the same hotel as the conference, so I didn’t get to hang out with skeptics very much beyond the meeting, but to reply to this review that I should have, and then I would have liked it is to ignore the fact that I paid $175 to listen to people worship praise James Randi. If the best part of the conference is meeting with skeptics, then there really isn’t any value added in having it. I have friends that are skeptics, I’m in a local skeptics group, and I occasionally drive up to Columbus to hang out with other skeptics up there. Granted, it is refreshing to be around skeptics, atheists, agnostics, intellectuals, and science-minded people – I would rather not pay so much for it. Perhaps I’m lucky to be surrounded by these sort of people already (I DO live in a college town), and I can see the value in it for those who aren’t. But, I still think my criticism of the conference itself lacking substance is valid.

So, what do you think? Try again next year? Maybe this year was just a little weaker than those in the past? Agree? Response?

I’m a skeptic who loves these types of things, and I’d hate to write off the whole movement as a self-serving group of people just because I was turned off by my experience with the conference. Truly, I could have bought tix for the rest of the conference, but I had no incentive too. I expected the added value of another day of the conference was truly less than another $175 I could use at the poker tables.

Is religion a force for good or evil in the world?

ar318307@ohio.edu (Andres) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:44:00 +0000

In his book ‘The Dawkins Delusion?’ Alister McGrath, writing on Richard Dawkins, writes: “Dawkins is, I think, entirely right when he exposes and challenges religious violence. It is clear that his ire is directed primarily against Islamic Fundamentalism, particularly its Jihadist forms. All of us need to work to rid the world of the baleful influence of religious violence. On that point Dawkins and I are agreed. Yet is this a necessary feature of religion? Here, I must insist that we abandon the outmoded idea that all religions say more or less the same things. They clearly do not.”

Something that has struck me as puzzling after reading many blogs by atheists all across the blogosphere, and books by the ‘big four’ of atheism is the claim that religion is the biggest cause of conflict and wars throughout history, and that if done away with, the world would be a better place. Now, for someone who is more fond of sound bites than the critical scrutiny of claims, this may seem to be a reasonable, or even more than that, a self-evident truth of the world we live in. Yet, as it’s usually the case, the truth of the matter is far more nuanced than that. Human beings have a tendency to opt out for very simple, black and white pictures of things. One example was the mischaracterization of the Genocide that went on in Rwanda as nothing more than ‘ethnic conflict dating back hundreds of years to very basic tribal attitudes’. This, I think, may have been a good reason why it was that the West did nothing but watch while thousands of Rwandans were being slaughtered by their very neighbors. There is a great article called ‘The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict’ that I highly recommend everyone to read. Essentially, the author argues that really generalized public perceptions of what the ‘problem really is’ tend to lead to a public that either does nothing, because, after all, how could we ever put an end to a centuries old conflict, or to a public that has diagnosed the problem very incorrectly, and so seeks out to find the wrong solutions to said problem. When it comes to religion in America, I think most anti-theists have fallen victim to the second trap.

When writing about Religion, Dawkins comes up with a plausible evolutionary explanation as to how it came about. Dawkins writes that belief in God might be a byproduct of some other evolutionary mechanism. McGrath writes that “Here he moves into territory explored by fellow atheist Daniel Dennett in his recent book Breaking the Spell. Yet both Dawkins and Dennett adopt a very cognitive view of religion, defining it virtually exclusively in terms of ‘Belief in God.’ Yet this is certainly not the sole aspect of religion; nor is it even necessarily the most fundamental. A more reliable description of religion would make reference to its many aspects, including knowledge, beliefs, experience, ritual practices, social affiliation, motivation and behavioral consequences’. And it is here that McGrath touches on a point that is fundamental to the question ‘Is religion a force for good or evil in the world?’ The answer will heavily depend on how it is that you define religion. William T. Cavanaugh writes on this question:
“What would be necessary to prove the claim that religion has caused more violence than any other institutional force over the course of human history? One would first need a concept of religion that would be at least theoretically separable from other institutional forces over the course of history.”

During the famous ‘Nightline debate’ between Creationists Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron against two atheists from the ‘Rational Response Squad’, I remember the topic having gone to the question of ‘Was Hitler an atheist? Was Stalin?’ Ray Comfort made the point that Joseph Stalin was a rabid atheist who persecuted and wiped out 60 million of his own people. Surely then, if Christians are to blame for the terrible deeds done in the name of Christianity, then so too should Atheists hold some responsibility for the deeds done by some of their fellow non-believers. Yet, surprisingly (or unsurprisingly), the argument didn’t seem to hold. Kelly, one of the atheists, made the point that Stalin was a Marxist. These purges were done in the name of Marxism, not Atheism. Marxism, as defined by Kelly, is a religion where the State is seen to be a God, and so clearly it is yet another instance of religious violence. Christopher Hitchens in “God is not Great” made a similar case against the Fascism of the Nazis by calling it a ‘Quasi-religious phenomena’.

It seems to me then, that one must have a very broad and general definition of religion if one is to include political philosophies like Marxism and Fascism into the same ranks as, say, the Quakers or the Amish. And this is a very crucial point that I don’t think has been addressed by any of the prominent atheists: If you are making the case that religion is a force for evil in the world, then you must provide a definition of religion that is clear and concise so that you may make your case.

A powerful question that has to be answered before anyone can make any progress is the following one asked by McGrath: “What is the difference between a worldview and a religion? The dividing line is notoriously imprecise and, many would say, is constructed by those with vested interests to defend. A worldview is a comprehensive way of viewing reality that tries to make sense of its various elements within a single, overarching way of looking at things. Some, of course, are religious; many are not. Buddhism, Existentialism, Islam, atheism, and Marxism all fall into this category. Some worldviews claim to be universally true; others, more in tune with the postmodern ethos, view themselves as local. None of them can be ‘proved’ to be right. Precisely because they represent ‘big picture’ ways of engaging with the world, their fundamental beliefs ultimately lie beyond final proof.”

Now, one of my majors here in Ohio University is Sociology, and luck permitting, I hope to continue my studies in Sociology at the graduate level, specifically the field of the Sociology of Religion. Most of us seem to have a pretty firm grasp of what is religion, and what isn’t. If I were to go out today to start doing field work for my area in Sociology, I would have a pretty good idea of where to begin, which would more than likely be a Church, or a Synagogue, or a Mosque. These are traditional places that we can safely call ‘religious’. Yet, if I were to try and define what it is that I want to study, how would I go about it? Religion, like pornography, is one of those slippery topics that seem to be extraordinarily hard to define. Most people, like the famous judge who ruled against Pornography in the 80’s, would simply fall back on “I’ll know it when I see it”.

Again, McGrath writes on this: “A clear definition of precisely what is being studied is essential to the serious scientific study of any entity or phenomenon. The failure of past attempts to offer a reliable and warranted definition of religion is widely conceded in the vast scholarly literature devoted to this subject. Of the myriad of definitions of religion offered over the last 150 years, each of which presented itself as being scientific or objective, none has been sufficiently resilient or representative to command continuing support. Furthermore, definitions of religion are rarely neutral but are often generated to favor beliefs and institutions with which one is in sympathy and penalize those to which one is hostile, often reflecting little more than the ‘particular purposes and prejudices of individual scholars’ .And here is the crux of the issue I had with Kelly’s lumping of Marxism into the religious camp, it seems like by doing so, Atheists have simply defined “Religion” and labeled as “Religious” anything that they particularly don’t like. Just how broad is your definition of religion anyway? The 9/11 terrorist acts? Religious in nature. The murdering of abortion doctors? Religious in nature. The conflict in Northern Ireland? Religious. Rwandan ethnic conflicts? These were carried out by the type of ‘black and white’, ‘us vs. them’ mentality that religion promotes.
Yet why do many atheists skip over other conflicts, like for example, the terrible genocides brought about by Serbian/Croatian Nationalism?

On this William Cavanaugh writes: “The problem with the ‘religion and violence’ arguments is not that their working definitions of religion are too fuzzy. The problem is precisely the opposite. Their implicit definitions of religion are unjustifiably clear about what does and does not qualify as a religion. Kimball, for example, subjects the violence of Hinduism to close scrutiny, but passes over the violence of other kinds of nationalism in silence, despite a telling acknowledgement that ‘blind religious zealotry is similar to unfettered nationalism.’ How are they different? Forms of ‘secular’ nationalism do not appeal to God or gods, but neither do some of the institutions Kimbal includes in his list of religions, such as Theravada Buddhism. Kimball is typical of those who make the argument that religion is prone to violence in that he assumes a sharp distinction between the religious and the secular, without explicitly analyzing or defending such a distinction.”

See the problem here? In this article (http://www.jesusradicals.com/wp-content/uploads/sins-of-omission.pdf), the issue is explored even further. The problem can be summarized thus: “There is a significant group of scholars who think that the term ‘religion’ is so problematic that it ought to be scrutinized for ideological baggage or dropped entirely. On the one hand, then, we have a group of scholars who are convinced that religion has a lamentable tendency toward promoting violence. On the other hand, we have a group of scholars who are not sure that religion even exists, except as an intellectual construct of highly dubious value. The first group of scholars carries on as if it did not know the second group even exists.”

“If we really want to address the problem of violence in the contemporary world, we must treat violence as the problem-violence as such, that is, not absolutism, blind obedience, and the rest. Only in this way can we tell the difference between the abbot of a Trappist monastery and Jim Jones. Both command obedience, but only the latter does so in service to violence instead of peace. Only if we treat violence as the problem can we also tell the whole truth about the violence of putatively ‘secular’ ideologies and nation-states. An adequate approach to the problem would be resolutely empirical: under what conditions do certain beliefs and practices- jihad, the ‘invisible hand’ of the market, the sacrificial atonement of Christ, the role of the United States as worldwide liberator- turn violent? The point is not simply that ‘secular’ violence should be given equal attention to ‘religious violence’. The point is that the distinction between ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ violence is unhelpful, misleading, and mystifying, and should be avoided altogether. Self-identified Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and others would still be subject to scrutiny, but a fuller and more adequate picture of violence would emerge. The beliefs of the Jim Jones and Osama bin Ladens of the world are a significant part of the problem of violence in the 21st century. At least equally significant is the evangelical zeal with which ‘free trade’, liberal democracy, and American hegemony are offered to-or forced upon- a hungry world.”

Ultimately, is religion a force for good or evil in the world? That depends. If you define religion as ‘all that is bad with the world’, as most atheist rhetoric these days seems to do, then yes, it is a force for evil. But obviously this doesn’t work. You have already defined it as bad. You can define religion as ‘Oppressive, threatening, violent, and abusive’, but you haven’t actually told us anything. The same thing can be said for any government, or any other ideology that can be deemed ‘secular’. Is religion good or bad? I personally have to side with Michael Shermer on this question and simply say ‘Religion is good when it does good, and evil when it does evil.’ That’s it. Not the most insightful revelation, or really anything we didn’t already know, but at its core it shows the truth of the situation.

On this, McGrath writes about a “tragic event in North America that took place in October 2006, within a week of the publication of The God Delusion. Interestingly, the episode illustrates both the negative and positive sides of religion. A gunman with some kind of religious grudge (he was ‘angry with God’) broke into an Amish school in Pennsylvania and gunned down a group of schoolgirls. Five of the young girls died. The Amish are a Protestant religious group who repudiate any form of violence on account of their understanding of the moral authority of the person and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. When those unfortunate schoolchildren were murdered, the Amish community urged forgiveness. There would be no violence, no revenge- only the offering of forgiveness. The gunman’s widow spoke, gratefully and movingly, of how this provided the ‘healing’ that she and her three children ‘so desperately needed.”

To summarize, this is something that I wish more people would take to heart, as it brings to light the heart of all this: “Madame Rolande was brought to the guillotine to face execution on trumped-up charges in 1792. As she prepared to die, she bowed mockingly toward the statue of liberty in the Place de la Revolution and uttered the words for which she is remembered: “Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name.”

Is religion a force for evil or good in the world? I say both. If you insist of asking the question “Well, which one does it do more of, evil or good?”, I would say good luck making that kind of calculus. One quick glance through history and the inter-relationship between religion, culture, and politics will leave one with the feeling that religion is almost inseparable from human experience itself.

On this, Shermer writes “However, for every one of these grand tragedies there are ten thousand acts of personal kindness and social good that go unreported…Religion, like all social institutions of such historical depth and cultural impact, cannot be reduced to an unambiguous good or evil.”

Take religion out of the equation, and what’s left is a huge gaping hole. Any attempt to fill this whole with ‘this is what would have happened’ is to fall into the trap many historians call “What-if” history. The problem with “what-if” history is that it is nearly impossible to take into account each and every single one of the possible variables that could take place in the absence of a specific event or ideology in place. These ‘what-if’ history books make for some interesting reading, but ultimately, they can shed no real light on what would have actually happened.

In light of this, let us try to build bridges rather than keep destroying them like I see too many believers and unbelievers on the blogosphere do.

“All ideals-divine, transcendent, human or invented- are capable of being abused. That’s just the name human nature is. And knowing this, we need to work out what to do about it rather than lashing out uncritically at religion.”

Criss Angel, Psychics, and Skepticism

ar318307@ohio.edu (Andres) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:13:00 +0000

Many of my friends know that I'm a huge skeptic, specially when it comes to claims made by psychics, aura readers, and all sorts of superstitious nonsense that you can find these days. As a member of the Ohio University Skeptic's society, one of our main goals is to help educate people on the trickery used by many self-professed psychics in their acts.

Knowing that I'm a skeptic, some of my friends have tried to get me to explain away all sorts of things they claim psychics have done. One such thing they tried to do was have me explain how Criss Angel does each and every single one of his tricks in any given episode of the show Mindfreak. Obviously I am not a magician, and my knowledge of mentalism only goes far enough to know that with enough suggestion, and misderection, you can make all sorts of incredible things happen, not through the supernatural, but by mere trickery. Obviously though, I am not able to explain how Criss Angel does his tricks, the magician's trade is very tight-knit and not prone to revealing how their tricks are performed, and for very good reasons: these people often spend their entire lives creating and fashioning their very own illusions. They may put a new twist on a very well known magic trick, and completely make it their own. It is art in its purest form, and the excitement of it comes from the fact that we don't know how they do what they do.
Regardless of the fact that my inability to explain Criss Angel's tricks does not in any way make it more likely that they are supernatural in nature, I have been baffled many times by some of his stuff. I've listened carefully to him speak, looking for clues as to whether or not he claims his tricks are paranormal, or if they are mere illusions, and I've always gotten a bit of both. He uses alot of mystical and spiritual language in his shows, but he never once claimed that he has supernatual abilities. Regardless, I always wondered, until I saw him challenge Uri Geller (a self professed psychic whom James Randi famously exposed in the Tonight Show and wrote a book about called 'The Truth about Uri Geller') and Jim Callahan.

I was very pleasantly surprised to see that Criss Angel called them out on their nonsense. Its always fascinated me to know that Magicians are our first line of defense against magical and superstitious thinking, specially the one that comes from belief in Psychics. The magician is a person who does this kind of stuff for a living, but for entertainment. They claim to have absolutely no paranormal powers, but simply use illusion and trickery to fool the audience. The psychics however, don't simply do this for entertainment, they do it with the claim that they have mystical powers and are in touch with the 'other side'. I'm very glad to see that Criss Angel has positioned himself squarely in the skeptical camp. As a magician, he knows the ins and outs of trickery, and can identify when someone is simply using a magic trick and trying to pass it off as some kind of paranormal ability.

Needless to say, he's my new hero.

Logic/Economics problem

dp176406@ohio.edu (David Plumb) — Fri, 08 May 2009 03:42:00 +0000

This is a cool problem I just came across the other idea. It's basically a logic problem that describes economic logic (most importantly, the Coase Theorem). So, I thought I'd see how ya'll skeptics do when facing a problem like this. Like I said before, I think skeptics should add economics to their 'skeptical toolbox'

There are three industrial firms in Happy Valley.

Firm Initial Pollution Level Cost of Reducing Pollution by 1 Unit

A 70 Units $20
B 80 Units $25
C 50 Units $10

The government wants to reduce pollution to 120 units, so it gives each firm 40 tradable pollution permits.

a. Who sells permits and how many do they sell? Who buys permits and how many do they buy? Briefly explain why the sellers and buyers are each willing to do so. What is the total cost of pollution reduction in this situation?

b. How much higher would the costs of pollution reduction be if the permits could not be traded?

give it your best shot - winner gets mad props

Meet Brother Micah

ar318307@ohio.edu (Andres) — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:32:00 +0000

Meet Brother Micah, a real-life walking cartoon version of what Fundamentalism is about. He's been to my college a few times, since Ohio University is considered one of the top 10 party schools in the United States, it's only natural that we would draw his ire. He's a pretty interesting fellow, if you don't take anything he says seriously. He spews the typical "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is going to Hell" message, which for some reason really does offend some people.
I've had a few interesting conversations with the guy (and his wife...another lunatic), and it is simply mind boggling to see how a human being can completely abandon his sanity and use of mental reasoning for the sake of letting the Bible color into black and white his entire worldview.

According to him, you're going to hell for any of the following:

Pot Smoking

Cigarette Smoking

Alcohol Drinking

Guitar Playing

Having a Tattoo

Showing Cleavage

Showing Bellybuttons

Girls Showing Their Knees

Girls Showing Their Elbows

Girls Wearing Tight Pants

Girls Wearing Miniskirts

Being Blonde

Being Fat

Cursing

Kissing on the Mouth before Marriage

Holding Hands before Marriage

Groping Breast before Marriage

Having Premarital Sex

Masturbation

Having Anal Sex

Having Oral Sex

Being Homosexual

Judging People (He wasn't though, he was being honest)

Being Selfish

Playing Sports

Women Working

Watching BET

Watching MTV

Watching VH1

Watching TNT

Associating With Hollywood

Listening to “Gangsta Rap”, Techno, Christian Bands, and Rock and Roll

Believing in Evolution

Being Catholic

Being Jewish

Being Buddhist

Being Methodist

Being Protestant

Being Mormon

Being Muslim

Being Hindu

Being Agnostic

Being Atheist

Being a Woman (they're still paying for Eve's sin)

Being In a Sorority or Fraternity

Owning a Pet

Sin, Have Sinned, or Plan on Sinning in the Future

Oh yes, and you must listen to his "Homo Song".
I had the pleasure of hearing it today.

There are also a certain number of people who think making it illegal for these preachers to come to campus would be a good idea. I highly disagree. As John Stuart Mill argued, "Wecan never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is afalse opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evilstill."I'm personally grateful to attend a university that does not censor opinions, and I personally would fight for their right to spread this message, if only so that the rest of the world can be exposed to it and be better equipped to know why it is that we should reject their nonsense. This type of sermon reflects the kind of theology held by folks like the Westboro Baptist Church; which traces its roots to the type of Theology exposed by Jonathan Edwards in his famous sermon "Sinners at the hand of an angry God"To me, again, the problem is not so much religion, as it is people's use of religion to justify their bigotry. This guy is a misanthrope. He hates anyone who is different than he, and so he needs to justify that hatred somehow, and what better way to justify it than to use the Bible? I don't think his hatred of homosexuals came from having read the Bible. His bigotry was more than likely already established by his cultural background (he's from Kentucky), and then was allowed to nourish and gain an air of legitimacy once he became a Christian. This guy is a xenophobe, and he needs to vent said phobia somehow. Its sad, but I can't find myself hating them. If you let them get to you, they've won.The problem isn't just him and his wife, or anyone of his kind. The problem is also accentuated by the students who give him an audience. Its not enough listening to this guy's stupidity, but the students who also ask questions like "Does God have a penis?" and who try to argue with him that all morality is relative, something so easy to refute that even idiots like these can destroy such arguments. This is a type of fundamentalism that is disgusting, and its unfortunate to see that people genuinely get emotionally riled up by his vitriol, and therefore treat these people like sub-human beings. I've seen people try to steal their bibles, get into shout matches, and insult them, etc. No matter how much I may dislike them, I do have a sense of respect for them. It takes great psychological courage and strength to go to obviously hostile places like the top party schools in the U.S. and preach this kind of message. It must not only be tolling on their psychological health, but on their physical health as well. At the end of the day though, they're the ones who call for it. They can be semi-normal human beings when you approach them one on one and genuinely try to have conversations with them rather than shout fests. Maybe its because I let them finish their sentences when they talked to me, but they seem to have liked me (at least his wife did, Brother Micah compared me to a Pharisee and said I was a hellbound agnostic).

In the end, talking to them isn't going to change their minds. They've given everything up to spread this kind of message, and it would take a miracle, pardon the pun, to have them rethink any of their positions. But at the very least, conversation can lead to at least some type of mutual understanding. When they see that you're trying to talk about these things, and not trying to twist what they're saying, they've been much more receptive to talk rather than spew out Bible verses.

The entire time they were there I just wanted to give them a hug. And maybe that's what they need. I don't know their backgrounds, but a simple act of love can go many more miles than any theological dispute. And maybe thats all they need.

“They drew a circle that shut me out. Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But love and I had the wit to win. We drew a circle that took them in.”

On Skepticism and Doubt...

ar318307@ohio.edu (Andres) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:15:00 +0000

"There are no privileged a priori substantive truths. This eliminates the sacred from the world (of history and science, at least). All facts and all observers are equal (in that what is claimed to be fact should be tested to see if it can be supported). There are no privileged Sources or Affirmations, and all of them can be queried. In inquiry, all facts and features are separable: it is always proper to inquire whether combinations could not be other than what has previously been supposed. In other words, the world does not arrive as a package deal- which is the customary manner in which it appears in traditional cultures (and in both strong political ideologies and religions)-but piecemal."

In his book 'Why People Believe Weird Things', Michael Shermer writes that 'skepticism or debunking often receives the bad rap reserved for activities-like garbage disposal-that absolutely must be done for a safe and sane life, but seem either unglamorous or unworthy of overt celebration".
What does it mean to be a skeptic? Why should anyone ever be attracted to such an obviously cynical sounding word? Why define yourself by a negative word, that implies what you don't believe, as opposed to defining yourself by a positive, by what you do believe?

Skepticism comes from the Greek word 'skeptikos', which means "look about, consider, observe"
We are all skeptics in some way, we see it in almost every aspect of our lives. Carl Sagan wrote:

"We encounter it every day. When we buy a used car, if we are the least bit wise we will exert some residual skeptical powers -- whatever our education has left to us. You could say, "Here's an honest-looking fellow. I'll just take whatever he offers me." Or you might say, "Well, I've heard that occasionally there are small deceptions involved in the sale of a used car, perhaps inadvertent on the part of the salesperson," and then you do something. You kick the tires, you open the doors, you look under the hood. (You might go through the motions even if you don't know what is supposed
to be under the hood, or you might bring a mechanically inclined friend.) You know that some skepticism is required, and you understand why. It's upsetting that you might have to disagree with the used-car
salesman or ask him questions that he is reluctant to answer. There is at least a small degree of interpersonal confrontation involved in the purchase of a used car and nobody claims it is especially pleasant. But there is a good reason for it -- because if you don't exercise some
minimal skepticism, if you have an absolutely untrammeled credulity, there is probably some price you will have to pay later. Then you'll wish you had made a small investment of skepticism early."

Pascal wrote that humans are 'thinking reeds.' Both gloriously unique, and uniquely vulnerable. Our thinking can lead to destruction and brutality as often as it can lead to kindness and enlightenment. The ability to sort out good ideas from bad ones, fallacious arguments from the sound ones, does not come naturally or easily to us. It is something that as with anything in life, is developed. One must commit oneself to Socrates' famous declaration that "“The unexamined life is not worth living."

A thirst for knowledge, and a hunger for truth is that which should drive every human being. Too often we shy away from conversations with friends and family whenever they turn to 'serious' topics or philosophical disputes. We would much rather walk away from a conversation with someone who may lead you to question your own underlying assumptions and viewpoints, than take the Socratic approach and meet the challenge head on.

Skepticism gets a bad rap because of the impression that no matter how necessary it may be, it can only be regarded as a negative removal of false claims. This is not necessarily so. Skepticism is not a position to hold, but a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas. It is a method, not a position. It is an invaluable tool that every man should have in his utility belt. Proper skepticism weeds out bad ideas and lets the good ones flourish, if they've withstood critical examination. This world is replete with men all too willing to take advantage of a believing public. Life is full of uncertainty and questions, and our nature drives us to seek out those answers. The problem lies in the fact that there will always be men all too willing to claim to posses truth and knowledge that you too can possess, if only you pay a hefty fee.

"For example, take a fashionable fad, channeling. It has for its
fundamental premise, as does spiritualism, that when we die we don't
exactly disappear, that some part of us continues. That part, we are told,
can reenter the bodies of human and other beings in the future, and so
death loses much of its sting for us personally. What is more, we have an
opportunity, if the channeling contentions are true, to make contact with
loved ones who have died.
Speaking personally, I would be delighted if reincarnation were real. I
lost my parents, both of them, in the past few years, and I would love to
have a little conversation with them, to tell them what the kids are
doing, make sure everything is all right wherever it is they are. That
touches something very deep. But at the same time, precisely for that
reason, I know that there are people who will try to take advantage of
the vulnerabilities of the bereaved. The spiritualists and the channelers
better have a compelling case.

...Now, let's reconsider channeling. There is a woman in the State of
Washington who claims to make contact with a 35,000-year-old
somebody, "Ramtha" -- she, by the way, speaks English very well with
what sounds to me to be an Indian accent. Suppose we had Ramtha here
and just suppose Ramtha is cooperative. We could ask some questions:
How do we know that Ramtha lived 35,000 years ago? Who is keeping
track of the intervening millennia? How does it come to be exactly
35,000 years? That's a very round number. Thirty-five thousand plus or
minus what? What were things like 35,000 years ago? What was the
climate? Where on Earth did Ramtha live? (I know he speaks English
with an Indian accent, but where was that?) What does Ramtha eat?
(Archaeologists know something about what people ate back then.) We
would have a real opportunity to find out if his claims are true. If this
were really somebody from 35,000 years ago, you could learn a lot about
35,000 years ago. So, one way or another, either Ramtha really is 35,000
years old, in which case we discover something about that period --
that's before the Wisconsin Ice Age, an interesting time -- or he's a phony
and he'll slip up. What are the indigenous languages, what is the social
structure, who else does Ramtha live with -- children, grandchildren --
what's the life cycle, the infant mortality, what clothes does he wear,
what's his life expectancy, what are the weapons, plants, and animals?
Tell us. Instead, what we hear are the most banal homilies,
indistinguishable from those that alleged UFO occupants tell the poor
humans who claim to have been abducted by them."

Skepticism then is the tool that we must all learn to use in order to live an intellectually healthy life.
At its core, it is a very simple thing to do. When someone makes any sort of fantastic claim, we are the ones who say "That's nice, prove it. Or at the very least, show me the evidence".
And how then should we examine evidence? How do we weed out plausible explanations apart from 'non-answers'? Through the method of science. Science, at its core is the gathering of data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena.

"A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion."

Science will never find any sort of 'ultimate truth'. Science deals with the natural world, and it is confined by the empirical and testable world. And that is fine. Science may not be the ultimate begetter of truth, but it doesn't need to be.

' All our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have.' —Albert Einstein

Science alone isn't enough however. One must also develop a hunger for truth and knowledge that will lead you to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter how uncomfortable it may make you.
Philosophy then is is that area which all men ought to take an interest in. It is all to common for many people to be put off by Philosophy, thinking it nothing more than 'masturbation of the mind', or mindless wordplay. Yet philosophy is much more than that, it isn't petty quibbling over the meaning of words, but rather it is the search for the foundation of reality itself. From Metaphysics, to Ethics, philosophy seeks to find the very foundations of the even the most basic of our assumptions.

Why should we love philosophy? Because, as Bertrand Russel said: "The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy , though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to all the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.

Apart from its utility in showing unsuspected possibilities, philosophy has a value-perhaps its chief value- through the greatness of the objects which it contemplates, and the freedom from narrow and personal aims resulting from this contemplation. The life of the instinctive man is shut up within the circle of his private interests: Family and friends may be included, but the outer world is not regarded except as it may help or hinder what comes within the circle of instinctive wishes. In such a life there is something feverish and confined, in comparison with which the philosophic life is calm and free. The private world of instinctive interests is a small one, set in the midst of a great and powerful world which must, sooner or later, lay our private world in ruins. Unless we can so enlarge our interests as to include the whole outer world, we remain like a garrison in a beleagured fortress, knowing that the enemy prevents escape and that ultimate surrender is inevitable. In such a life there is no peace, but a constant strife between the insistence of desire and the powerlessness of will. In one way or another, if our life is to be great and free, we must escape this prison and this strife."

At the very heart of philosophy is the ability of human beings to question the most basic dogmas of their times. At the heart of it then, is skepticism, that healthy skepticism that lies firmly in the middle between 'anything goes' gullibility, and 'nothing is to be believed' cynicism.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

So then, whenever anyone makes any sort of fantastic claim, and wants you to believe as they do, it is our duty to make sure that their most basic assumptions are firmly established. If they are not, then, as David Hume said, 'toss it to the flames'. Whenever someone tells you, for example, that you should buy into Horoscopes and Astrology, one should make sure that their conclusions are based on a solid foundations. The question one ought to ask then is 'What evidence is there that the gravitational pull of any star or constellation has any effect whatsoever on a person's personality, as well as somehow indicate how his future will pan out. Why for example, is the gravitational pull of Jupiter on a human baby such a strong indicator of what kind of person he will be, when for example, the gravitational pull of a doctor at the time of birth is much stronger on the baby, than the planet itself, given its incredible distance away. If someone makes any kind of truth claim, they ought to be prepared to defend said claim against any possible criticism. As of yet, I've never received an adequate answer to my question to astrologers.

The number of fantastic and outlandish claims in the world are numerous, and one simply cannot take the time to study them all. Yet the simple spirit of doubting, of questioning, and of proportioning your beliefs only to what the evidence suggests, is available to us all.

With the rise of the information age, there are also numerous resources to consult instantly to try to verify a great portion of these claims.

One of these is the Skeptic's Dictionary

Yet another great resource is the Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural

In the end, the only people we can trust is ourselves.
Why should we take anything anyone says as true?

We shouldn't.

Cogita Tute-Think for yourself.

Vaccines and Religious Exemption

noreply@blogger.com (Brett Nuckles) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:39:00 +0000

In February, two OU freshmen were diagnosed with bacterial meningitis. In brief, meningitis refers to an inflammation of the protective membranes covering the brain and spinal cord, known collectively as the meninges. Left untreated, bacterial meningitis is almost always fatal.

In other words, it’s nothing to kid around about.

As it turns out, both students had been vaccinated for meningitis—but that vaccine covers only four of the five main strains of the disease. Though they are a startlingly effective preemptive measure, most vaccines cannot promise 100% immunity.

I bring this up nearly three months later in light of a new development. As reported by the Post last Thursday, three Ohio state senators have introduced a bill that would require all students to receive a vaccine for bacterial meningitis and hepatitis B if living on campus at any college or university in Ohio. I applaud the efforts of these senators to ensure the health and safety of Ohio students—that’s us—but a particular detail of the report caught my eye. Perhaps unsurprising, a stipulation of the bill is that students should be able to waive the requirement on grounds of religious exception.

I will note here that the article also reports that students should be able to forgo vaccination on grounds of risks to their personal health. The safety of vaccination is a can of worms that I’m not particularly interested in discussing in this post, but I will state first and unequivocally that these sorts of appeals bear little weight in my mind. Vaccines are safe and effective. And any portion of the population which remains unvaccinated is a risk to public health. Period.

That’s that. But for students to resist vaccination and consequently become a risk to the health of innocent bystanders—and I want to make it clear that the following thoughts are directed specifically to students in dorm, as they will be the ones affected by this pending legislation—on grounds of religious conviction? For me at least, this is where things get interesting.

The Rules of Exemption

How exactly is religious exemption defined? According to Florida “vaccine awareness group K.N.O.W., “religious exemption is for anyone who has a sincere religious conflict with vaccination.” I’m particularly amused by the idea that exemption might only be granted on the basis of “sincere” religious conflict. I’ve yet to come across any litmus test or gold standard for religious sincerity. The wording is especially interesting to me because the K.N.O.W. FAQ also states that no agent may have the authority to request proof of the dissenter’s religious belief, nor are they able inquire about or discriminate between religious denominations.

In other words, you’re “sincerely religious” if you say you are. And why not? I have no problems there. I certainly don’t doubt the religious sincerity of many of my friends and family members. What I am troubled by is this: by these rules, it follows naturally that you can, as a dorm-dwelling student, forgo vaccination if you feel like it— and that’s all the reason you need.

Equally interesting is the group’s attempt to list the reasons that constitute a religious conflict, which reads as follows:

All vaccines are made in violation of God's Word. Vaccines are made with toxic chemicals that are injected into the bloodstream by vaccination. All vaccines are made with foreign proteins (viruses and bacteria), and some vaccines are made with genetically engineered viral and bacterial materials.

A conflict arises if you believe that man is made in God's image and the injection of toxic chemicals and foreign proteins into the bloodstream is a violation of God's directive to keep the body/temple holy and free from impurities.

A conflict arises if you accept God's warning not to mix the blood of man with the blood of animals. Many vaccines are produced in animal tissues.

A conflict arises if your religious convictions are predicated on the belief that all life is sacred. God's commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill" applies to the practice of abortion. When you believe that the practice of abortion should not be encouraged or supported in any way, a conflict arises with the use of vaccines produced in aborted fetal tissue even though you did not have any other connection with the abortions from which the vaccines are derived.

While I find these particular appeals mundane, it is interesting at least that they might try to distill a finite set of religious incompatibilities, and with an obvious bias toward the dogma of conventional fundamentalist Christianity. It almost seems that, for a moment, they’ve forgot their self-imposed rule—that they remain open to any and all convictions and creeds. Where are the rules to protect dissenting Pastafarians?

The Dangers of Exemption

All of that is interesting, but I’ve yet to get to the real heart of my concern. This new law in the Ohio senate was proposed for a reason—the measures therein are important, maybe even vital, to ensuring the future health and safety of students. Disease is dangerous. Disease kills.

Let me repeat that. Disease kills.

If you are not vaccinated, you’ve been negligent in regards to your own health. But worse-- because even those who have been vaccinated are still susceptible, you’ve become a danger to everyone around you. You are a risk to public health.

Most people reading have probably lived in a dorm at some point or another, and could attest to their relative filthiness. When you’ve got this many 18 year-olds living together in such close proximity, and sharing so much of their living space, what else could you expect? In dorms, kids get sick—and the sickness spreads.

Here’s the crux of the problem: Admission into a public university is a privilege, not a right. If you cannot adhere to the basic health standards of that university, for any reason, you do not deserve a free pass. If you cannot attend a university--and especially be admitted to live in its dormitories--because you refuse vaccination, how unfortunate for you. And if you’re really smart? How unfortunate for academia.

But how fortunate for everybody else.

This isn’t a matter of respect or tolerance or sensitivity. These things are all important—incredibly important—but their significance drops proportionately in the face of such a serious health risks.

Consider for a moment that the courts have successfully outlawed cigarette smoking in all public buildings in Ohio. While I support those laws for personal reasons, let’s be frank—the primary health concerns that sparked that legislation is dubious at best. Living with a smoker may be a danger to your health. Eating dinner next to one is simply unpleasant.

So I wonder why we aren’t able to seek religious exception to that law? “Pardon me sir, but I really must light up—it’s my religion, you see.”

I think a compelling parallel could be drawn here to the student who is admitted into a university dorm and chooses not to be vaccinated—and in this case the health concerns are very real.

On the Bermuda Triangle...

ar318307@ohio.edu (Andres) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:17:00 +0000

I'm sure most of us who have watched the History and Discovery Channels (which is unfortunate actually, to see some of the few channels dedicated to science and the persuit of truth succumbing to such fantasies as cryptozoology and the paranormal), are familiar with the Bermuda triangle. What is the Bermuda Triangle?

"The Bermuda Triangle (a.k.a. the Devil's Triangle) is a triangular area in the Atlantic Ocean bounded roughly at its points by Miami, Bermuda, and Puerto Rico. Legend has it that many people, ships and planes have mysteriously vanished in this area. How many have mysteriously disappeared depends on who is doing the locating and the counting. The size of the triangle varies from 500,000 square miles to three times that size, depending on the imagination of the author. (Some include the Azores, the Gulf of Mexico, and the West Indies in the "triangle.") Some trace the mystery back to the time of Columbus. Even so, estimates range from about 200 to no more than 1,000 incidents in the past 500 years. Howard Rosenberg claims that in 1973 the U.S. Coast Guard answered more than 8,000 distress calls in the area and that more than 50 ships and 20 planes have gone down in the Bermuda Triangle within the last century."

"Many theories have been given to explain the extraordinary mystery of these missing ships and planes. Evil extraterrestrials, residue crystals from Atlantis, evil humans with anti-gravity devices or other weird technologies, and vile vortices from the fourth dimension are favorites among fantasy writers. Strange magnetic fields and oceanic flatulence(methane gas from the bottom of the ocean) are favorites among the technically-minded. Weather (thunderstorms, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, high waves, currents, etc.) bad luck, pirates, explosive cargoes, incompetent navigators, and other natural and human causes are favorites among skeptical investigators."

I don't know about you, but when I was a little kid, the thought that such a fantastic phenomenom was real, and not only that, but also so close to where I lived (the Bermuda Triangle touches the northern part of Puerto Rico) gave me great excitement. However, is there really anything to be explained? Is there anything actually out of the ordinary going on in this area?

The short and simple answer is, probably not. If you take a look at this map, you will see just how silly the claims really are. Notice that most of the supposed mysterious disapperances and unexplained events have occurred outside of the supposed triangle. Many wreckages are not even included in this map because the scale of the map would not allow them to be shown, some were even as far away as Ireland and Portugal. How can this be?

A Square marks a ship or aircraft that "disappeared."
A Triangle marks a ship or aircraft that was found abandoned.
A Circle marks a ship or aircraft that sank, crashed, ran aground, or capsized.

I don't know about you, but I think it is curious to see that there is even a lost vehicle in the Pacific that is blaimed on the Bermuda Triangle.

Here is an excerpt from James Randi's 'Flim-Flam':
"The point is that, if it exists at all, this is certainly a most diffuse phenomenon, and it appears that it only proves, as a the old saw tells us, that 'accidents will happen.' I must mention that I refused to include on the map those alleged accidents that never took place at all or involved nonexistant craft or people. Also, you will not find here those 'vanishments' that took place somewhere along a thousand- to three-thousand mile-long plotted voyage that might have led the travelers through the Triangle."

'There are some skeptics who argue that the facts do not support the legend, that there is no mystery to be solved, and nothing that needs explaining.The number of wrecks in this area is not extraordinary, given its size, location and the amount of traffic it receives. Many of the ships and planes that have been identified as having disappeared mysteriously in the Bermuda Triangle were not in the Bermuda Triangle at all. Investigations to date have not produced scientific evidence of any unusual phenomena involved in the disappearances. Thus, any explanation, including so-called scientific ones in terms of methane gas being released from the ocean floor, magnetic disturbances, etc., are not needed. The real mystery is how the Bermuda Triangle became a mystery at all.'

For the most part, the reason the Bermuda Triangle has become so famous is because of certain snake oil salesmen...I mean...authors...who have deliberately twisted the facts in order to have them fit into a particular superstitious framework. Thankfully there are certain skeptics out there who have taken it as a duty to fact check books such as 'The Bermuda Triangle', 'Mysteries From Forgotten Worlds', and 'Without a Trace' by authors like Charles Berlitz.

A good book that sorts out this nonsense is The Bermuda Triangle Mystery-Solved.

One example described in this book serves to illustrate how careful one has to be in accepting what is asserted as evidence. According to one incident, 'thirty-nine persons vanished north of the Triangle on a flight to Jamaica on February 2, 1953. An SOS, which ended abruptly without explanation, was sent by the British York Transport just before it disappeared. No trace was ever found.'

Now, lets look at what really happened:
"The flight plan specified Jamaica as a destination, it's true, and this would seem to connect it with the Triangle. But the plane, when it was lost, was on a flight from the Azores to Newfoundland, in Canada, a flight that took it along a northwesterly path away from the dreaded area! The plan called for a stop in Newfoundland, then a flight to Jamaica. Since its terminal destination was Jamaica, the promulgators of the Legend called it 'a flight to Jamaica' without further explanation. Moreover, the plane admittedly was lost 'north of the Triangle'-nine hundred miles north of it! There is no mention of the weather, but the New York Times that day reported an 'icy, gale-swept North Atlantic...strong winds and torrential rains...winds up to seventy-five miles an hour.'
Then there is the mysterious SOS signal, 'which ended abruptly without explanation.' This sounds logical enough. An aircraft, lashed by a severe storm in the middle of the Atlantic in winter, gets into trouble, radios the standard international distress call, and crashes without further 'explanation'. A tragedy, but one that has occured hundreds of times around the world, and not at all strange or unexplainable. But it would have been, had not someone like Larry Kusche scrutinized the information that the promoters of this nonsense have offered the public to make their point."

A huge problem is the media, who give these authors the benefit of the doubt. 'Uncritical publishers regularly turn out books and periodicals without checking the accuracy of their contents. They call such trash 'nonfiction', and the public assumes that 'non-fiction' is synonymous with 'truth'. Some publishers even claim that the works they publish are researched thoroughly to ensure factual content, although this is not the case.'

Kusche reviewed another Berlitz book, 'Without a trace', in which he wrote: "His (Berlit'z) credibility is so low that it is virtually nonexistent. If Berlitz were to report that a boat were red, the chance of it being some other color is almost a certainty. He says things that simply are untrue. He leaves out material that contradicts his 'mystery'. A real estate salesman who operated that way would end up in jail."

There are many such examples, I wont write all of them in this blog because it will get too long, but if anyone asks, I can provide more in the comments section. Here is one short one: "The loss of Eastern Airlines Flight 401 is a good example of Berlitz's hyberbole and evasive writing. He tells us that the Eastern plane 'suffered a loss by disintegration' Sounds scary doesn't it? The image that arises in one's mind is of an aircraft peacefully humming through the sky and then suddenly beginning to break into peaces in midair for no reason at all. How strange. But not quite so strange when we discover that the crew of the plane had switched off the autopilot in the black of night over the Florida Everglades (where there are no ground lights for reference), worked on a flight problem in the cockpit, and failed to notice the loss of altitue until they flew into the ground-and disintegrated!"

It makes for a fascinating story, if it were a Science Fiction novel, but people for some reason keep repeating these stories as if they were true to one another without bothering to ever fact check. The world is a fascinating enough place as it is without having to attribute spirits to waterfalls, and blame mysterious lost civilizations like Atlantis for the every day failings of ships and airplanes.

"In short, the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle became a mystery by a kind of communal reinforcement among uncritical authors and a willing mass media to uncritically pass on the speculation that something mysterious is going on in the Atlantic."

The Catholic Church gets it wrong Again

ar318307@ohio.edu (Andres) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 04:57:00 +0000

"In his first public comments on condom use, the pontiff told reporters
en route to Cameroon that Aids "is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by
money alone, and that cannot be overcome through the distribution of
condoms, which even aggravates the problems"

Joe also blogged about this bullshit here and here.

Who is going to hold 'His holiness' morally accountable to the death that he is directly contributing to with his failed ideology? Unlike Joe, I do not believe the Pope is guilty of any criminal act by saying that the use of Condoms is wrong, but he is and ought to be held criminally responsible for the blatant falsehoods that he is spreading when he claims that condoms actually contribute to the AIDS epidemic. This is both morally corrupt and outright criminal.

Thankfully, this has backfired on him, and many have left the Catholic church because of this. Apparently "Roman Catholic canon law allows a process known as a “formal act of
defection” from the faith. This means that a note will be made on a
person’s baptismal record stating that they have left the church"

Here's just one letter by someone who considered this to be the final nail in the coffin:

"Firstly, I can no longer quiet my moral objections to certain
Vatican policies. This extends from matters raised in the investigative
works of David Yallop, in his books ‘In God’s Name’ and ‘The Power and
the Glory’ up to recent statements which have been made by Pope
Benedict XVI, such as his holiness’s refusal to acknowledge matters of
basic scientific fact concerning the preventative spread of HIV AIDS,
through condom use. The Catholic church is in a unique position to
educate and prevent the spread of this disease, but instead chooses to
make it 10 times worse on the fundamentally flawed assumption that
without the temptation of protected sex, the destitute underclass will
opt for bronze-age fallacies and chastity. This is something which I
find morally repugnant, that in any other reality would see those
responsible for this policy permanently removed from office—if not
exposed to criminal proceedings. That we are instructed instead to view
these comments with reverence, simply because of who uttered them, is
perhaps the single best explanation of why church attendance figures
are in decline one could wish to find.
The Pope has also made illogical pronouncements on greed and
corruption, whilst sitting atop a throne made of gold and precious
stones. He has called the unearthing of a secret Vatican policy of over
40 years standing, which was designed to protect pedophiles in the
priesthood while silencing their victims, “a media exaggeration”. He
has failed to punish Holocaust deniers in the Bishopric while
excommunicating the mother of a nine year old rape victim who became
pregnant by her own step father, who himself remained free to attend
mass. He has an attitude from the dark ages towards people who are
genetically predetermined to be attracted to members of their own sex.
He has turned a blind eye to Knights of Columbus donations to political
campaigns in the hundreds of millions of dollars while in the poorest
countries of the world denouncing liberation theology, welcoming money
lenders back into the temple to literally pontificate on the very
opposite of humility and sacrifice contained in the teachings of Christ.
But more than all of this, Father Stott, I tend to agree with
Agnesë Mother Teresa Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, when she said, “I no longer feel
God’s presence, even in the Eucharist”, because to my mind, it is a
simple matter of deductive logic that there is no such omnipotent being
as God, least of all the petulant sadist worshipped by those of my
former faith from which I now seek final and public excommunication.
If, anywhere in the ever expanding universe, there were such a
being as that which you describe in Yahweh, I find it unlikely that He
would allow the things which take place in His name to continue, were
he capable of intervening to prevent them. Since, for the last 13.7
billion years, God has failed to do this, one can only conclude that He
is incapable of such an act, in which case He is not the benevolent God
of the good book we are dogmatically told by those in your profession
He is, while failing to present the slightest shred of evidence to
back-up one deluded axiom after another, spanning centuries of war,
hate, oppression and greed in defence of this intolerant and
shrivelling credo.

For these reasons and myriad others, which I am almost certain you
are equally uninterested in hearing about as you are those above, I
hereby formally request that I am no longer, as a matter of public
record, to be considered a Catholic. I would be grateful for written
confirmation of this request as and when you are able to provide it.
Look on the bright side, father. You lose me, you gain Tony Blair."

Why does it always seem to me like defectors from the faith tend to be the most Christ like?

Skepticism and Economics

dp176406@ohio.edu (David Plumb) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:08:00 +0000

I'm studying economics, and despite the fact that I will be specializing in microeconomics as I finish my PhD - I know a fair amount about the macroeconomics of the recent crisis. I also know a fair amount about the stock market, finance, mortgages, and securities ... etc...

The other day Jon Stewart had Jim Cramer of mad money on his show (watch it here, its chilling)*** and called him out on some shady hedge fund stuff that he used to do. He also called him out on his shruggist attitude and sensationalist approach on his TV show where he knows his advice is often on the 'pretend market' (which is explained perfectly by Jon on the show).

I hope that mixing economics and skepticism will catch on soon - it is uncharted territory in the skeptical community. Skeptics on the whole know a fair amount about religion, natural science, psychology, medicine, literature, and philosophy. However, I think that skeptics have yet to truly add business and economics to their repertoire. I certainly do not blame skeptics for this, if anything economics is an extremely convoluted and often esoteric field.

The recent events that lead to the crash is such a great example of why this is the case (that is, why skepticism ought to begin lending their critical thinking to these areas). Not to mention the Bernie Madoff tens of billions of dollars ponzi scheme that was just revealed. Anyway, there are so many intricacies that make up the 'markets' and thus many places for experts to take advantage. Also, when it comes to big investments that make your life better off - such as buying a home - many people are nearly clueless as to what is going on (its not every day you buy a house, unless of course you're a lender or an agent). Unethical people use this asymmetry of information to their advantage every day - one example of this was the predatory lending and ridiculous leveraging going on in the sub prime markets that contributed to the crisis.

I hope to make more posts that directly link economics to skepticism and business to skepticism as well as include this in the podcosts. Like I said before, skeptics usually know a lot about science and so on - and to continue fleshing out a well rounded base of knowledge and understanding is essential to inquiry and critical thinking.

***As a side note, the 35:1 leveraging mentioned in the video above is the ratio of debt to equity in an investment. For example, someone wants to buy a home for $360,000, and they only have $10,000 to pay as a down payment - if the bank approves this, then the debt:equity is $350,000:$10,000, which simplified is 35:1. This higher this ratio, the riskier the investment. The rule of thumb (without considering income for now) is to have a 10% down payment. So to use the example again, the down payment recommended is $36,000. Thus, the debt:equity would be $324,000:$36,000, which simplified is 9:1 (MUCH better).

If you have any questions about this economic or financial stuff, just write them below and I'll field them as they come. Other than that, I'd also like to know what you think about extending skepticism to the areas it usually does not touch - such as economics.

Word,

David

Going green only a fad?

dp176406@ohio.edu (David Plumb) — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:44:00 +0000

Only 41% of Americans say protecting the environment is a top priority for the new year, a 15-point decline from the previous January when 56% called it a top priority.

I've been wondering whether or not the green movement would eventually fizzle out and become known as a fad. However, it is important to remember that other issues such as an economic crisis could be responsible for the shift of opinion.

So, is it just a fad?

Designer Babies

dp176406@ohio.edu (David Plumb) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:30:00 +0000

"In response to feedback received related to our plans to introduce preimplantation genetic prediction of eye pigmentation, an internal, self regulatory decision has been made to proceed no further with this project. Though well intended, we remain sensitive to public perception and feel that any benefit the diagnostic studies may offer are far outweighed by the apparent negative societal impacts involved. For those patients with albinism or other ocular pigmentation disorders, we continue to offer preimplantation genetic diagnosis in general but will not be investigating the genetics of pigmentation of any body structures."

-March 2nd, 2009 - from The Fertility Institutes

The Fertility Institutes are a collection of fertility clinics that have the technology to scan to the genetic composition of an embryo for diseases before implantation. They create the embryos, then after a few days when they are about 6-8 cells big they can extract a piece from it for testing. However, recently they've been telling the public that they will soon offer more than this - not only can you screen for disease but for eye color, hair color, skin color, and basic aesthetic characteristics.

This is known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD.

According this article,

"PGD is used for medical purposes to avert life-threatening diseases in children, but the science behind it has matured so that it could potentially create a designer baby.

In a recent United States survey of 999 people who sought genetic counseling, about 10 percent of respondents said they would want genetic testing for athletic ability, while another 10 percent voted for improved height."

Needless to say, this made people a bit skirmish, hence the above statement responding via suspension of the program.

Although we talked about this a bit at our meeting the other night, I was wondering what specific problems and/or benefits are there to this technology? Is scientific progress crossing ethical borders where it ought not?

Shermer Vs. Hovind

noreply@blogger.com (Eric G.) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:41:00 +0000

Funny seeing someone who we ate dinner with one week and someone who we named turd sandwich the next.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-cORRZdng

John Edwards Gets Skeptipwnd

ar318307@ohio.edu (Andres) — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:47:00 +0000

Priceless

Christopher Hitchens v. Dinesh D'Souza

dp176406@ohio.edu (David Plumb) — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:57:00 +0000

Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza at CU Boulder from Justin Leddick on Vimeo.

Originally from Richard Dawkins's site.

Skepticism, missunderstood

dp176406@ohio.edu (David Plumb) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:53:00 +0000

One thing skeptics exert a lot of effort doing is explaining exactly what a skeptic is, why we're skeptical, what we're skeptical of, and what a skeptical organization is all about.

Another part of this is all of the baggage people bring to the word 'skeptic.'

This usually causes skeptics to start out by saying what a skeptic is not. For example, skepticism is not cynicism, we are not a bunch of nay saying curmudgeons. Many think that skeptics are bitter defenders of the status quo, and that we are closed minded to anything new or strange. These accusations crop up especially when we're in the midst in of investigating something. The moment you begin to pick apart something that someone believes in dearly, they become offended. Believers in belief join them in their anger and protest our inquiry as well - I suppose we should not ask answers and dig around simply because it will offend someone.

Some don’t want their beliefs overlooked, but also don’t want their beliefs looked over too much. So, skeptics prod a little and ask questions attempting to get to the heart of a matter and we hit nerves along the way. This gets us names like bullies, party-crashers, pompous, etc...

It seems to me that this all stems from a fundamental peice of beliefs - and that is the personal attachment. Psychics and paranormal beliefs will tear up with excitement when you doubt them, Christians will be offended by the questioning of Jesus Christ and the existence of their god, Muslims shun apostates, conspiracy theorists will scream and rant and rave about we're all fooled by [whatever], and apologists will join them all in their dissatisfaction with non-believers and skeptics.

So, whats the deal?

Why is this case? Why is it not more appealing to challenge beliefs, superstitions, and ideas? Why stiffle intellectual curiosity? In the history of skeptics coming into the public eye to challenge liars, con artists, and even just beliefs in gerenal - I've yet to really see a person who is a part of the skeptical community do anything purposively offensive. If you are called out on something, and that call is true, and you get offended, well - thats on you. It is bizare that the response to the truth is never admittance, but special pleading and name calling (you're a bully, this only doesn't work because you're so skeptical).

Why is it the case that skeptical and critical thinking is not the norm? And rather, it is is seen as a negative way of thinking about the world.... any thoughts?

The podcast is up!!!!

dp176406@ohio.edu (David Plumb) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:58:00 +0000

We have completed the first episode of the podcast. The link to it is on the sidebar, and it has an RSS feed for your convenience.

Thanks,

David

The podcast is up!!!!

dp176406@ohio.edu (David Plumb) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:58:00 +0000

We have completed the first episode of the podcast. The link to it is on the sidebar, and it has an RSS feed for your convenience.

Thanks,

David

On Methodological Naturalism...

ar318307@ohio.edu (Andres) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:12:00 +0000

Methodological Naturalism- "Science can only appeal to natural laws and physical entities as explanations of observable phenomena."

As a skeptic, I usually find many anecdotes of all sorts of strange phenomena. From alien abductions, to ghost stories, to faith healers, etc., people love to make up all sorts of extraordinary claims for very simple every day things that happen to them. For example, a person may be feeling a bit sick one day, so he decides to go to church and be prayed for. He then returns home, goes to sleep, and finds that in the morning, he's feeling much better. Would it be reasonable to say that it was the fact that he was prayed that which made him feel better? Is it simply ok to jump to the conclusion that God miraculously healed him? Not really. Take him to a doctor and you will more than likely get a perfectly natural explanation. Most diseases/viruses, etc. are self-terminating. Your body's immune system naturally fights them off, if given enough time. No need to invoke any sort of supernatural entity in order to explain your sickness going away.
And this is the nature of science, it deals with the known, physical world. Appeals to the supernatural are simply unnaceptable, and for good reason. One simply does not invoke miracles in order to explain anything, because a miracle is not an explanation at all. It is what Dawkins calls "A non-answer". The problem of appealing to the supernatural, or to the extranatural is that you are simply answering a mistery with a mistery. For example, in my home island of Puerto Rico, there have been reports of animals found dead with two 'vampire-like' holes in their necks. Many people then have invented a creature to explain these mysterious deaths, they call it "El Chupacabras"
The problem with using this as an explanation is that no one has ever confirmed the existence of this Chupacabra creature. So when you ask "What is going on here with these animals", the reply is "We dont know, but we think it may be this creature called El Chupacabra.", which then begs you to ask the question "What is el Chupacabras?", to which they will reply "We dont know". So in essence, you're back to square one. Nothing has been explained at all.

For every day, common things, we should all be extremely weary of appeals to the supernatural or appeals to the extraordinary for explanations. When someone tells you the reason you got Pink Eye is because a Demon has entered your body, you're better off ending the conversation right there and going to a doctor. It doesn't mean that the supernatural does not exist, it just means that science does not deal with that area, science is confined to the observable and testable, something which clearly the Supernatural is not, and so in the scientific way of doing things, the natural explanation is always the best one.
However, what happens with much 'bigger picture' type questions about the nature of the universe?

"Given the limitations placed by methodological naturalism, science is sometimes pushed into odd corners. Consider the discovery of finely-tuned cosmological constants, including each of the coupling parameters for the four fundamental forces. If any of these twenty or so constants had been slightly different, life would impossible anywhere in the universe. Most agree that this discovery requires an explanation. Under methodological naturalism, when physicist Lee Smolin explains fine-tuning by positing a vast multiverse of possible universes each with different values for these constants, he’s doing science. When astronomer Owen Gingerich explains the very same observations by means of purposeful design, he’s doing religion. This is at best an artificial demarcation. As archeology and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) project show, design is an explanatory concept already used in science. Nonetheless, the only scientifically acceptable explanation of fine-tuning at present is an undetectable multiverse. Cosmologists must therefore pursue this hypothesis to win grants, publish papers, and get tenure, even if supernatural design happens to be the right answer. As this example shows, methodological naturalism is actually in conflict with realism. In order to hold scientific realism, one must believe that theories are generally reliable indicators of truth. But if there is a choice between naturalism and truth, methodological naturalism forces science to choose the former. Once science is limited to certain kinds of entities, it can no longer follow the data wherever it leads. It is forced instead to beat the data until it offers a naturalistic confession."

"Another problem for methodological naturalism is that no one knows what sort of explanatory resources science will need in the future. One can bet that we will never need to use design, but that’s a prediction, not a discovery or an inference from established truths. Many of the expectations of late-19th century physicists were dashed by general relativity, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory. Instead of limiting our explanatory resources, we should allow scientists the latitude to employ whatever entities best explain the phenomena. " (Kopersky)

My opinions on this are mixed. Firstly, it seems to me like holding a dogmatic naturalist position in the sciences would eventually mean that science would completely be of no help if it indeed does turn out that it was God who created the universe. By simply saying "Science deals with the natural, not the supernatural", science has confined itself to a box, and as Kopersky says, it would mean scientists would no longer be able to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

However, I have an issue with his statement "we should allow scientists the latitude to employ whatever entities best explain the phenomena."
Whatever entities? This takes me back to the first part of this blog, in which I explained that appeals to the supernatural seem to not ever bee adequate explanations for anything. Up to this day, the very best explanations for everything we know about the universe have been perfectly natural explanations. We no longer need to appeal to the 'Chariots of the gods' in order to explain why the planets revolve around the sun. We no longer need to attribute 'the god's anger' whenever there's a thunderstorm or a tornado, but instead, we can adequately explain these things by our observation of weather patterns, etc.
My main argument against this is simply that we should use history as a guidepost in order to judge the adequacy of a type of ‘God of the Gaps’ argument. Every single known instance in which the supernatural has been invoked as an explanation for any sort of phenomena has been wrong, thus, why should we believe any appeal to the supernatural will ever be right in the future?

"What if the right explanation for some phenomenon is supernatural? It doesn’t matter. Under methodological naturalism, the best naturalistic explanation is the best scientific explanation, and via realism, we take that explanation as true. Given that there is little if anything that science does not purport to explain, methodological naturalism plus realism implies that nearly every phenomenon has a true, naturalistic explanation, at least in principle."

If we are going to be honest about finding truth, wherever it may lead, we should recognize when it is that we are letting our metaphysical assumptions about the universe get in the way of investigating. If we assume a priori that there is no God, is it possible that we will then develop a method of investigation (the Scientific Method) that because of its very nature, will exclude the very possibility of finding evidence for a deity? In essence, won't we be finding what we're already looking for in the data, rather than letting the data speak for itself?

What are your thoughts?

Psychics here and there

dp176406@ohio.edu (David Plumb) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:15:00 +0000

PART 1

"The housing crisis will deepen, the country could fall into a depression and laid-off workers may need to start their own business"

---According to Roxanne Usleman, a self proclaimed psychic (sorry for the redundancy, they are all self proclaimed - or at least proclaimed by others that are self proclaimed in being able to tell if someone is psychic or not)

Apparently, Roxanna can see the financial future, and even give business advice!

According to this article, 'Business is good, she says. Usleman sees five or six clients a day and charges up to $135 a pop for sessions that usually last more than an hour.'

Thankfully she was able to foresee that the historically low interest rates that began a few years ago along with the quasi-public Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae that encouraged home ownership and sold toxic bonds all around the world would lead to a financial meltdown, and subsequently tough decisions concerning what to do about it.

...wait, no she didn't.

I guess the crystal ball has been a little cloudy over the past few years, and she could not quite see the perfect storm of a financial crisis that was creeping up on us.

Of course, psychics will usually give excuses to these sort of reactions, such as:

"psychic powers aren't an exact science, it takes years to build them up, so I'm still learning"

or

"simply because we are psychic doesn't mean that we can see EVERYTHING"

or

"I can only convey what the spirit realm gives me, I'm more of a medium of communication"

Whatever they say, they never provide proof that what they're doing is legitimate. Eventually, at least one or two predictions they make will come true because they are built from common sense and are numerous. Probability has it that it would be remarkable if none of them came true.

PART 2

This brings me to the Athens psychics. There is a new 'psychic Saturday' event going on at the Athens Book Center all day on Saturdays for the next few months. In response, the OU Skeptics recreated the pamphlet skeptic magazine sent out recently (10 steps to becoming a psychic) that give an overview of the mentalism involved in psychic 'readings.' We stood outside of the Athens Book Center for a few hours handing them out to passers by and those coming in and out of the store. Although it was a little chilly out we had a good time.

The friends of the psychics who were hanging around were decent to us, and defended their beliefs to us. Everything was alright, and even though they were thrilled about what we were doing - they were atleast cordial.

However, at one point, a women who was there absolutely insisted that one of us get a reading. She was basically telling us 'don't knock it till you you've tried it'. We agreed (as it was at no cost to us), but only one could go inside. The man (who we never got to meet) who was giving the readings inside said he had nothing to prove, but would do it anyway. So, we sent Amanda (our beautfil Treasurer, and my special lady friend) in for the free reading.

Once inside, she went back to the psychic reading room with the guy and they proceeded. He asked her if she ever had any turmoil in a relationship. She was a little stumped (the answer is clearly yes - I mean - how could someone make it this far in life without it?). He realized this was too vague and rephrased it to 'recently.' She said, 'well, couldn't that apply to anyone?'

And he yelled at her and kicked her out!

"I don't want to waste my energy and my time on you!"

Jerk!

Apparently Amanda has negative energy just pouring off of her.

Classic excuse, guy - "your skepticism is messing with my 'energy'"

So, I feel like it was a semi-success and we had fun talking to everyone who came out.

Look for us next weekend as well, we will be back if the 'psychics' are

The Theologian's Nightmare

ar318307@ohio.edu (Andres) — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:21:00 +0000

"The eminent theologian Dr. Thaddeus dreamt that he died and pursued
his course toward heaven. His studies had prepared him and he had no difficulty
in finding the way. He knocked at the door of heaven, and was met with
a closer scrutiny than he expected. "I ask admission," he said,
"because I was a good man and devoted my life to the glory of God."
"Man?" said the janitor, "What is that? And how could such
a funny creature as you do anything to promote the glory of God?"
Dr. Thaddeus was astonished. "You surely cannot be ignorant of man.
You must be aware that man is the supreme work of the Creator." "As
to that," said the janitor, "I am sorry to hurt your feelings,
but what you're saying is news to me. I doubt if anybody up here has ever
heard of this thing you call 'man.' However, since you seem distressed,
you shall have a chance of consulting our librarian."

The librarian, a globular being with a thousand eyes and one mouth,
bent some of his eyes upon Dr. Thaddeus. "What is this?" he asked
the janitor. "This," replied the janitor, "says that it
is a member of a species called 'man,' which lives in a place called 'Earth.'
It has some odd notion that the Creator takes a special interest in this
place and this species. I thought perhaps you could enlighten it."
"Well," said the librarian kindly to the theologian, "perhaps
you can tall me where this place is that you call 'Earth.'" "Oh,"
said the theologian, "it's part of the Solar System." "And
what is the Solar System?" asked the librarian. "Oh," said
the theologian, somewhat disconcerted, "my province was Sacred Knowledge,
but the question that you are asking belongs to profane knowledge. However,
I have learnt enough from my astronomical friends to be able to tell you
that the Solar System is part of the Milky Way." "And what is
the Milky Way?" asked the librarian. "Oh, the Milky Way is one
of the Galaxies, of which, I am told, there are some hundred million."
"Well, well," said the librarian, "you could hardly expect
me to remember one out of so many. But I do remember to have heard the
word galaxy' before. In fact, I believe that one of our sub-librarians
specializes in galaxies. Let us send for him and see whether he can help."

After no very long time, the galactic sub-librarian made his appearance.
In shape, he was a dodecahedron. It was clear that at one time his surface
had been bright, but the dust of the shelves had rendered him dim and opaque.
The librarian explained to him that Dr. Thaddeus, in endeavoring to account
for his origin, had mentioned galaxies, and it was hoped that information
could be obtained from the galactic section of the library. "Well,"
said the sub-librarian, "I suppose it might become possible in time,
but as there are a hundred million galaxies, and each has a volume to itself,
it takes some time to find any particular volume. Which is it that this
odd molecule desires?" "It is the one called 'The Milky Way,'"
Dr. Thaddeus falteringly replied. "All right," said the sub-
librarian, "I will find it if I can."

Some three weeks later, he returned, explaining that the extraordinarily
efficient card index in the galactic section of the library had enabled
him to locate the galaxy as number QX 321,762. "We have employed,"
he said, "all the five thousand clerks in the galactic section on
this search. Perhaps you would like to see the clerk who is specially concerned
with the galaxy in question?" The clerk was sent for and turned out
to be an octahedron with an eye in each face and a mouth in one of them.
He was surprised and dazed to find himself in such a glittering region,
away from the shadowy limbo of his shelves. Pulling himself together, he
asked, rather shyly, "What is it you wish to know about my galaxy?"
Dr. Thaddeus spoke up: "What I want is to know about the Solar System,
a collection of heavenly bodies revolving about one of the stars in your
galaxy. The star about which they revolve is called 'the Sun.'" "Humph,"
said the librarian of the Milky Way, "it was hard enough to hit upon
the right galaxy, but to hit upon the right star in the galaxy is far more
difficult. I know that there are about three hundred billion stars in the
galaxy, but I have no knowledge, myself, that would distinguish one of
them from another. I believe, however, that at one time a list of the whole
three hundred billion was demanded by the Administration and that it is
still stored in the basement. If you think it worth while, I will engage
special labor from the Other Place to search for this particular star."

It was agreed that, since the question had arisen and since Dr. Thaddeus
was evidently suffering some distress, this might be the wisest course.

Several years later, a very weary and dispirited tetrahedron presented
himself before the galactic sub-librarian. "I have," he said,
"at last discovered the particular star concerning which inquiries
have been made, but I am quite at a loss to imagine why it has aroused
any special interest. It closely resembles a great many other stars in
the same galaxy. It is of average size and temperature, and is surrounded
by very much smaller bodies called 'planets.' After minute investigation,
I discovered that some, at least, of these planets have parasites, and
I think that this thing which has been making inquiries must be one of
them."

At this point, Dr. Thaddeus burst out in a passionate and indignant
lament: "Why, oh why, did the Creator conceal from us poor inhabitants
of Earth that it was not we who prompted Him to create the Heavens? Throughout
my long life, I have served Him diligently, believing that He would notice
my service and reward me with Eternal Bliss. And now, it seems that He
was not even aware that I existed. You tell me that I am an infinitesimal
animalcule on a tiny body revolving round an insignificant member of a
collection of three hundred billion stars, which is only one of many millions
of such collections. I cannot bear it, and can no longer adore my Creator."
"Very well," said the janitor, "then you can go to the Other
Place."

Here the theologian awoke. "The power of Satan over our sleeping
imagination is terrifying," he muttered."

This just never fails to boggle my mind. Can one be rationally justified in believing that we have a special place in this universe after knowing our little place in it? A question I find interesting that was posed by Christopher Hitchens:
"Would we have adopted monotheism in the first place if we had known:

That our species is at most 200,000 years old, and very nearly joined
the 98.9 percent of all other species on our planet by becoming
extinct, in Africa, 60,000 years ago, when our numbers seemingly fell
below 2,000 before we embarked on our true "exodus" from the savannah?

That the universe, originally discovered by Edwin Hubble to be
expanding away from itself in a flash of red light, is now known to be
expanding away from itself even more rapidly, so that soon even the evidence of the original "big bang" will be unobservable?

That the Andromeda galaxy is on a direct collision course with our own,
the ominous but beautiful premonition of which can already be seen with
a naked eye in the night sky?"

I personally find it unlikely. What do you think?

Is the universe as we know it a hologram?

dp176406@ohio.edu (David Plumb) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:37:00 +0000

A recent modification to the hypothesis that the universe is a hologram (holographic principle) yielded some testable hypotheses. These predictions came true and may be evidence for a holographic universe. Essentially, if the universe is a projected hologram, we should be able to measure the blurriness of it.

Read more here,

And Here, because I can't explain it as well as actual scientists can...

Thank you string theorists for contorting my brain.

Word,

David