Blog Archives
It is with heavy heart…
English: Grainy B&W image of supposed UFO, Passaic, New Jersey Edited version of Image:PurportedUFO NewJersey 1952 07 31.gif. By Bach01. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
G’day. You all know me by my pseudo-pseudonymous handle, and for over four years now I’ve been posting on this blog on various matters, some skeptical, some personal, and sometimes atheistic, posts on these and other topics punctuated by my frequent, and to some, annoying, fractal posts.
But the drama that has shaken the Skeptical Community™ to its knees has shattered my resolve, nay, my Faith™ in Science, and sent me looking to more fertile ground for mental and spiritual sustenance that a cold, sterile, mechanistic, reductionistic, materialistic, and yes, Physicalist™ worldview cannot supply. I have sought a new paradigm to feed my hungry soul, that even the Great Old Ones could not besiege, and lo, the paradigm has shifted…The stars are right!
So, I have discovered my potential, tasted the forbidden fruit of the paranormal, and decided to renounce science, skepticism, ethics and intellectual honesty forever. No more being mean to psychics, no more Dogmatic Scientistic Closed-Mindedness™ about UFO’s™ and cryptozoological creatures, no more roundly mocking popular gurus about their lucrative book sales and seminars…I want in on the action too!
So, it is with heavy heart that I rededicate and retool this blog, saying goodbye to those I’ve met in the Skeptical Community™ and opening my mind so far as to step over that fine line I’ve drawn on the floor and embrace total, complete and utter madness!
MuaHaHaHaHa!
Yes, the stars art right, and henceforth, I shall blog on paranormal topics from a believer’s point of view and begin, without any journalistic training or professional writing ability whatsoever, and no real or relevant credentials (after all, having no qualifications on a topic means I can think outside the box and speak on it with authority, because I wasn’t conventionalized by the Establishment!), a series of books on Alternative Science™ and the start of my own religion based on my own feverish ravings of revelations from insane alien beings.
And finally, for those of you convinced I’ve finally gone over the edge and completely lost my mind…
May you all have a terrific 1st of April. 
G’day.
The Weekly Gnuz & Lynx Roundup for Caturday, 2013/03/30
G’day! This week has seen a flurry of activity, at least on this blog, and I’ve been working on new images as well. I’ve finally started commission work on my fractals, and I’ll keep you updated with news on how well that goes. Last week, one of my Twitter fellows asked me to do larger, print-sized files for a greyscale image I’d posted online as a thumbnail, though I’d discarded the original settings.
After a bit of testing and experimentation, I was able to produce two suitable files, one 3×3 ft and one 5×5 ft, which I then sent her by email. Finally! After nearly three years of doing this just for fun, I may well get to use it as a source of income. It’ll be taxable no doubt, but taxes are the price you pay for a civilized society, and that’s no big deal for me.
Study has been coming along nicely, though I’ve had breaks as you may have noticed with the posting rate on this blog — I’m improving my time-management, which is helping immensely — even though it involves getting up before 2:00 pm. Wah!
Stay cool, stay awesome, and stay brilliant, peeps, and enjoy the holiday!
———–Bloggy Lynx———–
- Diligence …and self-image…and ambition…
- James Randi and Alice Cooper — Dragon*Con 2012
- Anime*Con 91 Desslock Gamilon Express Card Cosplay
- Neil deGrasse Tyson – Blindness
- Doctor Who: Zeitgeist
- Fractals of the Week: Domain of the Fractals
- Isaac Asimov on Foolishness
———Others’ Bloggies———
- The skeptics’ sky isn’t falling either
- GLAM — Trove (Archived Aussie News)
- Cat Thursday –
- On Frans de Waal and “Militant Atheism”
- Friday Link Dump 3/29/13
- Conspiracy Road Trip – Creationism
- Little Kitten — Is Faith Compatible With Reason?
- The Great Flood — How Collective Memory Can Become Legend
- Transubstantiation, Halal and Kosher — How Food Becomes Magical
————-Odd, Doubtful & Sciencey Stuff————-
- Faked fakey medicine: Counterfeit Traditional Chinese meds
- Squid bomb
- Ionized alkalinized humbug
- Two-headed shark fetus discovered
- Binaural beats claim “altered states of consciousness”
- Creationist contest is publicity stunt to help ailing museum
- Perfectly strange: Red lights seen in WA neighborhood – w/updates
- Diversity of becoming diverse: Evolution is simply complicated
- It’s Easter, time to resurrect the latest Shroud of Turin publicity circus
- We can all learn to be animal “psychics”
- Pop pseudo-archaeology — Why we should speak out
- TEDxWestHollywood loses TED affiliation because…well, the speakers are…a little fringe
———-Bloggy Stats———-
- 125,555 steely gazes cast since 2008/12/28,
- 1,835 comments,
- 2042 posts, including this one,
- 188 WordPress subscribers,
- 1,973 Twitter fellows,
- 19 Likes on this blog’s Facebook page…Thank you all!
———-Doctor Who theme played by Tesla coils———-
Media Guide to Skepticism | Modern Skepticism Made Clear
Media Guide to Skepticism By DoubtfulNews.com, 2013
What is skepticism?
Skepticism is an approach to evaluating claims that emphasizes evidence and applies tools of science. Skepticism is most often applied to extraordinary claims – those that refute the current consensus view.
The Skeptical process considers evidence obtained by systematic observations and reason.
The conclusion that is reached at the end of this Skeptical process is provisional because additional or better evidence may come along that points towards a more suitable explanation.
Example: Mr. X tells us that a new pill greatly improves his memory. This claim, if true, is important and extraordinary. So, it would be fitting to apply Skepticism to this claim. We would want to see evidence that his memory is improved and that the pill was responsible for that. We consider alternative explanations that could explain why Mr. X would say the new pill improves his memory: he may be mistaken, he might be going through a less-stressful time of life, he wants to feel like he spent his money wisely on the pills, he was paid to promote the pills, etc. Good evidence that his claim has validity would be quality research results (multiple studies) that show many who take the pill displayed a measurable improvement in memory. And, preferably, we would be provided a plausible explanation for how the pill works to improve memory. If the manufacturer of Mr X’s pills do not have well-controlled studies of large groups of people that show that the product actually works, we can’t just accept his word that they work as they say because the alternative explanations are more likely.
The more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the evidence must be to support it. If a claim is made that would require us to revise or overturn well established knowledge, we should be very suspicious and ask for a greater degree of evidence.
Example: Psychics claim that they are able to predict future events. That would not be in accordance with what we have observed about the human mind. It would not correspond to well-tested ideas in biology and physics. It does not make sense in terms of what we know. So, in order to justify discarding all we already know, the claimant must have a great deal of solid evidence that withstands scrutiny.
These are cases of applying scientific skepticism. Skeptics value contributions of science but also those of logic and math that lead towards the best explanation. Skepticism can be applied to subjects such as history, art and literature, as well, by using critical thinking and respect for the evidence for any claims that are made.
What does it mean to be a Skeptic?
You will often hear “I’m a skeptic” or “I’m skeptical” from people who are not sure about or who doubt some concept. That is a common, casual use of the term. Simply calling oneself a “skeptic” is not the same as practicing it. It’s easy to “doubt” things; everyone is “skeptical” about something. Good Skepticism involves understanding why one might or might not doubt the claim.
A Skeptic subscribes to a number of tenets.
Respect for the evidence. The application of reason to evidence is the best method we have to obtain reliable knowledge.
Respect for methods, conclusions and the consensus of science. Science is a particular way of obtaining information that is designed to reduce the chances of coming to an incorrect conclusion. Using a scientific process will minimize errors (but not eliminate them entirely). So, Skeptics are often vigorous advocates of science – in medicine, in schools, and for informing policy decisions. Fake, junk and pseudo-science is called out as a ruse. Logic and math are also components of science that can be valuable in assessing claims.
Preference for natural, not supernatural, explanation. Natural laws give us rational boundaries in our quest to determine explanations. Miracles are an example of using a supernatural agent (a god, saint or angel who operates outside of natural laws) as part of the explanation. A Skeptic will look for a natural explanation that does not call for a supernatural, unproven (and possibly unprovable) entity to be included.
Promotion of reason and critical thinking. Many Skeptics are good at identifying mistakes in arguments and reasoning.
Awareness of how we are fooled. People routinely fool themselves and are fooled by others. This is most commonly seen in our over-reliance on our senses and memory – for example, “I know what I saw,” or “I remember it like it was yesterday.” Skeptics are wary of eyewitness testimony because observation is fallible and memory is malleable. Stories of events, even from trustworthy people, make for very poor evidence on their own. Even collectively, anecdotes don’t tell us much about the validity of the claim. Skeptics also understand that people tend to look for, remember and favor the evidence that supports their preferred conclusion.
What Skepticism ISN’T
This section contains possibly the most important things to know about Skeptics. There are a many misconceptions about what it means to be a Skeptic. Not everyone who says they are “skeptical” are applying Skepticism.
Skeptic is not the same as “cynic” or “disbeliever”. Good Skeptics do not dismiss claims out-of-hand. The “Skeptic” is often seen as the “debunker”, the “downer”, or the “balloon buster”. It may appear that way for those who are very attached to certain concepts to which Skepticism is being applied, such as existence of ghosts, Bigfoot or UFOs. Skeptics aren’t skeptical of everything, either. In classical Greek Skepticism, the individual did not commit to stating “knowledge”; everything was doubted, there was no certainty. That is not a popular stance today. When we speak of modern Skepticism, we are talking about those who seek the conclusion best supported by current evidence and reason.
Skeptic does not equal “atheist”. Many Skeptics are atheists, but not all. Skepticism is a process of evaluating claims, not a set of conclusions. Skeptics are a diverse group so lack of religious beliefs should not be assumed. Scientific Skepticism is applied only to testable claims (such as “prayer heals”), not to untestable claims such as the existence of God, who is supernatural. “Is there a God?” is a question outside the realm of science. However, philosophical skepticism can be invoked in considering claims about the supernatural.
Skeptic does not mean “denialist” or “truther”. A practicing Skeptic is informed by the scientific consensus. So called “climate skeptics” are not practicing Skepticism when they doubt global warming based on selective belief and by ignoring the results that science has given us to this point. “Denialists” (of climate change, evolution, conventional medicine, etc.) reject science that does not support their view. “Truthers” insist that the real “truth” has not been revealed and instead put forth the explanation that a conspiracy is afoot. These stances do not give fair weight to well-established knowledge we have.
Skepticism is not a religion. Skepticism doesn’t tell you what to think. It tells you how you should think about something to get to the conclusion that has the best possibility of being true. Skepticism may not always be the best approach to decisions at the moment, sometimes decisions based on emotions can feel like the right thing to do. So applying skepticism to everything in life is not always the best policy. There may be other factors to consider.
Skepticism is important
Why use Skepticism as a process to evaluate claims? Critically evaluating claims for flaws, mistakes and inaccuracies lessens the potential that you will believe something that isn’t true. Skepticism and critical thinking can be applied in everyday life where an invalid claim might have serious effects on you or people around you – such as in consideration of a medical treatment, a financial investment, a consumer product, or life choices.
Proponents of a claim will frequently say, “You can’t prove it’s not true.” That’s a ridiculous statement. It’s not up to the Skeptic to show that an extraordinary claim isn’t true. It’s up to those making the claim to provide evidence and reasons why it IS true. We must have evidence that a person DID commit a crime, for example, not prove that everyone else in the world did not.
What do Skeptics do?
Skeptics have a loose community consisting of publications, web sites and online forums, organizations, and events. Skeptics are all around the world, organized into casual and formal groups and associations. It is a community made up of people with varying backgrounds, ideas, goals, communication styles and skill sets. It also gets very fluid at the edges. You might be a Skeptic and not even know it. Many people don’t self-identify as a “skeptic” but selectively follow the practices of Skepticism in their lives. Some people are disinclined to take on any labels or join a group.
Many Skeptics enjoy the fringe subject areas, they like solving mysteries and appreciate being around people who think as they do or who argue rationally when they don’t agree. Some Skeptics are activists who promote critical thinking and Skepticism in their communities and the public as individuals or as part of local or national organized groups and online.
Some of the topics Skeptics are involved in are science education, alternative medical treatments, the paranormal, dubious consumer products and services, hoaxes and scams, UFOs and aliens, monsters and folklore, superstition, and why people believe strange things.
Those who represent Skepticism in the public sphere are happy to provide a science- and reason-based viewpoint for the media. The backgrounds of the those in the Skeptical community are varied. Many participants in the skeptical community are experts in particular areas like the paranormal, medicine, cryptozoology, history, archaeology, textual analysis, linguistics, psychology, astronomy, physics and magic.
Skeptical Resources
Here are the best means to connect to the people and ideas of scientific skepticism.
The directory for all things skeptical online
Organizations
The major Skeptic organizations have as their mission a goal to promote scientific skepticism. There are three major national skeptical organizations in the United States.
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)
CSI (formerly known as CSICOP) is a nonprofit scientific and educational organization, started in 1976. Their mission is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims. They publish the Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptical Briefs. They host an annual conference called CSIcon and many local events, workshops and lectures in conjunction with their overarching organization, the Center for Inquiry. Contact: info(at)csisop.org More
James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)
Founded by magician James “The Amazing” Randi in 1996, the foundation is dedicated to promoting “critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.” They organize one of the largest gatherings of international skeptics and critical thinkers, The Amazing Meeting (TAM), every year and offer the One Million Dollar Challenge for those who claim paranormal abilities. Contact: +1 213 293-3092 More
Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the Skeptics Society is a nonprofit, scientific and educational organization led by Dr. Michael Shermer. Their mission is to engage leading experts in investigating the paranormal, fringe science, pseudoscience, and extraordinary claims of all kinds, promote critical thinking, and serve as an educational tool for those seeking a sound scientific viewpoint. They sponsor a monthly lecture series at the California Institute of Technology. Contact: skepticssociety(at)skeptic.com More
Publications
Famous Skeptics
- Harry Houdini (1874 – 1926) Magician, psychic debunker.
- Martin Gardner (1914 – 2010) Popular math and science writer.
- Isaac Asimov (1920 – 1992) Biochemist, professor, science fiction and science author.
- Paul Kurtz (1925 – 2012) Philosopher, professor, author, organizational founder.
- James Randi (1928 – ) Magician, investigator, author, organizational founder.
- Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996) Astronomer, astrophysicist, author.
- Richard Dawkins (1941 – ) Evolutionary biologist, professor, author.
- Stephen Jay Gould (1941 – 2002) Paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, science historian, author.
- Elizabeth Loftus (1944- ) Cognitive psychologist, world-renowned expert on human memory.
- Joe Nickell (1944 - ) Paranormal investigator, author.
- Carol Tavris (1944 – ) Social psychologist, author.
- Eugenie Scott (1945- ) Physical anthropologist, Director of National Center for Science Education.
- Lawrence Krauss (1954- ) Theoretical physicist, cosmologist, professor, author.
- Michael Shermer (1954 – ) Science writer, organizational founder, editor of Skeptic magazine.
- Steven Novella (1964 – ) Clinical neurologist, writer, editor.
- Brian Dunning (1965 – ) Science writer, video and podcast producer.
- Richard Saunders (1965 – ) Science educator, video and podcast producer.
- Richard Wiseman (1966 – ) Psychologist, popular science author, paranormal investigator.
- Christopher French (?- ) Professor, anomalous psychology researcher, editor-in-chief of The Skeptic (U.K.).
- Benjamin Radford (1970- ) Paranormal investigator, author, deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer.
- Derren Brown (1971 – ) Illusionist, mentalist, TV personality.
- Tim Minchin (1975- ) Comedian, actor, musician.
References
What is Skepticism? Brian Dunning
What Is Skepticism, Anyway? Michael Shermer, 2013
Why Is There a Skeptical Movement? Daniel Loxton, 2013
Bigfoot Skeptics, New Atheists, Politics and Religion Steven Novella, 2013
The New Skepticism, Paul Kurtz, Prometheus Books, 1992
Acknowledgements
Eric Weiss from Skepticsonthe.net, David Bloomberg, Kylie Sturgess, Torkel Ødegård, Barbara Drescher, Robert Blaskiewicz, Massimo Pigliucci, Chris French, Adriana Heguy, Daniel Loxton, Eve Siebert, Eddie Scott, Daniel Loxton, Howard Lewis, Iain Martel, Tiffany Taylor, Terry O’Connor, Stephan Naro, Paul Wilkins, Richard Saunders.
Permission to reprint is granted as long as the following attribution is given: By DoubtfulNews.com, 2013
Someone’s being silly on Yahoo!..
Chris Parsons on Yahoo! news posted this article on Will Storr’s new book ‘The Heretics: Adventures With The Enemies Of Science,’ and his post raised a few livid crimson flags, which I’ll point out below. His article starts innocently enough, though with the statement,
“Will Storr is a man who deals in facts. As a journalist of more than 10 years, undeniable evidence and rational data are his bread and butter. There are groups of people, however, who deny the irrefutable; who see cold, hard facts as mistruths or simply inconvenient.”
Parsons goes on to include among these people Holocaust deniers, creationists and UFO believers, though I may be excused for a little suspicion, given what I’ve learned about the rank-and-file of journalistic media over my 6 years as a skeptic, of the possible argument from authority fallacy in Parson’s first two sentences, which sounds to me like few journalists in most outlets I’ve heard or read.
Not to diss journalists as a whole, but fewer than should be in the profession are as fact-based as is being implied. But let’s grant, shall we, that Mr. Storr is one of the few who sticks to facts, rationality and knows what he’s doing, though I’ve never heard of him before now.
Parsons continues, with this:
“So why are there intelligent, seemingly rational people like this, who are capable of such unreasonable logic? The question is the subject of Storr’s new book, which explores the ‘beliefs of non-believers’. Put simply, he wants to know why ‘facts don’t work’.”
Nothing wrong with this, since having beliefs in denial of facts is not inconsistent with intelligence, education, or otherwise rational thinking in people. We do tend to rationalize our beliefs and cherry-pick our data to support them through confirmation bias, as Parsons notes, and the smarter and better educated we are, the better we are at rationalizing.
This has already been done, and given what follows in quotes below, a much better job of it, with Mike Shermer’s book “The Believing Brain,’ in 2011. Here’s my review of it.
My skeptic sense began to tingle when I saw this, flipping the “on” switch of my baloney detector:
“Storr studies not only the thought process behind conspiracy theories, but also the unwavering rationalism of their opponents.”
My suspicions were put on full alert, my logical fallacy meter suddenly hitting the “red” end of the scale a few lines down, when I saw this:
“He attends a conference of ‘sceptics’, who insist there is ‘no evidence for homeopathy’. When he asks the sceptics what scientific literature on homeopathy they’ve read to support these claims, many admit they haven’t read any. This isn’t to say that homeopathy isn’t legitimate – merely that many ‘rationalists’ dismiss it because they don’t want to believe it in the first place.”
WTF?? What a remarkably naive and illogical set of statements…a perfect trifecta of an ad hominem dismissal, a straw-person fallacy, and a blatant argument from ignorance. Since this statement isn’t in quotes I’ll assume it’s in Parsons’ own words, at best a paraphrase.
The statement attempts to dismiss skeptical criticism of homeopathy by completely misrepresenting the skeptical position, trotting out the tired old argument accusing skeptics of being closed-minded, and at once attempting to improperly shift the burden of proof by arguing from a lack of data that “If you haven’t seen any scientific proof that (insert favorite belief) isn’t true, then it must be legitimate. You just don’t want to accept!”
Skeptics dismiss homeopathy with good reason: It’s scientifically implausible on its face, and most importantly, there are no valid well-controlled studies that exist in the literature supporting its therapeutic use at all, except maybe curing your thirst. Every adequate double-blind study in the literature conducted so far has yielded no medical efficacy at all for homeopathy. It has either never been found to work, or has been found not to work.
It’s essentially magic water.
Accepting homeopathy as science would force us to discard major portions of physics and chemistry without any reason, given the lack of evidence and silly arguments advanced for it.
Don’t believe me? See for yourself. I suggest checking out JSTOR, the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, Nature, Science, and PubMed. Be aware that you may have to pay a subscription or article download fee. If nothing else, take a look at the abstracts given for the articles. I have, on those occasions when buying the article was for whatever reason not an option.
Don’t trust peer-reviewed journals because you think the peer-review process and science as a whole are broken? Sorry, but I can’t help you there.
Well, given this I’ll probably buy the book, but this article doesn’t really raise my expectations.
Meh.
