tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15290728704821543682024-03-13T05:11:21.139-07:00Science and SkepticismAdventures in critical thinking and the history and philosophy of science. Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-44912788189461087122017-07-13T12:38:00.000-07:002017-07-15T05:46:31.788-07:00What's the harm? Skeptics and scholars respond. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPhJBMBYRnh_uwqsBiW2GntaFX7I3C2sO34Db5aqI2gdYLYNfS96Qsi4BfWkDhFZCPt7xKkTexKOTTlqycCqudfAWr4Kk2A_rJVTVh1-MsCBXFnpb_1Bl77TYKkc1RA_76BnTEQ1rwK0g/s1600/bigfoot+nessie.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="179" data-original-width="282" height="253" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPhJBMBYRnh_uwqsBiW2GntaFX7I3C2sO34Db5aqI2gdYLYNfS96Qsi4BfWkDhFZCPt7xKkTexKOTTlqycCqudfAWr4Kk2A_rJVTVh1-MsCBXFnpb_1Bl77TYKkc1RA_76BnTEQ1rwK0g/s400/bigfoot+nessie.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i><br /></i></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>What's the harm? What does it hurt if I don't accept your principles of critical thinking and continue to accept weird thing x (some urban legend, piece of pseudoscience, New Age belief, or conspiracy theory) as true</i>? </span><br />
<br />
This line is trotted whenever skeptics and lovers of science elucidate a culturally, though not scientifically, controversial fact like evolution, global warming, or the safety of vaccines. It is also used to thwart our bullish dismissal of dangerous nonsense, like holocaust denial, HIV denial, and the denial of the cancer-cigarette link, and silly fluff, like haunted houses, Bigfoot, astrology, and UFO abductions. I've been a skeptic for over eight years, but I have never had a rock solid response to "what's the harm." I usually just point to <a href="http://whatstheharm.net/" target="_blank">What's the Harm</a>. This website chronicles examples of physical, psychological, and financial harm incurred by believers in weird things and is an invaluable resource if someone says something like "calling psychics doesn't harm anyone." The problem with over relying on this resource, however, is that it does not address what is the harm in having poor critical thinking skills and believing in weird things <i>in general</i>?"<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">While attempting to come up with a better rebuttal, I messaged the authors of many of my favorite books on science, critical thinking, and/or weird things. If anyone has a better answer to "what's the harm," I thought, it should be them. Despite not knowing me, they were very generous with their time and, upon my request, sent in thought provoking responses. I originally intended on placing their words throughout this article to fortify and strengthen my own points. Their points were so good, however, that I concluded I could add nothing of value to them. Instead, I am simply going to shut up and let these thinkers shed some light on this issue.</span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Keith Parsons is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Houston at Clear Lake. Keith has written extensively about poststructuralism (commonly known as "postmodernism") and its attack on the sciences. His two books, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Out-Leviathan-Dinosaurs-Science-ebook/dp/B006YSZE6W/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499973759&sr=1-1&keywords=drawing+out+leviathan" target="_blank">Drawing out Leviathan</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Science-Wars-Scientific-Technology-Contemporary/dp/1573929948/ref=sr_1_12?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499973861&sr=1-12&keywords=the+science+wars+parsons" target="_blank">The Science Wars</a> (ed.), are great starting points to learn about these conflicts. In his response, Keith pointed out that irrationality disempowers us.</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As the old saying goes, the main opponent of truth is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge. Popular B.S.—like creationism, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories (e.g. the Obama “birther” nonsense), anti-vax, etc.—is not mere ignorance but the counterfeit of knowledge. Defenders of such noxious and groundless beliefs defend them with fallacies, misinformation, disinformation, bogus “studies,” junk science, debunked claims, rhetoric, spin, half-truths, and so forth, and such ploys are often devilishly effective in subverting clear thinking and obscuring the truth. B.S. is not just non-rational, it is aggressively irrational, and when you believe it, you empower irrationality and disempower yourself. Truth has value, both intrinsically and instrumentally. Rationality has value, because it is by thinking rationally that we have the best chance at truth. When you buy into schemes of irrationality you weaken your own ability to think critically and you give your support to enemies of truth. If you lose respect for truth, you soon lose everything else, like freedom, self-respect, and decency.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Daniel C. Dennett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy and the co-director at the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University. He has been a bulwark against Intelligent Design Creationism and authored the locus classicus <a href="https://www.amazon.com/DARWINS-DANGEROUS-IDEA-EVOLUTION-MEANINGS/dp/068482471X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499973516&sr=1-1&keywords=darwin%27s+dangerous+idea" target="_blank">Darwin's Dangerous Idea</a> and the philosophical toolkit, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Intuition-Pumps-Other-Tools-Thinking/dp/0393348784/ref=pd_sim_14_4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=4AE10QV5PJWD70A155SB" target="_blank">Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking</a>. Dan pointed out that the denial of critical thinking lowers our society's "herd immunity" against nonsense.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What’s wrong with taking a devil-may-care attitude about the truth is the same thing that’s wrong with not vaccinating your kids: you become a freeloader, a social parasite who gets the benefits of ambient truth and evidence without supporting it. “Herd immunity” is key for vaccines; that’s how we eliminated smallpox and polio (almost), for instance. People who won’t accept their (tiny) share of the ineliminable risk of vaccines jeopardize public health in general and should accept responsibility for the deaths that could have been avoided had they had some community spirit and cooperated. We are now facing an epidemic of fake news and loony-tunes credulity; if you don’t do your part to squash it, you are part of the problem. We don’t want our children and grandchildren growing up with wacky doubts about science befuddling them.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Harry Collins is a Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Cardaff University and a Fellow of the British Academy. Harry has published on the methods of science and done fieldwork studying the gravitational waves community. His two recent works, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Are-Scientific-Experts-Human-Frontiers/dp/0745682049/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499973446&sr=1-1&keywords=are+we+all+experts+now" target="_blank">Are We All Scientific Experts Now?</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Gravitys-Kiss-Detection-Gravitational-Waves/dp/0262036185/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499973485&sr=1-1&keywords=gravity%27s+kiss" target="_blank">Gravity's Kiss</a>, are both tier one pieces of science studies. Harry pointed out that disregarding science (and truth in general) disarms us and puts us at the mercy of the powerful.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">We have to think about the kind of society we want to live in. If we give too little respect to experts, particularly scientific experts, then we will find ourselves living in a dystopia where decisions about the distribution of resources for scientific research, including medical research, where medical treatments, the advisability of vaccinations, the truth of certain historical episodes and so forth, will be decided by the rich and powerful and those who have great media presence rather than those who spend time trying to discover the truth of the matter. It won’t be long before the outcome of court cases is decided in the same way; justice will become the preserve of the powerful rather than having anything to do with the truth of the matter. To endorse the views of conspiracy theorists and the like is to help move us toward such a dystopia because everything you do and say contributes to the way the common culture develops.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Theodore Schick Jr. is a Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Muhlenberg Scholars Program at Muhlenberg College. He, along with co-author Lewis Vaughn, wrote <a href="https://www.amazon.com/How-Think-About-Weird-Things/dp/007353577X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499973133&sr=1-2&keywords=how+to+think+about+weird+things" target="_blank">How to Think About Weird Things</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Doing-Philosophy-Introduction-Through-Experiments/dp/0073386685/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499973407&sr=1-2&keywords=doing+philosophy" target="_blank">Doing Philosophy</a>. The latter of these works is literally the best book I've ever read on critical thinking. Ted pointed out the personal and societal damages of being irrational.</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">For those who wonder what's the harm in holding unfounded beliefs, there's a simple and undeniable answer: credulity kills. Forming beliefs without regard to evidence or reason not only harms the individual who holds them, it endangers society as well. Actions are based on beliefs, and if our beliefs are mistaken, our actions will be misguided. The personal cost of irrational beliefs is well-documented on the site: www.whatstheharm.net. There many categories of paranormal and supernatural beliefs are canvassed and the price that believers paid in terms of loss of life, health, and wealth is recorded. The social cost of cavalier believing is eloquently explained in W.K. Clifford's classic article, "<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/" target="_blank">The Ethics of Belief</a>." There he notes that a well-functioning democracy depends upon a well-informed citizenry. But the ability to make rational decisions is a skill that can only be honed and maintained through constant practice. If we do not develop the habit of responsible believing in our private lives, we run the risk of making irrational decisions in the public sphere. </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">David R. Montgomery is a Professor of Earth and Space Studies at the University of Washington. He has authored many popular level books, such as <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Half-Nature-Microbial-Health/dp/0393353370/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499973041&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Hidden+Half+of+Nature" target="_blank">The Hidden Half of Nature</a>, which explain the principles of geology and the importance of soil to a lay audience. He also addressed the claims of creationists in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Rocks-Dont-Lie-Geologist-Investigates/dp/0393346242/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1499973078&sr=8-1&keywords=the+rocks+don%27t+lie" target="_blank">The Rocks Don’t Lie</a>. This book's friendly tone makes it ideal for non-committed creationists. David astutely pointed out that accepting bunk erodes our ability to make decisions. </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What’s the harm in not believing the world works the way that it does? Because we live in it and are subject to how it works. If we want to understand the impacts and the potential consequence of our actions we won’t be making informed choices if we base our decisions about beliefs unmoored from critical examination or verifiable experience. For some issues of course the consequences may be small—not much hangs in the balance around the existence of Bigfoot. But for issues like climate change the potential consequences may alter the fate of humanity. What these issues have in common is that the uncritical embrace of debunked or groundless ideas undermines the foundation of our ability to make rational choices as we make decisions that shape the future. </span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">Benjamin Radford is a Research Fellow with the <a href="http://www.csicop.org/" target="_blank">Committee for Skeptical Inquiry</a>, Deputy Editor of <i>Skeptical Inquirer, </i></span>and is co-founder and co-host of the “<a href="http://benjaminradford.com/category/podcasts/squaring-the-strange-podcasts/" target="_blank">Squaring the Strange</a>” podcast. <span style="background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">He has authored many skeptical books, such as the excellent </span><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Tracking-Chupacabra-Folklore-Paperback-9780826350152/dp/B01GMLGEZ0/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8" target="_blank">Tracking the Chupacabra</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Clowns-Benjamin-Radford-ebook/dp/B01BJ90AHS/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8" target="_blank">Bad Clowns</a>, that deal with urban legends and popular delusions. Given that Ben deals with these issues so often, I expected him to have a strong, yet articulate position. I was right. </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">False beliefs, by themselves, are not harmful. Belief is inherently harmless; believing that you can safely jump off a building isn’t a problem until you actually attempt it. It is instead the actions and decisions made based on those false beliefs that cause harm. Every human lives and dies having held countless false or unproven beliefs. Most of them are insignificant (such as, perhaps, thinking Sydney is the capital of Australia); some are profoundly personal (such as, perhaps, not knowing one was adopted); and still others are serious and life threatening. With each false belief a person sheds, they decrease their chance of being harmed by that belief in the future.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Thus the harm in a given belief depends entirely on what the specific belief is. Belief in the efficacy of unproven medicine can kill; belief in psychics has cost people their life savings, and so on. There are also many indirect harms and costs to false beliefs; people have died while hunting for ghosts and looking for mythical lost treasures. Others have spent decades of their lives—and personal fortunes—searching for Atlantis, Nessie, and other myths based on unfounded beliefs. Belief in extraterrestrials did not, by itself, cause the 1997 Heaven’s Gate suicides, but it was a key element in the cult’s belief systems. False beliefs can harm not just the deceived but others as well, for example parents who refuse their children medical care in the belief that God will heal them. I have for many years documented the harm that comes from belief in magic—not just historically but in the present day; women in India and Pakistan have been accused of witchcraft and murdered, and in East Africa albinos have had their limbs hacked off with machetes for use in magic rituals. The harm is all around us if we choose to look.</span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;"> </span><span style="color: #222222; font-family: "arial" , sans-serif;">Fundamentally the answer is that truth matters; what is real and accurate and true is important. An excellent forgery of a great painting is still a forgery, and whether it’s authentic or not should matter to someone who buys it. Ignorance is the default condition of mankind, with critical thinking and skepticism the best ways to fill that knowledge vacuum with information and fact upon which to make human progress.</span></span></blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-66047972559881458892017-03-11T20:40:00.001-08:002017-07-07T15:28:11.093-07:00Dear Bill Nye the Science Guy, You don't understand philosophy.<b id="docs-internal-guid-950b739a-c0ea-04c9-d285-ca50c2c0d589" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-left: 0pt;">
<table style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none;"><colgroup><col width="317"></col></colgroup><tbody>
<tr style="height: 0pt;"><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 0pt; border-left: solid #000000 0pt; border-right: solid #000000 0pt; border-top: solid #000000 0pt; padding: 5pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-right: 11pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><img height="320" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/B52inCEQAYZvLARtW8DnBMBGGgJsrMqdydYF2-Wz-lA52Hh2A2C26qPUH_sUnCyHAnlSvlIlIoH4tbzLynfqE2Vt0k5Yxq_R41u7aI7z-krrpRnG_tUNNnV1fEi4be5TYwNywGBz" style="border: none; transform: rotate(0rad);" width="269" /></span></div>
</div>
</td></tr>
<tr style="height: 0pt;"><td style="border-bottom: solid #000000 0pt; border-left: solid #000000 0pt; border-right: solid #000000 0pt; border-top: solid #000000 0pt; padding: 3pt 5pt 5pt 5pt; vertical-align: top;"><div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 6pt; margin-right: 11pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bill is a great guy, but severely mistaken about philosophy. </span></div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Dear Bill, </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On one of your Big Think posts, you answered a question by a person called Mike about your</span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROe28Ma_tYM" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> thoughts concerning philosophy</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Before I get to that, however, I want to say I am a big fan of your work. In my opinion, your ceaseless effort to make the world more scientifically literate, your environmental outreach, and tenure as the CEO of the Planetary Society are very admirable. I also love the respect and patience you show children (there is a reason why </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><i>Bill Nye the Science Guy</i></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is still shown in schools) and think its awesome that you are willing to change your mind about GMO's. In my opinion, it takes a lot of chutzpah to admit when you are wrong. Given that you have the courage to reconsider your views, I decided to write you this letter. It contains commentary of your video and explains why I, a fellow skeptic, am troubled by your positions. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<div>
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
</div>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is unfortunate that a really smart guy like you has, at least in my opinion, a profoundly uneducated view of philosophy. Given the nature of your thoughts on the subject, I would wager that you never took Philosophy 101 or have even read a beginners book like </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Philosophy: a Very Short Introduction</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> by Edward Craig. </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is not surprising that you have never studied philosophy. Many STEM programs, such as the one I am currently enrolled in, do not include philosophy courses as part of their track. I would not take offense to this lack of knowledge (there is nothing wrong with having different interests and priorities) if you had not made a video criticizing a field of study that you know close to nothing about. As a fellow skeptic, I think that it is very important to admit when we do not know something. In my opinion, you should have answered Mike's question with the following statement:</span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; vertical-align: baseline;"><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, I cannot provide an honest answer because I have never studied philosophy in any real depth. As an engineer, I was not required to take philosophy courses in college and have never been compelled to investigate it on my own. While many other people find value in studying it, I prefer to focus my time and effort on issues concerning </span><span style="font-size: 13.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">environmentalism</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">, sustainable energy, and bringing science to the masses. </span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">This would have been a much more admirable answer. </span><span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Unfortunately, however, this is not what happened. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; white-space: pre-wrap;">Your lack of knowledge concerning philosophy became apparent as soon as you stated that you believe the conclusions of philosophers are unsurprising and abide by "common sense":</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I’m not sure that Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins, two guys I’m very well acquainted with have declared philosophy as irrelevant and blowing it off in you term. I think that they’re just concerned that it doesn’t always give an answer that’s surprising. It doesn’t always lead you someplace that is inconsistent with common sense. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">If you don't think philosophy (at least sometimes) leads us to conclusions that are counter to common sense, then you have literally never studied the history of philosophy. Since European philosophy began 2,600 years ago with </span><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thales of Miletus</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (624-546 BC), it has made plenty of daring conclusions based on reason and evidence. Thales himself, for example, concluded that everything is made of water. In the Middle Ages, </span><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/anselm/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">St. Anselm of Canterbury</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (1033-1109 AD) put forth a logical argument that attempts to prove the existence of God </span><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">by definition</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. </span><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thomas Hobbes</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (1588-1697 AD), in his tome </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Leviathan</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, provided reasons for why we should enter into a social contract with a sovereign and cede to it all power (barring it does not kill us). </span><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Friedrich Nietzsche</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (1844-1900 AD) famously (or infamously) argued that we need to cast off our traditional herd morality and live our lives as though they are a work of art. Recently, Peter Singer (b. 1946) argued that, if you are <a href="https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704--.htm" target="_blank">willing to ruin your jeans</a> by saving a drowning child, then you should be willing to donate the cost of a pair of jeans to save children in the third world. These two deeds, Singer argues, are not fundamentally different. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Most ironically, many of the people who historians of science consider to be the founders of modern science were philosophers who saw themselves as putting fourth a new theory of epistemology (a theory of knowledge) that addressed the questions posed by the classical philosophers. Like Thales, they were trying to find out what the cosmos is made of and which principles govern it. The foundations of science were by no means obvious and it took a great deal of effort to found the scientific academies of Europe and win over the patronage of the aristocrats. Galileo Galilei (1534-1642 AD), for example, had to convince the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Medici" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Medici family</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> of Florence that studying theoretical balls rolling down a friction-less incline tells you something about the actual world. It also took the persuasive writing talents of philosophers like </span><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/bacon/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Francis Bacon</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (1561-1626 AD) who argued in favor of the new scientific methods in print, to win the day.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And it gets back – it often, often gets back to this question. What is the nature of consciousness? Can we know that we know? Are we aware that we are aware? Are we not aware that we are aware? Is reality real or is reality not real and we are all living on a ping pong ball as part of a giant interplanetary ping pong game and we cannot sense it. These are interesting questions. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">While it is true that many philosophers are interested in consciousness (so are many scientists for that matter), the rest of these questions are </span><a href="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">straw men</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> of what philosophers address that make philosophy look like it has no ramifications for the real world. In addition to consciousness, some of the major questions that philosophy addresses are: </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Is there a god? What constitutes a sound or cogent argument? Do we have free-will? How should we organize our society? How do we justify our beliefs? How should we live our lives? What is the world made of? Is it ethical to eat meat? In what way do mathematical entities (numbers, shapes) exist? </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The answers to these have major consequences for how we live our lives and organize our society. For example, if there is no free-will, then how can we have a punishment-based criminal system? It doesn't seem right to punish people if they did not freely choose their actions.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Some philosophers have indeed discussed what it would be like if we were in a simulation (this thought experiment allows us to think about how we justify our beliefs. It is is seldom taken as something that is actually happening. <a href="http://www.nickbostrom.com/" target="_blank">Nick Bostrom</a>, however, has interesting things to say about it), I have never heard the ping pong example before.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">These are interesting questions. But the idea that reality is not real or what you sense and feel is not authentic is something I’m very skeptical of. I mean I think that your senses, the reality that you interact with with light, heat, sense of touch, taste, smell, hearing, absolutely hearing. These are real things.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Again, this is a strawman. Very few contemporary philosophers would say that the senses don't play a role in what we know. There is a strong tradition stemming from ancient Greece that takes our senses as the foundations of knowledge. This was most notably exemplified by the great <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/aristotl/" target="_blank">Aristotle</a> (384-322 BC). In fact, the most dominant school of philosophy in the English speaking world from the 17th century to the mid 20th century was empiricism (if you are curious, now <a href="https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl" target="_blank">naturalism</a> is the perennial philosophy).</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This school of thought contained </span><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/locke/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">John Locke</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (1602-1734 AD), Bishop </span><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">George Berkeley</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (1685-1753 AD), </span><a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">David Hume</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (1711-1776 AD), </span><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">John Stuart Mill</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (1806-1873 AD), and the </span><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Logical Empiricists</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (flourished 1920's-post WWII). Although these thinkers differed greatly, they took the view that our senses are the only way we may get data and anything that goes beyond them is somehow (depending on the thinker) dubious. The Logical Empiricists, for example, held the radical view that the things beyond our senses are, at best, "useful fictions" used to predict patterns or, at worst, literally meaningless. The positivists used this view to dismiss things like morality, particles, and other things that are beyond the senses. </span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Another concern I have about your idea that the senses should be taken as real is that you may be going too far. There is no denying that we need our senses to get around, but there is a great deal of psychological research that has shown we have many <a href="http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/teaching/Tversky_Kahneman_1974.pdf" target="_blank">cognitive biases and heuristics</a> that lead us to have very distorted pictures of the world around us. Scientific skeptics like <a href="http://benjaminradford.com/" target="_blank">Benjamin Radford</a> (b. 1970) have shown that otherwise rational people are deceived into believing that they saw things like bigfoot and the chupacabre. We also fall for magic tricks like Penn and Teller </span><span style="color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK0-ImFaSG4" style="text-decoration: none;">shooting each other in the face</a></span><span style="color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and catching the bullets in their mouths. The urban legends painstakingly chronicled by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Harold_Brunvand" target="_blank">Jan Harold Brunwand</a> (b. 1933) provide overwhelming evidence that our senses (even those of smart people) can be easily fooled. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And to make a philosophical argument that they may not be real because you can’t prove – like for example you can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. Not really, right. You can’t prove it until it happens. But I’m pretty confident it will happen. That’s part of my reality. The sun will come up tomorrow.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">What you are referencing here is David Hume's famous </span><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">problem of induction</span></a><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. This conundrum that Hume articulated asks how we can justify inductive logic (scientific theories, probability statements, and everyday statements about what is probably going to happen). If we say that, as you do, we are confident that the Sun will come up tomorrow because it always has, then we are using an inductive claim to justify inductive claims. In other words, we have </span><a href="https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">begged the question</span></a><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. What Hume was pointing out, however, is that inductive reasoning has no foundation. Not, as you suggest, that the Sun won't come up or that we should abandon inductive reasoning. Hume thought that we could navigate the world around us according to inductive reasoning (we don't have a choice) and that we should use our background knowledge to judge eyewitness testimony. This is certainly the case, Hume argued, when such testimony is used to support claims about miracles. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And so philosophy is important for a while but it’s also I get were Neil and Richard might be coming from but where you start arguing in a circle where I think therefore I am. What if you don’t think about it? Do you not exist anymore? You probably still exist even if you’re not thinking about existence.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is a profound misunderstanding of what <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/" target="_blank">Rene Descartes</a> (1596-1650 AD) said and what he was trying to do with his famous </span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iGjiSbEp9c" target="_blank">cogito ergo sum</a></span><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> argument. Descartes (and before him, St. Augustine, who made a very similar argument to refute radical skepticism) was demonstrating that our existence is the one thing we cannot doubt. This is because doubting requires use to think about if we exist. If we can think, however, then we exist exist by definition (we cannot have a thought if there is no us to think). Therefore, we exist. This in no way means that if you are not thinking about existing, then you don't exist (Descartes never said that). If you are thinking about anything at all, then you obviously exist. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And so, you know, this gets into the old thing if you drop a hammer on your foot is it real or is it just your imagination? You can run that test, you know, a couple of times and I hope you come to agree that it’s probably real. It’s a cool question. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The humorous part about your objection is that it is the same as the one made to Bishop Berkeley by the intellectual </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Samuel Johnson</span></a><span style="background-color: white; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (1709-1784 AD). Berkeley argued in favor of a radical epistemology which states that our perceptions (our sense data) is all we can access. He then went on to eloquently argue that there is no such thing as matter and the sense data itself is controlled and caused by God. This was done to undermine what Berkeley thought was the creeping materialism caused by Newton's <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/" target="_blank">mechanical philosophy</a>. Johnson famously tried to refute this idealism by kicking a rock. He proclaimed "I refute it thus!" The problem with this (or a hammer hitting your toe) is all you have is the sensation and this in no way defeats Berkeley's view. While I do not think the Bishop succeeded (few people do), it is funny that your counterargument is one that has been historically ridiculed for its failure. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It’s important I think for a lot of people to be aware of philosophy but just keep in mind if you’re spending all this money on college this also may be where Neil and Richard are coming from. A philosophy degree may not lead you to on a career path. It might but it may not. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This pragmatic objection is interesting for a few reasons.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For starters, many colleges spend virtually nothing on the liberal arts. Visit any medium sized university in the USA and, chances are, these departments are small and poorly funded. To me, this is unfortunate. As someone seeking a mechanical engineering degree (which is quite challenging. Hopefully, I can get through it), I get almost no exposure to topics like environmental or applied ethics. This is unfortunate because the students that are in my classes are going to build nuclear reactors, dispose of toxic waste, and build high tech weaponry. If anyone needs to think hard about these topics, it is the next generation of engineers, doctors (who, I have been informed, get more ethics training than engineers), biologists, chemists, and physicists.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Second, it simply isn't true that philosophy degrees lead to a doomed future. A philosophy degree makes one a killing machine at formal logic, debating ideas, digging arcane details out of texts, and conducting meaty research. All of these skills give philosophy students a big advantage if they want to pursue a career in law and, at least a proficient philosophy student, should <a href="https://www.buffalo.edu/content/dam/cas/philosophy/phi15-16/phi-LSAT.pdf" target="_blank">blow the LSAT out of the water</a>. When Marco Rubio made a similar argument when he was running for president, Thinkprogess and many other organizations pointed out that philosophy undergrads actually make </span><a href="https://thinkprogress.org/why-marco-rubio-owes-philosophy-majors-an-apology-490346ec0c4f#.70byoyzha" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">really solid money</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Being able to think out the box and research is a good job skill and liberals arts majors (including philosophers) can be found even in tech strongholds like </span><a href="https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2015/07/29/liberal-arts-degree-tech/&refURL=https://www.google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Silicon Valley</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Finally, so what? If you found numerous people with bachelors degrees in biology who have little to no job opportunities, then would you object to studying biology? Of course not. Biology is worth studying because of its profound implications and because it is exceedingly interesting. This is true regardless of job prospects.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">And keep in mind humans made up philosophy too. Humans discovered or invented the process of science. Humans invented language. Humans invented philosophy. So keep that in mind that when you go to seek an absolute truth you’re a human seeking the truth. So there’s going to be limits. But there’s also going to be things beyond which it doesn’t matter. Drop a hammer on your foot and see if you don’t notice it.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">No one would doubt that human beings are the ones doing philosophy. In fact, this is why it is so necessary. Philosophy teaches us how to think carefully and avoid making sloppy arguments. This would not be needed if humans were not so fallible. One final point I want to make is that there is an underlying inconsistency of your entire exercise because, as it has been pointed out by </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k2SRoAXC9c" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">SkepticallyPwnd</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, you do philosophy. For anyone who thinks about the world around them in an organized and logical manner, this is unavoidable. Philosophy is simply the art of thinking clearly about things like the questions mentioned above.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">When you, for example, define your terms and use logic to arrive at the conclusion that we need to preserve our environment (which you do quite well), you are doing philosophy. This is important to recognize because, if we are not careful, we can sneak unjustified philosophical baggage that has not been critically examined into our arguments. As Dan Dennett once said, "there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."</span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I hope you found this commentary to be constructive and not pedantic. If you read this and feel that I incorrectly stated your views or was not abiding by the <a href="http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html" target="_blank">principle of charity</a> in my commentary, then please respond. I am always willing to revise my own positions. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">yours truly, </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px; white-space: pre-wrap;">Sagredo</span></span></div>
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-21823097378093320872016-10-06T08:36:00.001-07:002017-09-05T08:39:23.132-07:00Pseudoscientist-in-Chief?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEACqMcUwwDlMXSor5ahpFQu56pJWA1dqMNl-AFyrlNO_mdtzzESuI9NRqApEUOiQyzLXILBDdewHSJtc7-LZ4NK3xKw5RQ8Execs5RtpCFcZnZKM7LfqXYXR7WuFv6gvcEFpASf4hSmM/s1600/23975424301.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEACqMcUwwDlMXSor5ahpFQu56pJWA1dqMNl-AFyrlNO_mdtzzESuI9NRqApEUOiQyzLXILBDdewHSJtc7-LZ4NK3xKw5RQ8Execs5RtpCFcZnZKM7LfqXYXR7WuFv6gvcEFpASf4hSmM/s400/23975424301.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">President Donald Trump possesses many characteristics that will make him a unique figure in American history. He, for example, is the first reality tv star and the only person without either political or military experience to get elected. He is also the first president in decades not to release his tax returns. My skeptical side, however, is not really interested in these points. Instead, it is far more interested in the next president's strange stances towards the sciences and critical thinking. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To demonstrate why I think he is so interesting, I decided to list five things that he has done that seem to put him in line with the David Ickes and the Jenny McCarthys of the world. Before I get started however, I want to note that I am only pointing out the five that I find to be the most concerning. There also many other examples of him seemingly embracing total bullshit. Some honorable mentions include his apparent rehashing of conspiracies about <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/22/politics/hillary-clinton-health-conspiracy-theory-explained/" target="_blank">Hillary Clinton's health</a>, <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/01/14/cruz_vs_trump_over_natural_birth_under_your_theory_you_would_be_disqualified_from_running_for_president.html" target="_blank">Ted Cruz's citizenship</a>, and Rafael Cruz (Sen. Cruz's father) <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/trump-ted-cruz-father-222730" target="_blank">assassinating JFK</a> (which Trump later denied) and using <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/20/for-dr-oz-pseudoscience-trumps-reality/" target="_blank">Dr. Oz</a> (lol) to calm concerns about his own health. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>On Vaccines:</b> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">On several occasions, Donald Trump has either claimed that vaccines are linked to autism or questioned the scientific consensus about their safety. For instance, during one <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/09/16/donald_trump_suggested_vaccines_cause_autism_during_the_cnn_gop_debate_he.html" target="_blank">of the debates</a>, he made statement that sounded like Jenny McCarthy. </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Autism has become an epidemic. Twenty-five years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control... I am totally in favor of vaccines. But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time. Same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump—I mean, it looks just like it's meant for a horse, not for a child, and we've had so many instances, people that work for me.... Just the other day, 2 years old, 2½ years old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">He has also posted multiple times about this on Twitter.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLlgbhP9MlYAe60tIyNNFIqCZ2tFrM3QywqJHyiznk7xqL-Z9ARLBteETbupccxp0wcvjGNxJLshAsQt-ATYXnCUniW4dmdyXV4tR-U7xEDV2GPWb62ggdWtO1ZcL_NE1uZbMj7MFIUnY/s1600/Trump+a1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="147" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLlgbhP9MlYAe60tIyNNFIqCZ2tFrM3QywqJHyiznk7xqL-Z9ARLBteETbupccxp0wcvjGNxJLshAsQt-ATYXnCUniW4dmdyXV4tR-U7xEDV2GPWb62ggdWtO1ZcL_NE1uZbMj7MFIUnY/s400/Trump+a1.png" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp5jEBUWUzAXRszYKfDMz7QYG4OHsCYzrXIC1u5SwANpuNZdh6TsEYFv2Tsz6nOGAL0k70CM-jy_ZTrtrepjs6XkjrqC8pzw_zEkwWQFE2LozU-usnXvIe_QPckoHByD9FfIZfgAHJ8Eo/s1600/trump+a2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="121" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp5jEBUWUzAXRszYKfDMz7QYG4OHsCYzrXIC1u5SwANpuNZdh6TsEYFv2Tsz6nOGAL0k70CM-jy_ZTrtrepjs6XkjrqC8pzw_zEkwWQFE2LozU-usnXvIe_QPckoHByD9FfIZfgAHJ8Eo/s400/trump+a2.png" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtBolzcHv-JSySAEvH2ibQXzVkqcaGyZ10i6dAS8VzhphtgFg4HKR6WSv5qdnVVXcc81F8Oj2mWSTPCTXSvUy7557nSo1-X9wmUCLe7nDqsWLQXMgSJk3AfATzUQKIDHKWj9CyfmiPD_c/s1600/a3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtBolzcHv-JSySAEvH2ibQXzVkqcaGyZ10i6dAS8VzhphtgFg4HKR6WSv5qdnVVXcc81F8Oj2mWSTPCTXSvUy7557nSo1-X9wmUCLe7nDqsWLQXMgSJk3AfATzUQKIDHKWj9CyfmiPD_c/s400/a3.png" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The most recent news regarding this topic is that President Trump has reportedly asked anti-vaxxer <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-meet-with-proponent-of-debunked-tie-between-vaccines-and-autism/2017/01/10/4a5d03c0-d752-11e6-9f9f-5cdb4b7f8dd7_story.html?utm_term=.41d935fc57a6" target="_blank">Robert Kennedy Jr.</a> to head a commission on vaccine safety. As you can imagine, skeptics and public health officials are fearful of someone with so much influence pushing such a dangerous lie. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Birtherism:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">From his potential 2012 run for president to his recent strange press conference where he blamed it <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/23/donald-trump/hillary-clinton-obama-birther-fact-check/" target="_blank">on Hillary Clinton</a>, Donald Trump was considered the most notable birther in the United States. If you are unaware, birthers maintain that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and (in many instances) that he is secretly a muslim. While he has seemingly </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">mentioned the latter </span><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politics/trump-obama-muslim-birther/" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;" target="_blank">in passing</a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">, Politifact states that </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Mr. Trump has been very explicit and consistent about his thoughts on President Obama's citizenship:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Trump previously took credit for Obama releasing his long-form birth certificate and pledged to donate $5 million to charity if Obama released <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di0xTIUxQLc" style="border-bottom-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; color: #3f639e; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.15s ease-in-out, border 0.15s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline;">his passport records</a>.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">A book publisher came out three days ago and said that in his written synopsis of his book, he said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. His mother never spent a day in the hospital," Trump <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/trump-obama-born-in-kenya-124569#ixzz4KQdzx2uY" style="border-bottom-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; color: #3f639e; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.15s ease-in-out, border 0.15s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline;">said in 2012</a>.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">His grandmother in Kenya said, 'Oh no, he was born in Kenya and I was there and I witnessed the birth.' Now, she's on tape and I think that tape's going to be produced fairly soon ...The grandmother in Kenya is on record saying he was born in Kenya," <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/07/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-president-obamas-grandmother-cau/" style="border-bottom-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; color: #3f639e; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.15s ease-in-out, border 0.15s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline;">Trump said, incorrectly, in 2011</a>.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">He has been very vocal on Twitter about his stance on this issue. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi5wcsYVGFv3ih8Cl7G-Sd2zDeMRxC2z_0oKLbz9JPoVMJxSWdOxYYZYMZoaisxifrgBaIKu1qaA2KsOADLxfo8XJE5c15NL_0OwTX22ADQ4FgmbOWezktZrOAggZmyAH1zwurt14_MtY/s1600/trump+b3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="152" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhi5wcsYVGFv3ih8Cl7G-Sd2zDeMRxC2z_0oKLbz9JPoVMJxSWdOxYYZYMZoaisxifrgBaIKu1qaA2KsOADLxfo8XJE5c15NL_0OwTX22ADQ4FgmbOWezktZrOAggZmyAH1zwurt14_MtY/s400/trump+b3.png" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVKnIvxOTS2QP8nmRtni64vzPdp3Vb2nEn403YEXBOGmzvbpwn1m-MejJQFoGjGrNTplY_uFrrjqvxjsGYUo5kPJoi32Mjw_9vqtpqe4EX_4BeyEAL3bNRfLDsfFCyb_I0mrHI2rxBLos/s1600/trump+b4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="157" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVKnIvxOTS2QP8nmRtni64vzPdp3Vb2nEn403YEXBOGmzvbpwn1m-MejJQFoGjGrNTplY_uFrrjqvxjsGYUo5kPJoi32Mjw_9vqtpqe4EX_4BeyEAL3bNRfLDsfFCyb_I0mrHI2rxBLos/s400/trump+b4.png" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM_UDa_EuhuFeGbn5oMa5TnYM7cMasWz1RNn4sFFNATdMFs88acSGErUC1k7sYWZH1fvcWqZHtigLFx9IosxjwPivQm6xWzhGJrmh0AObjs-Rc0GUgIpn0n2dEmaGLKLNri7e0ehyD36U/s1600/Trump+b1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="143" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM_UDa_EuhuFeGbn5oMa5TnYM7cMasWz1RNn4sFFNATdMFs88acSGErUC1k7sYWZH1fvcWqZHtigLFx9IosxjwPivQm6xWzhGJrmh0AObjs-Rc0GUgIpn0n2dEmaGLKLNri7e0ehyD36U/s400/Trump+b1.png" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4" target="_blank">President Obama</a> to famously retorted at the 2011 White House Correspondence Dinner that "Now he (Trump) can get to focusing on the issues that really matter. Like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened at Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b><br /></b></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Global Warming:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Trump has also tweeted that the <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta;jsessionid=95792A17ACC3ABCE786F7035BBDD2B8B.c1" target="_blank">large</a> <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html" target="_blank">scientific</a> <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html" target="_blank">consensus</a> concerning global warming is a hoax. He also apparently does not know the difference <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/24/donald-trump-i-dont-believe-in-climate-change/" target="_blank">between weather and climate</a>. </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIGz2E2zZdjMfAGUO68duwNG1G1aUYf-VJXclMg4X7MZfAiDgug83yYpsVHUxRFGV7-FT-0YHgnth5xmTivb7r8LS8X4pB_H02KTZL9C2enL46Z-KUjfvhLe6H89tVfrWSUWIEDZE3e1w/s1600/trump+warm+2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIGz2E2zZdjMfAGUO68duwNG1G1aUYf-VJXclMg4X7MZfAiDgug83yYpsVHUxRFGV7-FT-0YHgnth5xmTivb7r8LS8X4pB_H02KTZL9C2enL46Z-KUjfvhLe6H89tVfrWSUWIEDZE3e1w/s400/trump+warm+2.png" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN2O-07BExFmbKSN7sab7MYUwuVeRvY6vpDaS71j3dVaf0RMgpAAAxIpJ2QE6A1nHMDuje2brqKPGoq9jeWU0TqptvWcMupxGV4QMh82IgzaBqjxArOnTmXQIrBBebUWm9thxa9vhU8fk/s1600/trump+warm+3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="143" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN2O-07BExFmbKSN7sab7MYUwuVeRvY6vpDaS71j3dVaf0RMgpAAAxIpJ2QE6A1nHMDuje2brqKPGoq9jeWU0TqptvWcMupxGV4QMh82IgzaBqjxArOnTmXQIrBBebUWm9thxa9vhU8fk/s400/trump+warm+3.png" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLCzuSh79yNhbNHn9bT6xfr6xoOwIjG29aWmI5M9QCUSqzulelMPkt10uEoXq9WHjXjbw6piAEnRZoTYKU6UFjhZ_XBxK1MqdipTVEsZMqxCaUVdG0cifrIHj826ZNfbD2J3dodDtSgR0/s1600/trump+warm+4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLCzuSh79yNhbNHn9bT6xfr6xoOwIjG29aWmI5M9QCUSqzulelMPkt10uEoXq9WHjXjbw6piAEnRZoTYKU6UFjhZ_XBxK1MqdipTVEsZMqxCaUVdG0cifrIHj826ZNfbD2J3dodDtSgR0/s400/trump+warm+4.png" width="400" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">This is not surprising. There are many freemarket fundamentalists who react like a vampire being shown a crucifix if you bring up any topic that might imply regulation. Before global warming, other anti-regulationists called the science behind the acid rain, Ozone depletion, DDT, and the cigarette-cancer link into question (read Conway and Oreskes' <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/index.html" target="_blank">Merchants of Doubt</a> for the history of this movement). While he has (<a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/03/hillary-clinton/yes-donald-trump-did-call-climate-change-chinese-h/" target="_blank">at least on occasions</a>) talked out the other side of his mouth and denied he thinks this, Mr. Trump has seemingly </span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">always at least maintained that global warming would be too expensive to do anything about. As Politifact has posted:</span><br />
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">We didn’t find Trump using the word "hoax" in the months since our previous fact-check, but he hasn’t backed off his aggressive skepticism of climate change and policies designed to alleviate it. In fact, he’s enshrined opposition to climate change efforts as a key part of his platform.<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">In a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-deliver-energy-policy-speech-north-dakota-39401469" style="border-bottom-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; color: #3f639e; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.15s ease-in-out, border 0.15s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline;">high-profile</a> <a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060037907" style="border-bottom-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; color: #3f639e; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.15s ease-in-out, border 0.15s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline;">speech</a> on <a href="http://time.com/4349309/donald-trump-bismarck-energy-speech/" style="border-bottom-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; color: #3f639e; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.15s ease-in-out, border 0.15s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline;">energy policy</a> in North Dakota on May 26, 2016, Trump attacked "draconian climate rules." He <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan" style="border-bottom-color: transparent; border-bottom-style: solid; border-image: initial; border-left-color: initial; border-left-style: initial; border-right-color: initial; border-right-style: initial; border-top-color: initial; border-top-style: initial; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; color: #3f639e; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.15s ease-in-out, border 0.15s ease-in-out; vertical-align: baseline;">advocated</a> rescinding "all the job-destroying Obama executive actions, including the Climate Action Plan" and said he would "cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs."<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #333333; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">"President Obama entered the United States into the Paris Climate Accords unilaterally and without the permission of Congress," Trump said. "This agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use right here in America."</span></blockquote>
The most recent news regarding President Trump 's seeming denial is his filling of his cabinet with people who are hostile towards enviornmentalism and conservationism. For example, he has chosen Scott Pruitt, a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html?_r=1" target="_blank">global warming denier</a> with no scientific credentials who <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa/?utm_term=.bb65238e7b50" target="_blank">has sued the Enviornmental Protection Agency</a>, to head the EPA.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Alex Jones:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I don't believe in guilt by association, but Mr. Trump has lended a great deal of mainstream credibility to the USA's most notorious conspiracy theorist: Alex Jones. If you are shocked and believe I am being too harsh, then watch this video. It speaks for itself.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FJqLAleEnKw/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FJqLAleEnKw?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><b>Mike Pence:</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">One of the worst things that Mr. Trump, has done, however, is to nominate a profoundly anti-science man as his vice president. Like other skeptics, it seems to me that Vice President</span><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> Mike Pence of Indiana seldom misses a chance to dismiss any science related to his Biblical and freemarket fundamentalism.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ikax0Y0NJsY/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ikax0Y0NJsY?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">As the video shows, Mr. Pence is a creationist who denies evolution and does not know what the word "theory" means. He also wants intelligent design taught in the classroom. To see why this is bullshit, read my guide to creationist arguments <a href="http://scienceskepticism.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-top-ten-myths-about-evolution.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/two-times-mike-pence-brushed-off-science/" target="_blank">FiveThirtyEight </a>has also pointed out that he has an absolutely disastrous record with public health in regards to an HIV outbreak in southern Indiana. </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Take, for example, an ongoing outbreak of HIV in southern Indiana. From December 2014 to May of this year, 191 cases of HIV, nearly all linked to the injection of the painkiller Opana, were found in Scott County, a rural area near the Kentucky border. Before the outbreak, <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/07/25/157359488/as-pain-pills-change-abusers-move-to-new-drugs" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #008fd5; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">there had been numerous deaths and known risks</a> from the increase in injection drug use in the area for several years. Pence had long been a vocal opponent of needle exchange programs, which allow drug users to trade in used syringes for sterile ones in order to stop the spread of diseases, <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/indiana-suddenly-needs-a-needle-exchange-program/" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #008fd5; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">despite evidence that they work</a>. Such programs were banned in the state when the outbreak started.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Even more concerning is his apparent shilling for the tobacco industry. </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Pence has also shown a deep misunderstanding of basic public health principles in the past. In 2001, he wrote <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010415085348/http://mikepence.com/smoke.html" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #008fd5; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">an op-ed declaring that “smoking doesn’t kill.”</a> The evidence? “Two out of three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness.” Diseases are rarely the product of one thing. With lung cancer, for example, there’s a strong genetic component. Some people who don’t smoke will get lung cancer.<a class="espn-footnote-link" data-footnote-id="1" href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/two-times-mike-pence-brushed-off-science/#fn-1" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #008fd5; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;"><sup id="ss-1" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: 0; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">1</sup></a> Many people who do smoke will not. Relative risk, which measures the strength of the relationship between an exposure and a health outcome (smoking and lung cancer in this instance), is a funny thing; it can’t be used to measure the risk for an individual, only a group. And at that macro level, the risk of smoking is quite clear, as <a href="http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@nho/documents/document/~export/cancerstatistic09slidesrevppt~1/5706-27.gif" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #008fd5; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">this oft-cited American Cancer Society chart shows</a>.</span></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">They go on: </span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Pence’s home state of Indiana should be particularly concerned about tobacco:<a href="http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/facts_issues/toll_us/indiana" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #008fd5; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;"> 23 percent of adults are smokers</a>, the sixth-highest statewide rate in the United States. Fifteen percent of pregnant women smoke, nearly double the national average, <a href="http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0176.pdf" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #008fd5; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">and the state spent $2.93 billion in 2014</a> on health costs caused by cigarette smoking — <a href="http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0176.pdf" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #008fd5; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">more per capita than 31 other states</a>, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Still, Indiana has a cigarette tax of just 99 cents,<a class="espn-footnote-link" data-footnote-id="2" href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/two-times-mike-pence-brushed-off-science/#fn-2" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #008fd5; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative; text-decoration: none; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;"><sup id="ss-2" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: 0; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">2</sup></a> lower than 35 other states, despite <a href="https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0146.pdf" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #008fd5; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">a wealth of evidence</a> showing that increasing taxes on tobacco reduces smoking rates. When a tobacco tax hike was proposed this year in Indiana, Pence made it clear that he was not in favor. The tax increase was<a href="http://fox59.com/2016/02/25/indianas-massive-road-funding-plan-sees-major-changes/" style="border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #008fd5; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;"> subsequently taken out of the bill</a>.</span></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; font-stretch: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">To no surprise to anyone, he, like Trump, has talked out of both sides of his mouth in regards to global warming. He has generally stated that he doesn't think its real. In <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010415121513/http://mikepence.com/warm.html" target="_blank">an article he wrote</a>, he said that "global warming is a myth. The global warming treaty is a disaster. There, I said it." He then went on to regurgitate myths like "<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm" target="_blank">the Earth is cooling</a>." At all times, he has maintained that we should do nothing about it. As he stated in a recent interview he defended Trump and his <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-climate-change-trade/" target="_blank">do-nothing stance</a>:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> What Donald Trump said was a hoax is that bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., can control the climate of the earth and the reality is that this climate change agenda that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want to continue to expand is killing jobs in this country,</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">If you are a Trump supporter and you think that I have been too harsh, please keep in mind that I am merely quoting him and citing fact-checking websites who provide primary sources. If you think that is still too much, then maybe you should rethink your political commitments. </span>Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-12328194438812661462016-08-09T14:33:00.003-07:002016-08-09T14:33:45.170-07:00Satires of Intelligent Design<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs69LM3lEObY0H3xT47-KUmdFxvukoss2YwFz1u0y_0bf1WChJWO7FBmnkfp385mpe2axXW-H6ANlnQh7VIgSxAQFnc11HISIqaoUK-tyrkFzkhodAiNoI6KHMPeOhnXoi4eLekNQ9WsQ/s1600/teach+tc.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="330" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhs69LM3lEObY0H3xT47-KUmdFxvukoss2YwFz1u0y_0bf1WChJWO7FBmnkfp385mpe2axXW-H6ANlnQh7VIgSxAQFnc11HISIqaoUK-tyrkFzkhodAiNoI6KHMPeOhnXoi4eLekNQ9WsQ/s400/teach+tc.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Teach the controversy. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) seeks to (1) discover intelligently designed features of life and the cosmos and (2) attribute its features to an intelligent designer. This is done with the intent of overthrowing the "materialist" sciences like evolutionary biology and replacing them with a teleological view of the world. IDC advocates, however, have to face a dilemma when it comes to identifying this designer. If they say that it is a theistic God (like they would like to), then IDC appears to be nothing more than Old (or, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Nelson_(creationist)" target="_blank">in some rare instances</a>, Young) Earth creationism. This would mean teaching it in public schools in the USA would be unconstitutional. If, however, they don't identify the designer, then their ideas have absolutely no explanatory content. <div>
<br /></div>
<div>
One thing that many skeptics have done is to make satirical designers or other untestable entities to point out the absurdity and vapidity of both horns of this dilemma. Some of these predate modern IDC and others are a direct consequent of their cowardly unwillingness to disclose that the designer they have in mind is the god of the Bible. "If the designer could be many things," the skeptic argues, "then why not x?" Or, the skeptic argues, why should we prefer your intelligent designer to designer y?" </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To have some fun with this, I thought I would put together a list a few of the better satires of IDC's design hypothesis. If I missed one that you think is very good, then feel free to add it in the comment section and I will add it to the list. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.venganza.org/" target="_blank">Flying Spaghetti Monster</a>. Pastafarians argue that the FSM is the intelligent designer of the cosmos that IDC points to. They also argue that their ideas are on par with traditional religions that that they should be protected under the law in the same way.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.theonion.com/article/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int-1778" target="_blank">Intelligent Falling</a> is a design based alternative to gravity. Advocates of this new theory believe that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy" target="_blank">the controversy</a> about IF and gravity should be taught in the science classrooms and that the latter is a theory in crisis. </li>
<li><a href="http://theoatmeal.com/blog/jibbers_crabst" target="_blank">Jibbers Crabst</a> was proposed by The Oatmeal as the identity of the intelligent designer. Matt Igman, the creator of this comic, argues that it is a better account of nature than naturalistic theories like Darwinian evolution.</li>
</ul>
</div>
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-32302368217863594062016-07-08T06:59:00.001-07:002016-07-08T07:43:31.532-07:00Ken Ham and low hanging fruit<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhD3YZHRvKk84r-J4zexntC8G-A1hWmJVUfBdZZZy3R-OT-MaZ90YlDA2NeQt0hVtlC2LEmQAq8trjSTGmtI0XidFkaNWbl5k9f7_9tkcstjDVKpO4uQhoiev9ODnYjfRNlts9o2mJkMC0/s1600/low+hanging.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhD3YZHRvKk84r-J4zexntC8G-A1hWmJVUfBdZZZy3R-OT-MaZ90YlDA2NeQt0hVtlC2LEmQAq8trjSTGmtI0XidFkaNWbl5k9f7_9tkcstjDVKpO4uQhoiev9ODnYjfRNlts9o2mJkMC0/s320/low+hanging.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Yesterday, the Ark Encounter theme park opened. This park, which consists of a 510 foot long "replica" of Noah's Ark, cost millions of dollars and took years construct. It was also (quite controversially) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_Encounter#Tax_incentives_controversy" target="_blank">supported by the state</a> government of Kentucky. Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis, the group which oversees the park, is notorious in scientific circles for promoting the teaching of the Bible in the science classroom and for operating the creationist "museum." Ken Ham and his organization teach that modern biology, astronomy, geology, and chemistry ought to be rejected in favor of the pseudoscience they display at their park and museum.<br />
<br />
They also teach that the Bible is literally true, provides the foundation for all knowledge, and anything that disagrees with it can and ought to be rejected. As you can imagine, many skeptics and science advocates have been very critical of this theme park and the other activities of AiG. These people, which include <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/08/23/neil_degrasse_tyson_ken_hams_beliefs_are_even_crazy_for_christians_partner/" target="_blank">Neil deGrasse Tyson</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI" target="_blank">Bill Nye</a>, <a href="http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/young-earth-creationism/" target="_blank">Michael Shermer</a>, and <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/05/12/creationist_ken_ham_tweeted_a_series_of_very_bad_claims_meant_to_be_scientific.html" target="_blank">Phil Plait</a>, have pointed out how strange and potentially harmful Ken Ham and his organization has been. I couldn't agree more with their criticisms.<br />
<br />
When skeptics like myself publicly voice our criticisms of AiG, however, we are often told that we are picking "low hanging fruit." If we had any intellectual depth, our critics argue, we would instead contend with the philosophy of sophisticated theologians rather than worrying about fools like Ken Ham. Criticisms like these make is seem as though AiG and similar groups like Creation Ministries International are inconsequential, representative of only a few people, and diminishing in power. This, however, is profoundly wrong.<br />
<br />
Creationists groups like Ken Ham's are incredibly well-funded and have succeeded in making creationism a growing, global phenomenon. Historian of science, Ronald L Numbers has painstakingly chronicled how <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkuospzdlPY" target="_blank">creationism is now rapidly expanding</a> in Australia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. This is on top of the fact that, according to Gallup, somewhere between 40-50% of <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx" target="_blank">American are creationists</a>. These organizations also have <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pItVGYa863k" target="_blank">a lot of money to throw around</a>. This is especially apparent when they are compared to skeptical and science groups like the Center for Skeptical Inquiry and the National Center for Science Education.<br />
<br />
There is also the fact that what sophisticated clergy and theologians say is of little or no consequence to what the average American (or Earthling, for that matter) thinks about science or religion. Given that our goal is to promote science and critical thinking in the most effective way possible, it is a colossal waste of time discussing process theology and reformed epistemology. If a theologian like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Haught" target="_blank">John Haught</a>, however, wants to help defend science, then their help on this topic is appreciated and we can save the metaphysical conversations for when the wine is flowing.<br />
<br />
The main reason, however, why skeptics should absolutely go after this strain of pseudoscience is that it is one of the most aggressive and expansionist kinds of baloney. The goal of the creationist movement is to remove modern science from the classroom and our culture and replace it with their own brand of nuttiness (or, when they cannot do that, to "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6oOLJ_zbm0" target="_blank">teach the controversy</a>"). The point about creationism being intellectually low hanging fruit (which it is) is irrelevant when they are actively trying to undermine the main goal of the skeptical and science communities and occasionally winning.Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-10943942748204935882016-06-16T13:42:00.002-07:002016-06-16T20:47:19.827-07:00Dear History Channel<br />
"Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat history class"<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear History Channel,<br />
<br />
For a very long time, you have been detrimental to the historical literacy of the United States. At a time when many of my fellow citizens are shockingly ignorant of geography (<a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html" target="_blank">link</a>), religion (<a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/" target="_blank">link</a>), and our constitution and government (<a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/06/18/the_shocking_numbers_americans_are_dangerously_ignorant_on_politics_partner/" target="_blank">link</a>), you use your network and the clout that comes with its name to show pawn shops and conspiracy theories.<br />
<br />
With the exception of holocaust denial, I have seen you air programs on virtually every kind of pseudo-history. This includes everything from claims about aliens building the pyramids to shows that seemingly treat the Bible in a literal manner. While it may be good for your ratings, this drivel has contributed to a deep confusion about the methods of historians and archaeologists. If this wasn't bad enough, the shows that you put on your networks which are supposed to be "historically accurate" sometimes contain egregious errors of their own.<br />
<br />
An unfortunate example of this is <i>The World Wars</i>. This program, which contains some very cool reenactments, an awesome motion score, and many good historical explanations, contained a very historically inaccurate segment about Lenin's takeover of Russia. Rather than taking the 10 minutes needed to explain the actual history of these events, this program totally omitted the February Revolution and stated that Stalin and Lenin <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p83XltIvat0" target="_blank">directly overthrew the Tsarist government</a> of Nicholas II. This is a mistake that an A student in a World History class in high school would have caught.<br />
<br />
As a citizen of the USA, I believe that you owe the American public an apology. Rather than focusing on swamp people and Bigfoot, you could focus on many other topics that are both interesting and historically accurate. In just about 2 minutes, I came up with the following list:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>A history of aviation from the Wright Brothers to the Apollo missions</li>
<li>the role languages have played in the development of man</li>
<li>the dropping and making of the atomic bomb</li>
<li>Galileo's role in the Scientific Revolution</li>
<li>the philosophical underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution</li>
<li>a comparison and explanation of the major world religions</li>
<li>a legitimate explanation of how the pyramids were actually built </li>
<li>an examination of the controversial <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Thesis" target="_blank">Frontier Thesis</a>. </li>
<li>a deep, long look at natural history </li>
<li>an explanation of the roots and interconnections of american music forms like Jazz and Rock and Roll.</li>
</ol>
While I understand that drivel may be a slightly easier sell, there are many historical topics like these that inform and entertain. Cosmos and Ken Burns' documentaries show that this can be done. If you were to focus instead on endeavors like these, you would be worthy of your name and would be providing a great service.<br />
<br />
Thanks for your time,<br />
<br />
a concerned historianGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-23404370064004695932013-02-21T07:29:00.002-08:002013-02-21T07:29:41.560-08:00Skepticism in the classroom<span class="userContent"></span><br />
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
Yesterday,
I posted a quote from David Suzuki on my <a href="http://www.facebook.com/ScienceAndSkepticism">facebook group</a> about science education failing to
incorporate skepticism. This was shared widely and approvingly reposed by several highly followed pages.</div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-60bBrkYxjEv84TC13OY4I3VxxaHPeh0Glqq1m8w7g2bfN17VhJv0_tkdmUSbii5XUZA40mWuVjx_jFEhV2pcYeXF2_FJlPOgBb98RvbA0zU4BIG0joHKkokOHw6GSaJYg8nzhgipJJY/s1600/Suzuki+quote.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-60bBrkYxjEv84TC13OY4I3VxxaHPeh0Glqq1m8w7g2bfN17VhJv0_tkdmUSbii5XUZA40mWuVjx_jFEhV2pcYeXF2_FJlPOgBb98RvbA0zU4BIG0joHKkokOHw6GSaJYg8nzhgipJJY/s400/Suzuki+quote.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<br /></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
If you are a science educator yourself, you probably responded to this quote by saying something like "that is easy for you to say. I have tried to teach critical thinking and it is very hard to find material that I could actually use in my classroom."<br /> <br /> I take this complaint very seriously. It is difficult to find good critical thinking materials that are both interesting and can actually be applied in the real world. Another reasonable requirement is that these resources need to be very affordable or free. This is because, at least i<span class="userContent">n the United States, </span>good educators get paid just as poorly as bad educators. Even if they are phenomenal science teachers, they simply do not have the extra money available to buy a bunch of stuff. F<span class="text_exposed_show">ortunately
for us, many skeptical educators have already anticipated your concerns and have gone through the trouble of creating free skeptical resources for the classroom. These booklets and videos investigate fascinating topics and are tailored for children and young adults who need a dose of critical thinking added to their school curriculum and can can be downloaded with the click of a button. </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show"><br /></span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show">The first resource that you should check out is a series of short pamphlets/books created by the James Randi Education Foundation. All three of these guides are
custom made with certain age groups in mind (one is for elementary, one for late middle school, and one for high school) and are about non-threatening topics like dowsing, ESP, and faeries (Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle, the writer of Sherlock Holmes believed in them). The JREF has provided both student and teacher editions so that you have all the material you need to lead a class discussion. </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show"><br /></span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show">If this sounds interesting, <a href="http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/37-static/1132-classroom-materials.html">please click here and download them</a>.</span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show">The second resource that I recommend is Brian Dunning's movie, <i>Here be Dragons</i>. This movie is designed to be watched in one class period (it is 45 minutes) and covers very interesting material like conspiracy theories and homeopathy. Mr. Dunning does an excellent job of outlining logical fallacies and exposing many of the bunk that hucksters without being threatening. He also explains how certain features of science work, why people believe in weird things, and even provides an excellent reading list at the end for students who want to know more. </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show">If Mr. Dunning's movie sounds appealing, <a href="http://herebedragonsmovie.com/">you can get it here for free</a>. </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show">Third, I want you to check out this workshop on instituting skepticism in the classroom. It was conducted at TAM 9 (The Amazing Meeting, which is a skeptical conference held by the JREF each year) and was later posted on the web. It includes lots of goodies including advice for teachers and several activities that can easily be incorporated into a lesson plan. In one of the most interesting of these activities, your students will get to see how astrology fools our brains. This is a valuable because realizing you can be easily fooled is the first step to becoming a skeptic. </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show">If you want to see these resourced, <a href="http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/skepticism-in-the-classroom/">they have been made available here</a>. </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show">Finally, I want you to check out these lessons created by the </span><span class="text_exposed_show">Leonore Annenburg Institute for Civics. While the institute's name may not sound skeptical, their lessons are some of the best available. They teach everything from how to examine popular claims to how our biases lead is to distorted conclusions. Given the nature of their material, they could just as easily be included into a civics or history class.</span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show">If this sounds appealing to you, <a href="http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/%28X%281%29S%28sw0fs245i1pam4auuypkrsex%29%29/pages.aspx?name=critical-thinking-lesson-plans&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1">click here to get these lessons</a>. </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show"><br /></span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show">Hopefully these free resources serve you well in your classroom. In my opinion, they are all excellent and (if I had one) I put my seal of approval on them. If you are teaching your child critical thinking at home and feel left out, keep paying attention to my blog because I will be posting a list of affordable children's books that teach skepticism very soon. In the meantime, I recommend you incorporating these lessons at home. </span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_512629c046fd08d65946398">
<span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></div>
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-89844143845241829522013-02-20T07:21:00.000-08:002013-02-20T07:21:18.003-08:00The most effective presentation of skepticism i've seen<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://1.gvt0.com/vi/8T_jwq9ph8k/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8T_jwq9ph8k&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8T_jwq9ph8k&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-27048150453440985302013-02-16T22:12:00.002-08:002013-02-17T09:45:28.128-08:00Socrates meets Bigfoot<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01574/DomJoly_06_1574720a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="266" src="http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01574/DomJoly_06_1574720a.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Bigfoot in Nor Cal. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Recently there have seen several attacks on "Bigfoot skepticism." If you are unfamiliar with this label, it is a derogatory term used to bewail skeptics who deal mostly with topics like UFO's, astrology, psychics, and Bigfoot rather than social justice issues or religion. It recently exploded all over the internet via the comment section PZ Myer's blog (it should be noted that PZ had a nuanced view and has nothing against "Bigfoot skepticism." This post is directed more at the minority of his readers who think examining Bigfoot is a waste of time).<br />
<br />
Instead of explaining why this accusation is incorrect (which I think it clearly is. Skeptics like Peter Boghossan and Matthew McCormick specialize in religion. Michael Shermer and the late Paul Kurtz also talk about religion in their books), the purpose of this post is to focus on why Bigfoot and his friends are invaluable when it comes to training skeptics. Please note that this is not intended to be a book length retort to other internet sites. Instead it is just a few points about why I think Bigfoot and co. are awesome. I hope you enjoy. <br />
<br />
Before we do so, however, I think it would be helpful if we first contemplated the skeptical methods of Socrates (469-399 BC). As you probably remember from intro to philosophy class, Socrates was known throughout his home city of Athens for critically examining the popular claims of his day. He used a methodology based on rigorous questioning to tear down baseless assumptions held by his fellow Athenians about religion, morality, politics, and the meaning of life. After this deconstruction, Socrates would work with the person he was questioning to come to new, more sound conclusions based on logic. This systematized, logic-based dialogue is often referred to as <b>Socratic Reasoning</b> in his honor. <br />
<br />
Today Socrates' skeptical methods are as valid as ever. The topics which he applied them to, however, are seen as boring and irrelevant by the general audience. This is not astonishing. After all, how many people find ancient Greek politics to be interesting? But, you may ask, "if we do not apply these methods to the topics Socrates examined, what should we apply them to?" This is where Bigfoot and his pals come in. For whatever reason, the furry guy has long captured the public imagination. By applying skepticism to Bigfoot and similar topics, skeptics open a dialog with the general public. Bigfoot is also much less threatening than discussing politics or religious
scandals with a general audience (look up what happened for Socrates). While I certainly believe that nothing should be off limits for the skeptic, there is something to be said for pursuing topics that wedge open the door. <br />
<br />
Aside from his popularity, there are a couple of other reasons that we should bring Socrates to bear on Bigfoot. First, Bigfoot is very useful for training fledgling
skeptics. By applying the skeptical toolkit to
the big guy and his friends, we can teach valuable lessons
about eyewitness testimony, cognitive biases, and evidential standards.
Since Bigfoot is a fairly straightforward case of an extraordinary
claim, we can examine him without getting too abstract. This allows
newbies to
cut their skeptical teeth without having to read through a bunch of
<i>Plato's Dialogues</i> about the Forms, mathematical truths, or the ultimate nature or reality. The works of Daniel Loxton, Ben Radford, and Joe
Nickell are excellent examples of "Bigfoot skepticism" that help both beginner and expert skeptics fine-tune their reasoning skills.<br />
<br />
Second (and more important), Bigfoot and is friends are widely believed by the American public to be true. In a country of 300 million people, as much as 52% believe in astrology, 46% in ESP, 19% in witches, 35% in ghosts, and 22% in UFO's. A recent survey also shows that 35% believe that President Obama is hiding details about where he was born and 25% think that President Bush's administration was behind 9/11 (<a href="http://scienceskepticism.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-pervasive-is-belief-in-weird-things_15.html">link</a>). Socrates thought that it was detrimental to society if there was not a gadfly questioning and deconstructing widely held irrational beliefs. Without skeptics out there playing the roll of the gadfly, we are conceding our public discourse to non-reason and non-evidence based epistemologies. This concession could be severely detrimental to our planet, our liberties, our safety, and our economy.<br />
<br />
Given these reasons, I think that skeptics have all the reason in the world to criticize Bigfoot, UFO's, homeopathy, astrology, and the like. Not only are they good for training junior skeptics, but they both in the popular imagination and widely believed to be true. Even if this was not the case and virtually no one accepted Bigfoot, Socrates would never pass up such an opportunity to engage a belief that is held for such bad reasons. As skeptics, I do not think that we should either.<br />
<br />
If you want to know more about Bigfoot skepticism and how to we can use it to benefit our critical thinking skills, I recommend investigating the work of <a href="http://www.skepticblog.org/author/loxton/">Daniel Loxton</a>, <a href="http://benjaminradford.com/">Benjamin Radford</a>, and <a href="http://www.joenickell.com/">Joe Nickell</a>. All of their work is top notch and conveys a very non-threatening "nice guy" approach to skepticism and critical thinking.Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-56828634326364071102013-02-15T11:04:00.000-08:002013-02-18T10:26:54.110-08:00Links that teach you everything we know about the Russian Meteor<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuKGsxFT7pib3WHqDhF-FNvUKML0UycStJElcXCjqDvbWWup6vqdtOk42LqBBxYvgrqT_Z9_jq7BIq8kiaT-kR1eermnqweTKoRJs437_KOHk-URpV0EEHjk1uS4qVUOASYYXokbDFrBQ/s1600/in+soviet+russia.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="246" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuKGsxFT7pib3WHqDhF-FNvUKML0UycStJElcXCjqDvbWWup6vqdtOk42LqBBxYvgrqT_Z9_jq7BIq8kiaT-kR1eermnqweTKoRJs437_KOHk-URpV0EEHjk1uS4qVUOASYYXokbDFrBQ/s400/in+soviet+russia.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
As you probably know, a meteor crashed in Russia earlier today. It was unusual because it was both unexpected and highly photographed. The following links should help you understand the situation better.<br />
<ul>
<li>Here is the Wikipedia page on the matter, which is a good starting point. It contains all of the dates and places that you need to know about (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Russian_meteor_event">link</a>) </li>
<li>Science popularizer Bill Nye on how this meteor relates to the other which is supposed to pass by Earth (<a href="http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/02/15/Bill-Nye-Russian-meteor-asteroid-flyby-unrelated-but-related-VIDEO/6231360938799/">link</a>) </li>
<li>Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson on why radar could not detect the meteor (<a href="http://www.today.com/video/today/50820935#50820935">link</a>).</li>
<li>Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel's A and Q about "how could a meteor explode?" (<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/10/28/q-a-how-could-a-meteor-explode/">link</a>).</li>
<li>Another epic Siegel post on how the universe just keeps trying to kill us (<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/02/15/the-universe-just-keeps-trying-to-kill-us/">link</a>). <b>the best!</b> </li>
<li>CNN's reporting and photography on how the meteor blast injured 1,000 people (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/world/europe/russia-meteor-shower/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews">link</a>).</li>
<li>HuffPo's video that allows you to watch the meteor crashing into Russia (<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/meteorite-streaks-across-russian-urals_n_2691904.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D270893">link</a>).</li>
<li>Astrophysicist Phil Plait's epic coverage and detailing of the event (<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/02/15/breaking_huge_meteor_explodes_over_russia.html">link</a>). <b>the best!</b></li>
<li>BBC's reporting on the matter (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21468116">link</a>). </li>
<li>The epic YouTube video of the crashing. This is scattered throughout the other links, but is still worth watching by itself (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QIMKQihoYRI">link</a>).</li>
<li>The "TakeAway" audio on the event. A great Neil DeGrasse Tyson interview included on this (<a href="http://www.thetakeaway.org/2013/feb/15/neil-degrasse-tyson-todays-meteor-russia/">link</a>). </li>
<li>Alas, there is a lot of rapidly developing nonsense about the event. Here is Doubtful News debunking these new urban legends (<a href="http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/incredible-meteor-event-in-russia/">link</a>) </li>
<li><b>update!</b> Russian scientists track down the fragments of the meteor (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/18/world/europe/russia-meteor/index.html?hpt=hp_c1">link</a>) </li>
</ul>
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-22503677358942541362013-02-12T08:04:00.000-08:002013-02-12T08:04:23.850-08:00Ten Crazy quotes from Kent Hovind's dissertation<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://musicians4freedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/KentHovind.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://musicians4freedom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/KentHovind.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
For the few of you who do not know who he is, Kent Hovind is one of the United States' most famous creationist speakers. Prior to imprisonment for tax evasion in 2007, he routinely toured the country to give seminars and debate scientists about the merits of evolution. In the process, he made millions off of home school parents, private schools, and anti-evolution evangelical activists who bought his tapes and visited his Creationist theme park. Like many of his colleagues, Mr. Hovind refers to himself as "Doctor" even though received a doctorate from an unaccredited Christian diploma mill (you can receive an equally valid diploma <a href="http://thunderwoodcollege.com/chancellor.php">here for free</a>).<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Given how dishonest many of his arguments have been over the years, many skeptics and defenders of science were salivating in 2009 when Wikileaks <a href="http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Young-earth_creationist_Kent_Hovind%27s_doctoral_dissertation">released his dissertation</a> from Patriot University. As you can imagine, the document is full of lulzy quotes, factual inaccuracies, and spelling errors. Rather than being 250 pages as Hovind had claimed over the years, the paper is about 100 pages of absolute fail. It also has no title, which is a first for me.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">To commemorate the first Darwin Day (Feb 12th, which is his birthday) that this blog has been open, I thought I would share ten of the craziest and funniest quotes from Mr. Hovind's dissertation. Keep in mind that these quotes were written by someone who claims to have eight years of college education from a real university. Before you start reading, however, you probably need to brace yourselves for large amounts of fail (yes, #1 is actually the first line of a dissertation). </span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I
live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher
since 1976. I’ve been very active in the creation/evolution controversy
for quite some time. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In the twentieth century the major attack Satan has launched has been against the first eleven chapters of Genesis.</span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I believe that dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but the have lived with man all through his six thousand year history. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The idea that evolutionists try to get across today is
that there is continual <a href="http://scienceskepticism.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-top-ten-myths-about-evolution.html">upward progression</a>. They claim that everything
is getting better, improving, all by itself as if there is an
inner-drive toward more perfection and order. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I personally believe that Satan fell from heaven about a
hundred years after the creation of Adam and Eve… He had been God’s
choir director since he was created… In his pride, Satan decided he
would exalt himself and take over the throne of God. This is where
evolution started. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Adolf Hitler, for instance, was an <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/08/28/hitler-the-creationist/">avid evolutionist</a>. In order to comprehend Hitler's reasoning, one must go back to evolution to understand why he did the things that he did, and thought the way he though. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">If a frog turns into a prince instantaneously, we call that miracle or a fairy tale. But, if that frog turns into a prince very slowly, taking three to four hundred million years to make the transition, we will teach that in our universities as scientific fact. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">People who have studied coral reefs say that they could have been formed in about four to five thousand years with no problem. If the earth is older than that, why aren'the coral reefs <a href="http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/coral04_reefs.html">much larger</a>? </span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Some people say that me moon started as part of the Pacific Ocean and was pulled out of that area. That was taught for many years and is still believe by some. They try to use that to explain all of the volcanoes in Hawaii, saying that the crust is very thin because the moon was pulled out. </span></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">The population of the earth today doubles regularly. If you were to draw up the population growth on a chart you would see that it goes back to zero about <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html#growth">five thousand years ago</a>.</span></span></li>
</ol>
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-42170175273309708522013-02-09T18:19:00.001-08:002013-02-12T08:24:53.279-08:00Why Pluto is not a planet<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.wombania.com/wombie_images/pluto-planet.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="358" src="http://www.wombania.com/wombie_images/pluto-planet.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
While I was taking my first college level astronomy course, a rare event occurred. The International Astronomy Union voted to demote Pluto from planethood and assigned it the title of dwarf planet. My professor, being the excellent educator that she is, decided to use this demotion as an opportunity to educate the class. For the following two weeks, we were required to research why this demotion took place and then debate the cogency of the decision (if you teach astronomy, I suggest you do the same). Given that my class overwhelmingly consisted of Americans that grew up in the 1990's, almost no one saw the IAU's decision as a wise move. Our debate consisted of angry statements like: "This isn't right, everyone knows there are nine planets." "Tombaugh (Pluto's discoverer) was an American and so is Pluto."<br />
<br />
If you were also seething mad at the IAU's decision to demote Pluto, I want you to think about a couple of things to calm your nerves. First, you need to understand that Pluto is still orbiting the Sun. NASA did not nuke it out the sky or send a giant boot to kick it out of the solar system. It is still made out of ice and rock and has a disproportionately large moon named Charon. The spacecraft New Horizons is also still due to to explore and photograph it in 2015. None of this has changed. All that has changed is Pluto is now grouped with a set of icy objects that are much more similar to it than any of the classical planets. That is it.<br />
<br />
Second, you need to understand that this is not the first time that an object has been demoted from planethood. At the dawn of the 19th century, an Italian priest and astronomer named Giuseppe Piazzi (1746-1826) discovered a planet between Jupiter and Saturn. This object, which is named Ceres, was considered a planet for 50 years. It was eventually demoted, however, when it was discovered that Ceres was one body in a vast field of objects. These objects, now know as asteroids, were not known about before because of telescope limitations. Once the existence of countless asteroids were discovered, Ceres was demoted to being an asteroid and grouped in with them. Pluto's demotion, as we will discuss in a second, is strikingly similar to Ceres'.<br />
<br />
Now that we understand that Pluto is still part of our Solar System and that Planetary regrouping has happened before, we can consider the reasons why I took the position in my class that Pluto is not a planet. The crux of my case focused around the history of the definition of planet. While it may sound odd, there was no formal definition of planet before the IAU's 2006 decision. Before we get to their definition, however, it will help us if we consider how the term planet has been informally used throughout the ages. <br />
<br />
<b>The shifting planets</b><br />
<br />
In the ancient and medieval world, the word "planet" simply referred to those bodies in the sky that moved (the word itself comes from <i>aster planetes</i>, which is Greek for wandering star). Since the Greeks were predominantly geocentrists, they believed that there were seven planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Moon, and the Sun). This number was modified after geocentrism came under heavy attack by Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo at the end of the Middle Ages. These men argued that the Earth was a planet and the Sun and Moon were not. By the time that Newton laid down his ideas on mechanics (the mid-late 17th century), the solar system was accepted to be six planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) orbiting the Sun.<br />
<br />
The solar system started to change again when, in 1781, William Herschel discovered the first planet not known to the ancients: Uranus (pronounced your-in-is). The orbit of Uranus, however, caused astronomers many headaches. Unlike the other known planets, it did not conform to the path predicted by Newton's mechanics. To explain this anomaly, astronomers predicted that there was another planet even further out who was tugging on Uranus. Scientists finally found the culprit in 1846 when Neptune was discovered. While this solved much of the problems about Uranus' orbit, it unfortunately opened up another mystery. Much like Uranus, Neptune's orbit deviated from what it was expected to be via Newtonian mechanics. To explain this discrepancy, an even further out planet was postulated.<br />
<br />
This planet was discovered in 1930 by the American Clyde Tombaugh. When Mr. Tombaugh discovered Pluto, it was believed to be much large than it actually is (the size of Earth) It is also worth noting that, like Ceres, none of the objects surrounding Pluto were known at the time of its discovery. <br />
<br />
<b>The case against Pluto</b><br />
<br />
Now that we understand that the solar system has shifted around when new evidence emerges, my case focuses on Pluto's characteristics and the new formal definition of "planet." As I mentioned a second ago, Pluto is now known to be part of a collection of objects called TNO's (trans-Neptunian Objects). These objects are made of rock and ice and reside in a big belt past Neptune. It is helpful to think of them as a much bigger, further out asteroid belt. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/BrauImNew/Chap14/7th/AT_7e_Figure_14_23.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="322" src="http://physics.uoregon.edu/~jimbrau/BrauImNew/Chap14/7th/AT_7e_Figure_14_23.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">the dots are the TNO's</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
This factor is important for two reasons: (1) like Ceres, Pluto has much more in common with these non-planetary objects than it does with any of the classical planets and (2) the IAU's drafted definition of "planet" includes a requirement that Pluto is unable to meet because of its TNO neighbors. Since we have explored what it historically meant to be a planet, we are now ready to ponder this definition:<br />
<br />
The definition that the IAU drafted has three parts:<br />
<ol>
<li>A planet must orbit its star.</li>
<li>A planet must be massive enough to be round.</li>
<li>A planet must clear its neighborhood. </li>
</ol>
Number (3) is the requirement that Pluto fails. But what does it mean to "clear its neighborhood?" This simply means that the object must contain the majority of the mass in its orbital path. For example, Earth is by far the most massive object in its path around the Sun. Pluto, on the other hand, has a minority of the mass in its orbital path. This is because of the large amount of icy and rocky debris around it due to its TNO neighbors. Since all of the 8 classical planets clear their neighborhood and Pluto does not, it is disqualified from being a planet.<br />
<br />
There are also three more factors that weigh significantly against Pluto.<br />
<ol>
<li>Pluto is not even a unique for a TNO. We now know that there are several other sizable objects in this area. The most notable is Eris, which is actually 1/5 more massive than Pluto. </li>
<li>Pluto's orbit is tiled 17 degrees. This cannot be said about the classical planets who orbit elliptically on a relatively flat plane.</li>
<li>Unlike any of the classical planets, Pluto and its moon both orbit a common center of gravity. This makes them a binary system. </li>
</ol>
Simply put, Pluto just does not have that much in common with the eight planets. It also has a lot in common with the other "dwarf planets." To me, this along with the new evidence about the existence of TNO's (especially the larger Eris) means that the the IAU was correct in their decision to demote Pluto. This new label is also pedagogically sensible and makes it much easier to teach planetary science to children. Like introducing the label of "asteroid" and "comet", introducing "dwarf planet" prevented us from having too many small planets and it cleaned up our textbooks. <br />
<br />
If you have any doubt about my argument, I have a thought experiment for you. Imagine that Pluto was discovered today at the same time as all of the rest of the TNO's. Also imagine if, unlike Tombaugh, you knew its correct size. Would you consider it and its many friends as planets? I do not think so. <br />
<br />
In closing, I have one final remark. Many people love to anthropomorphize Pluto and pretend that its feelings were hurt when it was demoted. If you must make Pluto feel, I advise a small change. Instead of imagining it sad, I think you should imagine it as being much happier with its new set of friends than being the "odd man out" and a planet. This is because Pluto is now among its own kind. Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-28472724334496497482013-02-08T09:44:00.000-08:002013-02-08T09:44:30.350-08:00Noam Chomsky on postmodernism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://3.gvt0.com/vi/2cqTE_bPh7M/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2cqTE_bPh7M&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2cqTE_bPh7M&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-2725563981229274592013-02-05T11:57:00.000-08:002013-02-08T09:45:20.891-08:00Poe's Law and postmodernism <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://tromoticons.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/facepalm.jpg?w=420" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://tromoticons.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/facepalm.jpg?w=420" width="316" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Warning: If you do not enjoy face palming, I suggest not reading this article. </span> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Over the last five decades, the
most infamous school of philosophy has been postmodernism. This movement argues
that science is a "power structure" and does not report any actual
truth (many postmodernists also have a problem with the concept of truth, too).
Instead of being motivated by a desire to know the world, scientists are
imperialistic, white chauvinists who desire to suppress other belief systems.
To back up their claims postmodernists attempt to apply literary criticism to
scientific theories. For example, feminist Luce Irigaray attacked the general
theory of relativity by saying: </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Is e=mc2 a sexed
equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it
privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to
us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is
not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged what
goes the fastest.</span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">If you think that Irigaray is
alone, here is feminist Sandra Harding's thoughts on science's
epistemology: </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">One phenomenon
feminist historians have focused on is the rape and torture metaphors in the
writings of Sir Francis Bacon and others (e.g. Machiavelli) enthusiastic about
the new scientific method. …But when it comes to regarding nature as a machine,
they have quite a different analysis: here, we are told, the metaphor provides
the interpretations of Newton’s mathematical laws: it directs inquirers to
fruitful ways to apply his theory and suggests the appropriate methods of
inquiry and the kind of metaphysics the new theory supports. But if we are to
believe that mechanistic metaphors were a fundamental component of the
explanations the new science provided, why should we believe that the gender
metaphors were not? A consistent analysis would lead to the conclusion that
understanding nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape was
equally fundamental to the interpretations of these new conceptions of nature
and inquiry. In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to
Newton’s laws as “Newton’s rape manual” as it is to call them “Newton’s
mechanics”? </span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">And science theorist Bruno
Latour denying that Ramses II died of tuberculosis because he lived thousands
of years before the disease was discovered: </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> Let us
accept the diagnosis of “our brave scientists” at face value and take it as
proved that that Ramses died of tuberculosis. How could he have died of a
bacillus discovered in 1882 and of a disease whose etiology, in its modern form
dates only from 1819 in Laennec’s ward? Is it not anachronistic? The attribution
of tuberculosis and Koch’s bacillus to Ramses II should strike us as an
anachronism of the same caliber as if we had diagnosed his death as having been
caused by a Marxist upheaval, or a machine gun, or a Wall Street crash.
Is it not an extreme cause of “whiggish” history, transplanting into the past
the hidden or potential existence of the future? </span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">One of the attributes that
seemingly all postmodernist literature shares is using nonsensical language in
a virtually incoherent way. This pattern greatly resembles the way that
quantum spiritualists like Deepak Chopra use words like energy, non-locality,
and quantum to mean things that no scientists would ever mean by them. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A physicist named Alan
Sokal saw the way that postmodernists used babel to attack science and decided the play a trick. In 1998, he submitted a fake postmodernist paper to the journal <i>Social Text</i> to see if he could get it published. His article, which was titled <i>Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity</i>, argued that quantum gravity was a social construct (you can read the <a href="http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html">paper for yourself here</a>). One of my favorite quotes from the article criticizes set theory as being chauvinistic and hegemonic : </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Just as liberal feminists are frequently content with a minimal agenda
of legal and social equality for women and ``pro-choice'',
so liberal (and even some socialist) mathematicians are often
content to work within the hegemonic Zermelo-Fraenkel framework
(which, reflecting its nineteenth-century liberal origins,
already incorporates the axiom of equality)
supplemented only by the axiom of choice.
But this framework is grossly insufficient for a liberatory mathematics,
as was proven long ago by Cohen (1966).
</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The most hilarious thing about Sokal's submission, however, is that it was published. That's right. The editors of Social Text published an article in it that argued gravity is a social construct, set theory is sexist, and contains more that six meaningless sentences. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">One of my theories on this incident is that Poe's Law came into effect. If you are unfamiliar with Poe's law, it is when parody cannot be distinguished from a sincere article because the belief structure has no grounding in reality. For <span style="font-size: small;">creationists. </span>it is difficult to tell a person imitating a Young Earth Creationist from the real deal because sincere creationists sound like a bad parody. Since postmodernism, like creationism, entails a certain kind of jargon, it is hard to tell when someone is serious or they are just trolling. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">For example, take this piece of artwork <span style="font-size: small;">which im<span style="font-size: small;">plies that the big bang theory was created by Satan</span></span>. Before reading on, try to tell if if was done by a troll or a serious creationist. You probably can't.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwmYZSnVh5gQviR6s_KzHhUqJpJ0fiXLDViBSE8Wrxd_7WF0188vpZn4cjdOOfI1nTpVx0DjgyW8Rm5MFLyHIu_GYkeV_dQKZW5rJyLm2r1ScfJuj3amy41o5-mqkTmJd6MfN8TTPrv1M/s1600/satan+big+bang.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwmYZSnVh5gQviR6s_KzHhUqJpJ0fiXLDViBSE8Wrxd_7WF0188vpZn4cjdOOfI1nTpVx0DjgyW8Rm5MFLyHIu_GYkeV_dQKZW5rJyLm2r1ScfJuj3amy41o5-mqkTmJd6MfN8TTPrv1M/s320/satan+big+bang.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">This inability to distinguish sincere belief f<span style="font-size: small;">rom <span style="font-size: small;">parody is <span style="font-size: small;">wh</span>at made<span style="font-size: small;"> it possible for Alan So<span style="font-size: small;">kal to commit his hoax against postmodernis<span style="font-size: small;">ts</span>. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">If you do not believe me, try to find someone who is a postmodernist and has not read Sokal's hoax. Copy and paste the quote I mentioned about abortion and set theory and tell them that it is one of the featured postmodernists. I guarantee them that they will take the bait and won't be able to distinguish the two. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">On a <span style="font-size: small;">side<span style="font-size: small;"> note, I <span style="font-size: small;">also recommend that you check out the <a href="http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/">Postmodern Generator</a>. It randomly ge<span style="font-size: small;">nerates a new, pos<span style="font-size: small;">tmodernist<span style="font-size: small;">-</span>sounding essay every time you click on it. It does this task by combining words that po<span style="font-size: small;">stmodern scholars</span> like to use with references from art <span style="font-size: small;">and political science</span>. <span style="font-size: small;">Like Sokal's hoax, you literally cannot tell the difference between these articles and the work of people<span style="font-size: small;"> like Derrida and <span style="font-size: small;">Foucault. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>If <span style="font-size: small;">you are in a class where <span style="font-size: small;">postmodernism is being taught, <span style="font-size: small;">see if you can trick your friends into think<span style="font-size: small;">ing you wrote the<span style="font-size: small;"> essay (don't turn i<span style="font-size: small;">t i<span style="font-size: small;">n though, that's <span style="font-size: small;">plagiary</span>). </span></span></span></span></span></span></span> <br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-4259409496941454582013-02-02T16:37:00.000-08:002013-02-03T07:48:49.208-08:00Ten scientists to talk about during Black History Month<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Shirley_Ann_Jackson_World_Economic_Forum_2010.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Shirley_Ann_Jackson_World_Economic_Forum_2010.jpg" width="269" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span class="st">One of my passions in life is the dissemination of the history of science to the general public. Because of this, I am appalled by how educators typically underplay American American scientists, explorers, and inventors during Black History Month. Instead of the many great men and women who have helped revolutionize the world and our understanding of it, educators tend to focus on athletes and artists. Don't get me wrong. I think Jackie Robinson was an exceptional baseball player and a key figure in the fight against segregation and Louis Armstrong was a musical genius of the highest caliber. Children, however, need to be aware that their cultural heritage is much richer than sports and music.. </span><br />
<br />
<span class="st">If you are an educator and you are not an expert on the history of science, do not worry. I have compiled a list for you of 10 African American scientists, inventors, and explorers that you can easily add to your curriculum. The reason why I chose just 10 is because (as I have found out through trial and error) young people generally do not have a large enough attention span to handle any more information than this. I also want to issue a challenge to you: please do not just teach about the contributions of American Americans during the month of February. Black history is American History and needs to be taught and celebrated as part of your normal curriculum. </span><br />
<ol>
<li><span class="st">Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson (b. 1946) i</span><span class="st">s a nuclear physicist and the 18th president of </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rensselaer_Polytechnic_Institute" title="Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute">Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute</a><span class="st">. She attained her doctorate from MIT (where she was the first black woman to do so) and has served on many advisory boards including President Clinton's </span><span class="st"><i>Nuclear Regulatory Commission</i> and President Obama's </span><span class="st"><i>Council of Advisors on Science and Technology</i>. Her research interests focus on fundamental particles, especially neutrinos. </span><a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President%E2%80%99s_Council_of_Advisors_on_Science_and_Technology" title="President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology"><span class="st"></span></a></li>
<li><span class="st">Dr. Daniel Hale Williams (1858-1931) was a surgeon and cardiologist. He was the </span><span class="st">second person to repair the torn pericardium of a knife wound and the first American to perform a successful open-heart surgery. He also founded Providential Hospital (which was the first desegregated hospital in the United States) and was the first black charter member of the <i>American College of Surgeons</i>. </span></li>
<li><span class="st">Mr. Matthew Henson (1866-1955) was a famous explorer and associate of Robert Peary. While he was an exceptional seaman, Mr. Henson is mostly noted for his expedition to the North Pole in 1909. On this voyage, he became the first person to reach the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographic_North_Pole">geographic North Pole</a>. Later in his life, Mr. Henson was awarded a silver medal and recognized by presidents Truman and Eisenhower for his incredible achievement. </span></li>
<li><span class="st">Dr. Percy Lavon Julian (1899-1975) was a chemist who focused on the chemical synthesis of medicine from plants. He is most notable for his synthesizing of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physostigmine">physostigmine</a> and his pioneering work in the industrial large scale synthesizing of hormones, steroids, testosterone, and progesterone. </span><span class="st">His work would laid the foundation for the production of cortisone and birth control pills. </span></li>
<li><span class="st">Dr. J. Ernest Wilkins Jr.(1923-2011) was a nuclear physicist and mathematician. He is remembered in part because he started the University of Chicago at the ago of 13 and achieved a doctorate by the age of 19. After this, he worked on the Manhattan Project under the tutelage of Enrico Fermi. Throughout his life, he made many contributions to calculus, engineering and nuclear physics, he served as president of the <i>American Nuclear Society</i>, and was the second African American to be elected to the <i>National Academy of Engineering</i>. . </span></li>
<li><span class="st">Dr. Mae Jemison (b. 1956) is a physician and retired astronaut. Despite her excellent record as as a medical doctor</span>, Dr. Jemison's greatest accomplishment is being the first black woman to travel into space. She accomplished this feat on September 12, 1992 when she went into orbit abroad the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Endeavour" title="Space Shuttle Endeavour">Space Shuttle <i>Endeavour</i></a>. Although she is now retired from NASA, she logged 190 1/2 hours in space. She has also appeared on <i>Star Trek: Next Generation</i>. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rensselaer_Polytechnic_Institute" title="Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute"><span class="st"> </span></a></li>
<li><span class="st">Dr. Patricia Bath (b. 1942) is an inventor and ophthalmologist. She was </span>the first woman to serve on the staff of the <i>Jules Stein Eye Institute</i> or to head a post-graduate program in ophthalmology at the <i>UCLA Medical Center</i>. She was also the first black person to serve as a resident in ophthalmology at New York University. Dr. Bath also holds several medical patents, including one for a Laserphaco Probe (which is used to treat cataracts). She also founded the <i>American Institute for the Prevention of Blindness.</i>
</li>
<li><span class="st">Dr. Samuel Kountz (1930-1981) was a transplant surgeon. He was a pioneer in the field of kidney transplants and performed the first successful kidney transplant between two people who were not identical twins. He was also part of a team that developed a prototype for the Belzer kidney <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfusion_machine">perfusion machine</a>. At the time of his death, Dr. Kountz had performed 500 kidney transplants (which was, at the time, more than anyone in the world). </span></li>
<li><span class="st">Dr. Ida Stephens Owens (b. 1940) is a biochemist, geneticist, and physiologist. A member of the </span>National Institutes of Health, Dr. Owens researches the genetics of detoxification enzymes. Her research has helped scientists gain a much better understanding of how the human body defends itself against
poison. She is currently a member of multiple research bodies, including the <i>Section
of Genetic Disorders of Drug Metabolism</i> and the <i>National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development</i>. </li>
<li>Dr. David Blackwell (1919-2010) was a statistician, the first African American inducted into the <i>National Academy of the Sciences</i>, and the first black tenured professor at UC Berkeley. He is most known in mathematics for proposing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwell_channel">Blackwell channel</a> and co-discovering the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rao%E2%80%93Blackwell_theorem">Rao-Blackwell</a> theorem. Dr. Blackwell also made many contributions to game theory and authored one of the first textbooks on Bayesian statistics in the late 1960's. </li>
</ol>
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-84492643854263068932013-02-02T05:53:00.000-08:002017-09-05T08:29:18.767-07:00Young minds polluted at a museum<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
This clip is from a Nightline special that addressed faith in America. If you have never seen it before, I want you to pay attention to the way that the Young Earth Creationists use of the concept of worldview to argue that evolution stems from philosophical assumptions. It is also worth mentioning that the museum's curator, Kirk Johnson, now has a very high profile job at <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/26/smithsonian-kirk-johnson_n_1706339.html">the American Museum for Natural History</a>. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/9D8AeiAamjY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-79159212621144143472013-01-26T13:06:00.001-08:002016-10-06T13:49:26.181-07:00The top ten myths about evolution<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFLmup4PwGNegnSJqjm7O8_FzOuiskZdRe1aNG8ijMxlrC8wCb9-t3w7gztPY1vck1m6YNb1j_orwKaVqBBAGNtIo_Kk9CGXI2IEvjW9yVKw4hPqwIBxCVBHAdb0xXG80mARenH1b67p8/s1600/evolution_of_man.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="151" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFLmup4PwGNegnSJqjm7O8_FzOuiskZdRe1aNG8ijMxlrC8wCb9-t3w7gztPY1vck1m6YNb1j_orwKaVqBBAGNtIo_Kk9CGXI2IEvjW9yVKw4hPqwIBxCVBHAdb0xXG80mARenH1b67p8/s1600/evolution_of_man.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
For those of you who are not familiar Cameron Smith's <a href="http://astore.amazon.com/scienceandskepticism-20/detail/159102479X">The Top Ten Myths About Evolution</a>, it is an excellent book. Like the best works of popular science, it guides the reader without expecting them to already know anything about the subject. While its main purpose is to rebut the most popular misconceptions about the theory of evolution, it also teaches the science needed to fill the void that abandoning creationism leaves. <br />
<br />
In this post, I am going to provide my own rebuttals to Cameron's "top ten myths." The reason why I am doing this is because I want a succinct and easy to read list available for linking. I believe that lots of people are on the fence about evolution not because they embrace creationism, but because they simply are unaware of the facts behind the science (the only exception to this is that I changed number 2). If you read this list and desire to know more, I recommend that you purchase Dr. Smith's book. <br />
<br />
<b>1: Survival of the fittest</b>.<br />
<br />
A common misunderstanding about evolution is that "survival of the fittest" means only the strong and ruthless survive. This is wrong. What Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin meant by "survival" is merely an organism's success rate at passing on copies of its genes into the future through reproduction. They also meant something entirely different by "fittest" than most people think. Instead of meaning an individual's ability to dominate others, they meant organisms who are better adapted for their immediate, local environment. Taken together "survival of the fittest" means: the organisms which are the most likely to pass on copies of their genes to future generations are those who are better adapted to their immediate, local environment (a definition I borrowed from philosopher of biology, Alexander Rosenberg).<br />
<br />
It should also be noted that many of the best strategies for passing on ones genes often have nothing to do with strength or ruthlessness. Many animals, such as various kinds of octopuses, bugs, and birds, use evasion techniques like camouflage and mimicry to successfully ward off predators and gather food undetected. Other animals, like certain large mammals and bats, use group cooperation and food sharing to ensure their survival. These strategies have been very successful at ensuring the propagation of species and are the reason why humans are still around. They are also probably the reason why humans feel empathy and compassion towards others.<b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>2: There is no proof/just a theory</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
A common trope which is just as popular is that there is no evidence for evolution. This misconception, however, has little to do with science and a lot to do with how bad schools are in the USA. Evolution is actually one of the most studied, successful, and supported theories in all of the sciences. The evidence which supports it flows in from all branches of biology including genetics, homology, paleontology, embryology, and study of the geographical distribution of animals. If you are curious about this evidence, then you can read through <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" target="_blank">Talk Origin'</a>s guide to the subject or watch Neil Shubin's documentary <a href="http://www.pbs.org/your-inner-fish/watch/" target="_blank">Your Inner Fish</a>. The thing I recommend doing the most is reading through Jerry Coyne's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1443457626&sr=1-1&keywords=why+evolution+is+true" target="_blank">Why Evolution is True</a> and Richard Dawkins' <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594795/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1443457594&sr=8-1&keywords=the+greatest+show+on+earth" target="_blank">The Greatest Show on Earth</a>. They are both excellent popular level books which explain this evidence.<br />
<br />
To see why the "<b><i>its only a theory</i></b>" objection is flawed, you need to understand what scientists mean by "theory." Rather than meaning "a hunch or guess" (like in everyday speech), scientists mean something like "a testable and well-confirmed explanation which organizes data and yields fruitful predictions." This is why the existence of atoms is explained in atomic theory and the fact that some diseases are caused by microorganisms like bacteria and viruses is explained in germ theory. If you take introductory science classes in college, such as biology, geology, or astronomy, your professor will almost certainly cover this distinction in the introductory unit on the nature of science.<br />
<br />
<b>3: The ladder of progress</b><br />
<br />
Many people believe that evolution means that all living things are improving towards a perfect state. This is usually envisioned as a ladder with man at the top striving towards godhood with all other living things occupying lower spots on the ladder and striving to be like man. These lower living things are ranked and given their spot on the ladder based on how similar to man they are. The more like man they are in appearance, the higher their ranking is on the ladder. This idea, however, is dead wrong. Living things are not striving towards being more like man and, as we discussed in misconception #1, fitness is only about passing genes on, not becoming more like man.<br />
<br />
In many instances, being less like man is a better survival strategy. For example, many mammals like dolphins evolved from land animals. They, however, lost their limbs and returned to the water. This "regression" has worked out well for them and they are one of the most vicious predators in the ocean. If the ladder theory was true, then dolphins should have become more like man through evolution, not less. Other organisms, like the great white shark, are also good counterexamples because they have barely changed since the time of the dinosaurs. <br />
<br />
<b>4: The missing link</b><br />
<br />
It is a popular belief that there is a missing link between man and apes and this absence is a reason for doubting the cogency of evolution. This criticism, however, misunderstands man's relationship to the other apes (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, gibbons, and orangutans). Evolutionists do not think we "came from" any one of these animals. Instead they think we share common ancestors with them. These ancestors, such as the one we share with chimps, would be just as genetically different from chimps as it would be from us. This idea can be understood by the family analogy. Just like we share a common ancestor with our cousin (our grandparents), we share a common ancestor with chimps. For our more distant, second cousins (such as gorillas), you have to go back a further generation to great grandparents.<br />
<br />
While the fossil record will always be incomplete because only a fraction of one percent of dead organisms fossilize, there is an absolute ton of amazing fossils left over from this branching process and I highly recommend reading up on them (message me and I will recommend some books). The evidence for common ancestry, however, comes from much more than paleontology. The fields of genetics, embryology, bio-geography, and comparative anatomy converge to attest to human beings sharing a common ancestor with apes (read about this evidence <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution">here</a> and <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/">here</a>). <br />
<br />
<b>5: Evolution is random</b><br />
<br />
It is certainly true that one of the two pillars of evolution is random mutation. If you are unfamiliar with random mutation, it simply refers to the fact that when genes are passed on to the next generation, they are not copied perfectly. These tiny differences usually do nothing, but sometimes they make the offspring slightly faster or slightly better a camouflaging themselves. These modifications accumulate overtime as genes are inherited from generation to generation (they do not "start over," which is every important). <br />
<br />
Natural selection, which is the second pillar of evolution, favors those organisms which have those slight advantages. As generations pass and the fastest and best camouflaged organisms survive longer and have more offspring, the species as a whole will change. For example, suppose we have a population of mice living in an environment where being brown is a massive advantage. The browner mice will live longer than their less brown relatives. Their even browner offspring also will tend to survive longer and have more babies than their less brown siblings. As this pattern of survival by being brown proliferates over time, the mice population will become increasingly brown. This is how natural (non random) selection interacts with accumulated random mutations to drive evolution.<br />
<br />
<b>6: People come from monkeys</b><br />
<br />
As I talked about in #4 and in my <a href="http://scienceskepticism.blogspot.com/2012/12/katt-williams-and-creationism-explicit.html">criticism of Katt Williams</a>, people did not come from modern day monkeys. Instead, we share a common ancestor with them. This misconception is one of the major reasons why people expect there to be a "missing link." It should also be said that the reason that monkeys are not turning into people (as discussed in #3) is that evolution is not a directed process of being more manlike. The "goal" of monkeys is not to become man, but to simply pass on their genes. <br />
<br />
<b>7: Nature's perfect balance</b><br />
<br />
Nature is usually believed to be a harmonious whole which is in perfect balance. On the environmental level, however, this is false. The environment is in constant flux from external factors (meteors, etc...) and internal factors (the gradual moving of tectonic plates, the accumulation of certain gases in the atmosphere). These changes move the survival goalposts and force organisms to come up with new adaptations or perish.<br />
<br />
As #5 points out, random mutation also means organisms slowly change. As small modifications accumulate in a lineage, organisms gain new abilities which are then selected for or against by their environment. This is quite different from how creationists think about animals. Unlike biologists, they believe that "dogs stay dogs (this is ironic because humans selectively bred dogs from wolves)" and "cats stay cats (again, ironic)." <br />
<br />
<b>8: Creationism disproves evolution</b><br />
<br />
No it doesn't. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming (see no, 4) and the evidence for creationism is non-existent. If anything, evolution disproves the versions of creationism that are incompatible with it. If you would like to see point by point rebuttals of creationist arguments that are not included in this post, please visit <a href="http://youtu.be/ECpV0-RBWLw">Talk Origins</a>. <br />
<br />
<b>9: Intelligent Design is science</b><br />
<br />
Intelligent Design is not a coherent theory, just creationism in a lab coat. To quote Paul Nelson:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a
full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory
right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to
know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of
powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible
complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of
biological design.
<b><br /></b></blockquote>
Unlike IDC, evolution is a full fledged theory. We can say this because it unifies all areas of modern biology into a coherent framework, makes novel predictions, is ontologically parsimonious (it appeals to no entities outside of the natural world), and has great explanatory scope. IDC has none of these virtues.<br />
<br />
As it has been <a href="http://youtu.be/ECpV0-RBWLw">shown conclusively</a>, IDC is merely a strategy designed by creationists following the disastrous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard">Edwards vs. Aguillard</a> ruling. Since it was clear following this court case that creationism was not going to be able to get past the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, creationists got rid of the explicit appeals to Biblical literalism and recruited several very bright scholars like Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyers. The end result was Intelligent Design. <br />
<b> </b><br />
<b>10: Evolution is immoral</b><br />
<br />
This idea could be taken two different ways. The first is that natural selection favors those organisms which are selfish and backstabbing. This means that it literally breeds for traits that are immoral. As I said in #1, however, many organisms have survived due to strategies like sharing food and protecting one another. Bats, for example, share with their brethren who did not successfully acquire food. Likewise, bats who do not share become pariahs and their brethren will not help them if they are unsuccessful a following night. Human beings have evolved a very strong moral sense. Despite popular conceptions, the overwhelming number of human interactions are cooperative (see Jessica Piece's <i>Wild Justice</i> for lots of well developed information about this subject). . <br />
<br />
The second interpretation of this claim is that if evolution is true, there can be no ultimate grounds for morality. While some very respected philosophers like Richard Joyce, Alexander Rosenberg, and (the late) JL Mackie believe this, many ethicist think that biology has no adverse effect on morality. Since Ancient Greece, philosophers have been doing morality without any appeal to the supernatural. These scholars charge that biology effects their ethical ideas in a positive way by illuminating how the world works. This, they argue, allows them to more effectively bring about what they think ought to be the case. If you want to explore morality more, I recommend Peter Singer, (the late) Philipa Foot, Simon Blackburn, and Philip Kitcher. They all have very different, but very interesting, things to say. <br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
<br />
I hope that this post helps you explain and elucidate the wonders of science. If you would like more tools in this fight, please click on my content section. There I have posts about how to talk to non-skeptics and other responses to creationism. You can also do, as I mentioned earlier, purchase Dr, Smith's excellent book. Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-38733996384950908832013-01-25T19:13:00.003-08:002013-01-25T19:16:24.996-08:00The Animated Pale Blue Dot<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/XEwdRE8MKQg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-79691806647884342642013-01-25T14:20:00.002-08:002017-09-05T08:20:05.280-07:00How skeptics should not confront pseudoscience<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.dinopit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/dinosaurs-in-eden.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.dinopit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/dinosaurs-in-eden.jpg" height="307" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I sincerely believe that it is necessary for both science educators and skeptics to engage the public in a rational dialog. I do not, however, think that they should be open to every available time, method, and format. This is because, as I will argue below, approaching the public in the wrong way may do more harm than good.<br />
<br />
A format that should be avoided all together is formal debates. Debates have several features that make them a poor format for science communication. As it has been pointed out again and again, virtually the whole audience goes to debates with their minds already made up. Unless someone gets absolutely tooled, then no one is likely to change their mind (this can also backfire and embolden someone's beliefs). It is also very difficult to correctly explain scientific theories in such a small amount of time. Even the quickest explanation of evolution takes college professors a couple of full length class periods. There is no reason to think that it can be done in a twenty minute opening statement.<br />
<br />
Debates can also help the cause of pseudoscience. Unlike the defenders of science, the charlatan have the ability to make things up on the spot because they are not committed to the truth. This gives them a massive advantage in persuading the audience who cannot tell the difference. Many pseudoscientists are also master rhetoricians and they pay their rent by debating. These factors mean that there is a good chance they are going to win, even if they are full of it. A great example of this is the debate between Kent Hovind and Massimo Pigliucci (<a href="http://youtu.be/iGeLfoGXhqM">link</a>). Despite Massimo having doctorates in botany, genetics, and philosophy and Kent having one from an uncredited Christian diploma mill, it is not clear who won the exchange. <br />
<br />
Perhaps even worse, you are granting the proponent of
pseudoscience a major propaganda victory by merely stepping on stage with them. This victory is the ability to claim that there is a legitimate debate between their viewpoint and mainstream science. Since achieving this status is a major goal of Intelligent Design proponents, you have already given them a tremendous victory before you even open your mouth. You may respond to this by saying something like "But isn't that a change to crush them? What if the defender of science smashes them?" The problem with this is that it still gives the audience the impression that there is no settled science. <br />
<br />
Instead of doing debates, scientists and science educators should make documentaries, host podcasts, appear on television shows, and write popular level books. This allows them to explain the complexities of theories like evolution without having to immediately deal with asinine objections like missing links and <a href="http://scienceskepticism.blogspot.com/2012/12/katt-williams-and-creationism-explicit.html">apes turning into people</a>. Once these theories are properly explained, many of the criticisms that captivate the public imagination will dissolve away. An excellent example of this is Richard Dawkins' <a href="http://www.youtube.com./watch?v=0k9Bwt_aHq4">The Blind Watchmaker</a>. This documentary debunks objections like "an eye could not be made by chance" or "what good is only half of an eye" by explaining how natural selection actually works. <br />
<br />
If you are a skeptic and wish to discuss critical thinking at the grass roots level, then friendly discussions are to be preferred. There are <a href="http://scienceskepticism.blogspot.com/2013/01/arguing-with-non-skeptics-resources.html">many resources</a> that can help develop techniques for diffusing ideas about science and critical thinking. If you desire to communicate ideas, like the theory of evolution, I highly recommend that you also read popular level books by people like Sean Carroll, Jerry Coyne, and (of course) Richard Dawkins. Their books contain lucid explanations, captivating evidence, and excellent analogies that you can use to explain science. I also recommend that you preempt the concerns that creationists may have by reading Ruse, Numbers, and Kitcher. Since all creationists have virtually the same objections, this should not be hard to do. <br />
<br />
While this advice may not sound as daring as taking to he debate stage, it allows science to dispel misunderstandings on its own terms without creating the illusion that it is on par with pseudoscience. This is the standard that we should strive for because it creates a much better environment to change the minds of the masses. Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-6510396776549031932013-01-24T10:37:00.000-08:002013-01-24T10:43:50.595-08:00Spock vs. Critical thinking<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090220220253/memoryalpha/en/images/a/a7/Spock_(mirror).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="298" src="http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090220220253/memoryalpha/en/images/a/a7/Spock_(mirror).jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">He may be bad at reasoning, but Evil Spock has an amazing goatee. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Some of the most egregious misrepresentations of what it means to be rational come from my favorite fictional character, <i>Star Trek</i>'s Mr. Spock. If you are not familiar with the literature on rationality, this is probably surprising to you. After all, Spock is portrayed to show close to no passion (except when he can no longer repress it) and he makes decisions based on cold, calculating logic. This is not, however, what it means to be a critical thinker.<br />
<br />
As it has been pointed out by <a href="http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Hollywood_rationality">Eliezer Yudkowsky</a>, <a href="http://youtu.be/tLgNZ9aTEwc">Julia Galef</a> (who is the first to use the following two examples), and <a href="http://facingthesingularity.com/2011/why-spock-is-not-rational/">Luke Muehlhauser</a>, there is nothing rational about Spock's decision making process. For whatever reason, Gene Roddenberry wrote our Vulcan hero as someone who does not take other sentient being's emotion into account when he is deciding what to do. To see what I am talking about, examine this dialog between Spock and McCoy on the the episode <i>Galileo Seven</i>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
McCoy: "Well, Mr. Spock, [the aliens] didn’t stay frightened very long, did they?"<br />
Spock: "A most illogical reaction. When we demonstrated our superior weapons, they should have fled."<br />
McCoy: "You mean they should have respected us?"<br />
Spock: "Of course!"<br />
McCoy: "Mr. Spock, respect is a <i>rational</i> process. Did it ever occur to you that they might react <i>emotionally</i>, with anger?"<br />
Spock: "Doctor, I’m not responsible for their unpredictability."<br />
McCoy:
"They were perfectly predictable, to anyone with feeling! You might as
well admit it, Mr. Spock: your precious logic brought them down on us!"</blockquote>
The type of rationality that Spock is betraying here is known as <i>epistemic rationality</i>. This kind, also known as <i>type 1 rationality</i>, is our commitment to having as accurate a view of the world as we possibly can. If Spock were abiding by a commitment to know the world as it really is, then he would have been obligated to take into
account all of the evidence about behavior even if it went against his preconceived
notions of logic. By not doing so, he is being the very definition of delusional (having a sustained disregard of reality). <br />
<br />
The other type of rationality that Spock has a hard time grasping is <i>instrumental rationality</i> (or <i>type 2 rationality</i>). Unlike epistemic rationality, instrumental rationality is about applying your knowledge to a task and finding the most reliable and efficient way of completing it. For example, on the episode <i>Charlie X</i>, Spock loses in chess to Kirk and declares "Your illogical approach to chess does have its advantages on occasion, Captain." But Kirk's playing style is a textbook case of instrumental rationality. This is because, if Kirk's goal is to win at chess, his methods allow him to consistently accomplish what he desires.<br />
<br />
Spock also goes against instrumental rationality when he downplays the importance of passion. While it is certainly true that passion can cloud one's judgement and lead to an overestimation of one's own prowess, it also motivates us to dream up and embrace many of our goals. For example, being passionate about the stars motivated Vincent van Gogh to paint and Galileo Galilei to turn his looking glass to the sky. This is what David Hume meant when he said "<span class="st">Reason is, and ought only to be the <i>slave</i> of the <i>passions</i>."</span><br />
<br />
<span class="st">In closing, Spock has the wrong idea about rationality. Clear thinking is about abiding by two types of rationality. The first is having the most accurate map of the world possible, while the second is about reliably and effectively achieving your goals. This is very different than reasoning devoid of emotions or saying esoteric dictums about decision making. If you want to learn the actual methods of critical thinking, stay tuned to this series. In the meantime, <i>live long and prosper</i>. </span>Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-58370553372804556202013-01-22T06:40:00.002-08:002013-01-22T06:40:54.073-08:00Biologist debunks intelligent designFor those of you who have not seen Ken Miller's classic lecture on intelligent design, here it is: <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/JVRsWAjvQSg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-57316986758958288752013-01-21T13:45:00.002-08:002017-09-05T08:17:44.935-07:00Some interesting creationist quotes<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHTAA1lH5ZPl1HyQpqOFDkXy0V7uKmKRLRYOYkhEnVvrjmhXU0k8XGzXep9Pao0yuSfXxrHOyAaAiJdS6oKHle7a1s8NwaGwN6tHYBN28aGKZs20s3aDxMnNQa7jvW5gthsD_YfWkiu9k/s400/IntelligentDesignCartoonSteveSack8-8-05.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="302" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHTAA1lH5ZPl1HyQpqOFDkXy0V7uKmKRLRYOYkhEnVvrjmhXU0k8XGzXep9Pao0yuSfXxrHOyAaAiJdS6oKHle7a1s8NwaGwN6tHYBN28aGKZs20s3aDxMnNQa7jvW5gthsD_YfWkiu9k/s400/IntelligentDesignCartoonSteveSack8-8-05.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The following quotes are 100% real and are taken from intelligent design and creationist tirades. They were archived from all over the internet by people who find them to be as funny as they are terrifying. If you desire to look them up or to browse through other crazy quotes, you can do so at <a href="http://fstdt.com/">fstdt.com</a>. With that said, I don't consider these people immoral or stupid. They are simply the victims of bad education, our culture, and indoctrination. We shouldn't make fun of them or exile them. We should befriend and converse with them.<br />
<br />
Quote# 65191<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
im christian
<br />
if we came from apes
<br />
how come were not hairy and have a big mouth
<br />
and did we end up looking like we do know
<br />
and besides
<br />
there isnt any serious proof of apes
<br />
they showd a video saying an ape was wondering around in the forest
<br />
that thing looked exactly like a costume that i had saw at a store
<br />
know one ever cought an ape <br />
<br />
luv4cs</blockquote>
<br />
Quote# 67928<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<<In reply to if evolution isn't true, how do you explain things like the blind spot in the human eye?>>
<br />
<br />
I don’t have a blind spot in my eye. Both of them see very well
and I am thankful for the 137million light sensitive cells that make
sight possible. Do you have a blind spot in your eye? If you do, I
suggest that you see an optician and see if he can either fix it, or get
you another eye. <br />
<br />
Ray Comfort</blockquote>
<br />
Quote# 77004<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Q-If God created the world 6,000 years ago or so, why are stars millions of light years away?
<br />
<br />
A-Brendon, what a question! Yes, we know from the dates God
gives us in the Bible that He did create the whole universe about 6,000
years ago. When we hear the term light-year, we need to realize it is
not a measure of time but a measure of distance, telling us how far away
something is. Distant stars and galaxies might be millions of
light-years away, but that doesn’t mean that it took millions of years
for the light to get here, it just means it is really far away! <br />
<br />
Ken Ham </blockquote>
<br />
Quote# 70373<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Why is it still fuckin legal for those cock-licking
homo pigs to maintain this nazi fucking LIE called evolution. Let tens
of thousands of evil DEVILS of ETERNAL flames burns their grandchildren
in concentration camps all over the planet. And if that doesn't shut
down these cunt morons, I shall personally rip their intenstines through
their GOD DAMN nosdrils!...I just get so fucking upset when I hear
people talk about this gay shit piece of pussy EVOLUTION. I am NO son of
a buttfucking God damn ape, and that's scientific enough for me! Hell
yeah! We should decapitate all those bitch slapping freak loving idiots,
who think God is dead and who uses the name of Jesus to wipe their
infidel pedofile asses.<br />
<br />
Sara Ahlmark</blockquote>
<br />
Quote# 60638<br />
<blockquote>
Students, give this test to your teachers. When they fail it, ask them why they are teaching this nonsense!
<br />
<br />
Teachers, give this test to your students if you really want them to know the truth about evolution!
<br />
<br />
1. Which evolved first, male or female?
<br />
2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?
<br />
3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.
<br />
4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?
<br />
5. Which came first:
<br />
...the eye,
<br />
...the eyelid,
<br />
...the eyebrow,
<br />
...the eye sockets,
<br />
...the eye muscles,
<br />
...the eye lashes,
<br />
...the tear ducts,
<br />
...the brain's interpretation of light?
<br />
6. How many millions of years between each in question 5?
<br />
7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can't all the
different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?
<br />
8. List any of the millions of creatures in just five stages of its
evolution showing the progression of a new organ of any kind. When you
have done this, you can collect the millions of dollars in rewards
offered for proof of evolution!
<br />
9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?
<br />
10. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by
chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show
your math solution.)
<br />
11. Why aren't any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?
<br />
12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body.
<br />
13. Why hasn't anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution?
<br />
14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?
<br />
15. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents?
<br />
<br />
<br />
Missing Universe Museum</blockquote>
<br />
Quote# 77519<br />
<blockquote>
Gravity is a theory, not a proven fact.
<br />
<br />
The effects of gravity can be explained by other theories. An
example would be the acceleration theory which asserts the earth is
actually moving 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This
produces the same effect as "gravity".
<br />
<br />
See there are different theories for the same phenomena - and none are facts, they are just theories.<br />
<br />
Cassiterides</blockquote>
<br />
Quote# 71130<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Are... are you now disputing the existance of DNA???"
<br />
<br />
Yes. DNA can never be proven. Evolutionists are obsessed with it
because they always say ''chimps share 97% DNA with modern man'' etc.
That's great, however you would then need to prove DNA is real.<br />
<br />
Asycthian</blockquote>
<br />
Quote# 83483<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
There are numerous evidences of and for creation. Take the Bible for instance. Take creation itself for instance.
<br />
If evolution were true, vampires, werewolves would exist. They don't. How do you account for that?<br />
<br />
Knightmare</blockquote>
<br />
Quote# 74719<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When I decided to homeschool my six year old son, I
told him we were going to do "Dinosaur Week". Which turned into
"Dinosaur Month". . . at the least! We watched "Walking With Dinosaurs"
and a lot of other documentaries. He's a pretty smart kid, too, so even
he ended up saying "Ok. Scientists say that God isn't real. They say
earth is a kajillion years old. They say that people and dinosaurs
weren't alive at the same time and that a lot of dinosaurs could have
died from a big flood, but that The Flood didn't happen. WHAT IS WRONG
WITH THESE PEOPLE?!". He gets really upset about people not believing in
God - as in he doesn't want them going to hell and he can't believe
people can ignore God all around us. Every time we watch one of those
dinosaur things, he gives a big, overly-dramatic sigh whenever they
start talking about "millions of years" or evolution.
<br />
<br />
One that really cracked him up was where they theorize about
reptiles evolving into humanoid creatures. Good grief! And they teach
most of this stuff as FACT in schools!!!! I can't believe it. Neither
can a six year old. So WHY is it so accepted?!!?
<br />
<br />
I teach him what makes SENSE. NOT what science textbooks say. I
also teach my kids to question what they are taught - especially what
they learn in school. It's really not fun at all having a bunch of
junior scientists in the house when 99% of science seems to be
atheistic.<br />
<br />
HisPrincess</blockquote>
<br />
Quote# 86046<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I have plainly said that I do believe ‘geocentrism’
as God states plainly in the Bible that ‘the Earth is the center of it
all’ all meaning the universe. There is plenty of scientific evidence
for anyone to see this is becoming much more apparent. You on the other
hand want to constantly go back to a centuries old definition to imply
‘all’ as merely our solar system.<br />
<br />
BrandtMichaels</blockquote>
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-10318207538592771592013-01-21T09:34:00.000-08:002013-01-21T10:20:48.143-08:00Arguing with non-skeptics (resources)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
To help you discuss science and critical thinking with the both the true believers and the fence sitters, I have created this list of resources for you. These links will take you to podcasts, free pdf's, and videos discussing how to discuss and debate with non-skeptics. I hope you enjoy. <br />
<ul>
<li>John Cook's Debunking Handbook is an excellent resource for engaging
believers. This is because it shows the science behind debunking and
exposes some of the most egregious myths about trying to change
someone's mind (<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html">link</a>). </li>
<li>Sadie
Crabtree's discussion at The Amazing Meeting about how to win hearts
and minds for skepticism. Like Cook's booklet, this talk focuses on
common misconceptions and debunking and offers lots of useful advice
that actually works (<a href="http://youtu.be/flUrvJPLNCI">link</a>). </li>
<li>My post about how to argue with non-skeptics without going crazy.
These are just a few pointers to turn such discussions into a positive
and fun learning experience for both the skeptic and the believer (<a href="http://scienceskepticism.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-argue-with-non-skeptice-without.html">link</a>). </li>
<li>The Science Talk podcast recorded a two part conference on how to discuss and debate with non-skeptics. The panel discussion was hosted by Julia Galef and featured George Hrab, DJ Grothe, James Randi, and Steve Mirsky (<a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=arguing-with-non-skeptics-part-1-of-10-07-27">part 1</a>, <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=arguing-with-non-skeptics-part-2-of-10-07-28">part 2</a>).</li>
<li>Brian Dunning recorded an episode of Skeptoid about reasons why
scientists should not publicly debate (on stage as opposed to one one
one discussions) believers in creationism, intelligent design, and other
forms of science denial (<a href="http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4167">link</a>). </li>
<li>Phil Plait's very famous talk (at least relative to skepticism)
about why skeptics should avoid being dicks to people who believe weird
things. This video needs to be watched carefully because it can easily
be misunderstood (<a href="http://vimeo.com/13704095">link</a>). </li>
<li>Neil DeGrasse Tyson discusses some of the lessons he has learned about communicating science. One of the key points he makes is to stress how wonderful science is. This is key because new-skeptics need to fill the void that nonsense leaves with something else (<a href="http://www.pointofinquiry.org/neil_degrasse_tyson_communicating_science/">link</a>).</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-49943824719676537992013-01-20T20:24:00.002-08:002015-11-16T10:06:41.650-08:00How to argue with a non-skeptic without going crazy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.thebishopsschool.org/Event_Report/debate2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.thebishopsschool.org/Event_Report/debate2.jpg" height="236" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
One of the attributes that most skeptics share is a burning desire to
discuss critical thinking and science with non-skeptics. While such
passion is admirable, many skeptics have a warped idea of what is
actually going to happen in these discussions. Without warrant, they
assume that they are going to go in and say something like "you believe in magic and faeries" and the other person is going to roll over and become a science lover.<br />
<br />
Guess again.
Discussing and debating with non-skeptics in one of the most irritating and non-progressive things you can possibly do in your spare time. This is because many believers in pseudoscience and the paranormal have a tremendous amount of time,
money, and energy invested into their beliefs. Like anyone else, these people find it uncomfortable and distressing to have their cherished beliefs challenged and they will likely put on their cognitive blinders or get really angry with you if you push too hard. <br />
<br />
Despite these
odds, however, you should not not despair. Almost all skeptics started
off as believers who believed in at least some nutty ideology. This means that even people from the most rigid backgrounds are occasionally talked into leaving dogmatism
behind for rationality (If you do not believe me, Google "Nate Phelps" and "Marjoe Gortner"). You should also be optimistic about how many people there are out there who are are simply ignorant of science and critical thinking.<br />
<br />
These
people, due to their pursuits in other areas, have thought little about
the big bang, evolution, cognitive biases, or decision making. Its not
that they are dogmatically opposed to these things, they simply do not
know any better and reject these ideas due to anti-scientific arguments that float around in the popular imagination (for example, "<a href="http://scienceskepticism.blogspot.com/2012/12/katt-williams-and-creationism-explicit.html">if evolution is real, then why aren't apes turning into people?</a>"). I, like many other skeptics, believe that changing this group's mind is much easier because they do not have the same level of commitments
as a true believer.<br />
<br />
Thankfully, I am at a part in my life that I enjoy discussing these topics with<b> </b>both the fence sitter and the most stubborn believers in bunk (trust me, I know some nutty ones too). This is because I have a set of rules of thumb<b></b> that I follow during discussions that keep me level headed. To help you do the same, I decided to post some of these rules in the form of advice.<br />
<ol>
<li><b>Be kind and respectful</b>. Remember that the person you are talking to also has hopes, dreams, and aspirations. Like you, they care about living a fulfilling life and probably want to spend it with their loved ones. By keeping this in mind, I find it much more difficult to get mad with someone for not agreeing with me. Being civil will also allow you to accomplish the major goal of shattering stereotypes about skeptics. For whatever reason, we are believed to be a bunch of inhumane bullies who are just out to offend people. If you imprint on a believer your own kindness, they can no longer think these things without remembering how they once met a kind and polite skeptic. </li>
<li><b>Lower your expectations</b>. As I said earlier, you are going to get very frustrated if you think that you are going to go in like John Rambo and make someone change their entire worldview. I never expect to make such progress in a single sitting and you shouldn't either. Instead of converting someone outright, you should aim to sow the seeds of doubt and explain skepticism by applying critical thinking skills to ideas that will likely not offend the person. These same reasons for doubting the effectiveness of magnetic wristbands or the existence of planet Nibiru may later pop back up later when they consider whether or not homeopathy and astrology actually work.<b></b> </li>
<li><b>Enjoy the conversation</b>. Even though you may not learn something about biology or physics from your conversation, engaging believers can still teach many fascinating lessons in sociology and psychology. Like an anthropologist studying apes in the woods, I am often blown away by the actual motivations and reactions of believers. Since many people use the exact same arguments, conversing with one believer can help you cut your skeptical teeth and refine your arguments and counter-arguments for your next encounter with proponents of the same variety of woo. Whenever I look at an exchange as a chance to learn something, it is very hard for me to get frustrated. <b></b> </li>
<li><b>Channel Socrates</b>. The philosopher Socrates had an excellent debate methodology. Rather than viewing an exchange as a competition where there is only one winner, he thought of them as a cooperative effort between two teammates. Socrates thought the goal of this dialogue was for both participants to sharpen their reasoning skills and come to more nuanced views about reality. Rather than accusing his partner of being an idiot, he would ask them questions like "why do you believe x?" or "have you considered how fact y would effect your belief in x?" By making the exchange out to be mutually beneficial, you will strip it of most of the frustration you usually feel. </li>
</ol>
Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1529072870482154368.post-15236786987000160372013-01-19T11:55:00.000-08:002013-02-05T19:36:31.265-08:00Know your scholars: E.A. Burtt<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://ca.pbsstatic.com/l/11/5511/9780486425511.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://ca.pbsstatic.com/l/11/5511/9780486425511.jpg" /></a></div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV9LjfsFI_G4JQOpW8wkxdV0-xsYFhL6lWcjBWQmful0eIXbSrc75dlAaiBHvd6UA2V-wTf3H58AvYe0lEYNEiqn0R6pTTV2Z3CjlROBEusRWdru1QY8C_GhlMZPTOLvoQRYHDbchbGis/s1600/211881r662.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><br />
<div style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;">
</div>
<br />
Edwin Arthur Burtt (1892-1989) was an American professor of philosophy who wrote extensively on the history and philosophy of science, religion, and science's relationship to religion. During his long career, Dr. Burtt (who was known to his friends as Ned) held the prestigious Susan Linn Sage chair of philosophy at Cornell University and was president of the American Philosophical Association from 1964-5. <br />
<br />
Much of his interests in topics involving metaphysical and religious questions about reality was probably cultivated in his childhood. Even when he was an old man, Burtt recalled how his parents attitudes towards religion (his father was a devout evangelical and missionary) had a profound influence on his life.<br />
<br />
Despite his later rejection and criticism of Jesus as a man who had "no appreciation of the value of intelligence as the most dependable
human faculty for analyzing the perplexities into which men fall and for
providing wise guidance in dealing with them" and who "took entirely for granted and without criticism the economic structure
prevalent in his day, with its assumption of an absolute right on the
part of employers to make such profits as they are able and to treat
their workmen according to whatever whim may seize them (<a href="http://philosopedia.org/index.php/Edwin_Arthur_Burtt">link</a>)", Burtt remained sympathetic to religious experience and awe and published books like <i>Religion in the Age of Science,</i> <i>Types of Religious Philosophy</i>, and <i>The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha </i>throughout his life. <br />
<br />
While completing his dissertation in philosophy at Columbia University, Burtt chose to focus his research on the pioneers of the Scientific Revolution. Burtt argued that ideas like human consciousness, purpose, and religious aspirations do not fit into the mechanical worldview created by men like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, and especially Newton. Burtt showed that these thinkers' work cannot be clearly separated out from the work of Hobbes, Locke and Descartes. <br />
<br />
While his dissertation argued that this scientific philosophy has a positivist streak, Burtt also demonstrated and explored the rich philosophical contributions made by these men. He showed that philosophical concepts like epistemology, the philosophy of mathematics, and the philosophy of physics (in particularly, space and time) were richly explored and elucidated by almost all of these noted intellectuals. <br />
<br />
After he received his doctorate in 1915, Burtt revised this work and published it as the book <i>The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science</i>. Despite being largely unknown now, this book was a landmark in the history and philosophy of science. Burtt's idea that certain pre-scientific ideas were carried over into the seventeenth century mechanical worldview is said to have influenced both Alexandre Koyre and most importantly,Thomas Kuhn. <br />
<br />
Despite the large contributions Burtt made to the study of history and philosophy of science, Burtt is most remembered for being a key contributor to the early days of the Humanist movement. Although is ideas that "spiritual experience is the identification with categories of space, time, causality, and other fundamental physical principles (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Arthur_Burtt">link</a>)" was left out of humanist writings, he was a contributor and signer of the first Humanist Manifesto and a signer of the second.<br />
<br />
While Burtt was less vocal about humanism after the first manifesto, he occasionally reviewed books for The Humanist magazine during the 1950's. While I cannot locate any of these articles, I did find this one letter and response to him (I did not desire to post it in this article because it is a big picture. <a href="http://philosopedia.org/images/3/3f/EABurtt.jpg">Click here</a> if you desire to read it). <br />
<br />
While his ideas are largely forgotten, Burtt is an imminent figure in the history and philosophy of science. I highly recommend that you pick up a copy of <a href="http://astore.amazon.com/scienceandskepticism-20/detail/B00A73FD20">The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science</a> for yourself and see why his ideas were held in such high regard by his contemporaries and his intellectual heirs. Greghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01157848127817789790noreply@blogger.com2