Plans and a Comic

Well, my blog's been in limbo for a long time. I'm once again thinking about attempting a revival, though I'll probably set a more modest goal and work up from there: One post a week, but it won't be here. It'll be a WordPress blog, and the URL will probably be more accurate (Edit: It's http://thebronzeblog.wordpress.com/ ), rather than this old holdover from Ryan's days. I'll be doing some rewrites of Doggerel, applying what I've learned over my time as a blogger and commentator. I'll probably recruit my brother to handle the coding and layout.

On politics, I felt the need to share a comic about an executive trend I continue to be outraged about, regardless of who's in office.

Template Reformat

Sorry if the colors offend your eyes. I ended up messing up my template while trying to figure out why my navbar wasn't showing up. I'm going to be experimenting with the colors and templates a little bit. It may be time to update my 'gadgets' and consider other changes, so drop suggestions.

While I'm here, I might as well mention some post ideas:

1. A Doggerel entry, "Mind your own business!" for various woos who didn't appreciate me sticking my nose into topics they didn't want open for discussion.

2. A part 2 to "Christianity: The Apocalypse Cult That Survived." I think I'll avoid sticking to a book at a time, since a lot of the cult-like behaviors get replicated between the gospels. Any suggestions for a good list of cult identifiers out there?

Picking Things Back Up

I've been delving into the limits of my talent for procrastination, but I think I'll try to end that experiment: From this day forth, I'll try to post once a day. I have contemplated getting back in by goading Skeptico's recent troll, Peter Pan, but I'll ask for some input before I invite him. Ryan seems to think I struck one of his nerves (though, of course, that perception doesn't prove anything by itself), and I'm curious if I could force him to concede even the tiniest things.

Of course, troll roasting is just one possibility. I'll be thinking of other stuff to post:

1. New Doggerel entries. There's no shortage of cliches used to support bad logic. I'll try to get back to some regularity.
2. Gaming stuff: I've had some fun during my procrastination experiments. A few items: Master of Orion 2 (haven't tried any multiplayer, yet.), Metroid: Other M, and Minecraft.
3. New series concept: Denialist Doublethink. There are a lot of woos who say one thing, yet act as if they believe the opposite. It'll probably start out with heavy focus on alties.

The Ban List

It currently has one member: Gabriel. (WOMI was removed last time I changed the comment policy. He originally got on for doing a similar repetition act Gabe's doing now, only he was a Creationist.) The reason for his banning is essentially groaning boredom on the part of some of my readers, and I can't blame them: Gabriel hasn't learned anything about what we actually believe, and thus it's become pointless to read his repetition of straw men, ad hominem fallacies (why the hell does he think this is about penis passport dueling with some random guy on the internet?)

So, Gabriel, included below are a few ways you can get yourself unbanned by submitting comments:

1. Post a criticism of my actual views on the topic of race. There's no shortage of my commentary in the various threads for you to read.
2. Define what you mean by "race," "white," and "black." Are they based on genetics in any way?
3. A link and/or citation of a study showing some sort of meaningful neurological differences between people of different races.

Anything else is subject to rejection. If you had any idea of what skepticism and science really are, you'd understand why you've been failing so hard. Try doing something different and interesting for a change. It's been fun seeing you flail about in a useless and predictable manner, but I think it's time to move on if you can't show me something unexpected.

Once a week, I may drop a comment in this thread summarizing what Gabe tries. I predict it'll just be a stream of redundancy, and we don't need space wasted on stuff we've already been over multiple times.

Okay, Wow.

Seems Blogger hasn't been informing me of moderated comments from old threads. Got 21 listed. Get ready for a flood of pent up Gabriel.

Apathy

When I was young, one of my Sunday school teachers said the opposite of love isn't hate: It's apathy, the utter lack of concern or compassion. I doubt she realized where that sort of thought would take me. My last Sunday school session involved a different teacher who spoke of Hell with complete apathy for those allegedly burning in it.

Hatred, despite its dangers, is at least understandable. A normal person can understand why someone would hate threats to their or their loved ones' well being. A normal person can understand the desire to take vengeance on something that has already damaged those things. Rage is a natural followup to sorrow.

Apathy, however, often mystifies me. I can understand apathy when it concerns, say, the local sports team rivalries, but not when it concerns the suffering of other people. I've run into countless neocon trolls who don't care in the slightest about non-Americans and their rights. I've encountered countless fundies who advocate apathy as the proper response to injustice. I've encountered some woos who seem almost sub-human or sociopathic in their inability to understand why we want to protect strangers from psychic scams.

Apathy, for me, can be seen as the most subtle and insidious form of hatred. It can stand for extended periods because it only requires inaction in the face of injustice. That inaction also makes it much easier for some to indulge in it. Apathy is a cold emotion, which is probably why I react to it with impassioned flames. What got me to blogging about skepticism instead of just rolling my eyes was the passion of other skeptics. They blogged about how woo hurts people and corrupts our efforts to find the truth. After that, I couldn't bear being silent.

Happy Blogoversary to Me

Been four years, now. Need to do some catching up to get my average back up to a post a day.

Incidentally, anyone here have Civilization: Revolutions for the PS3? I'd like to play against some human players alongside my brother.

Comment Moderation

Just getting sick of deleting spam every morning. Trolls need not worry about me filtering them out.

Doggerel #216: "Why are You So Angry?"

Welcome back to "Doggerel," where I ramble on about words and phrases that are misused, abused, or just plain meaningless.

Many of us skeptics routinely have to deal with people who don't understand why we're angry or irritated. Sometimes I'm quite mystified as to how this failure to understand human emotion occurs. Anger is understandably considered a "negative" emotion, but it can do great good by motivating us to speak out against injustice.

First and foremost, "woo" is harmful. People die from alternative medicine. Religious fanatics can be driven to kill. The latest fad in positive thinking can make people waste money on books, lectures, sessions, and make them feel unnecessary guilt when bad things happen to them anyway: Blaming the victim for negative thoughts. There seems to be no shortage of ways that fallacious thinking can cause harm. We get angry because we don't like the idea of people getting hurt.

In other cases, many of us are veteran debaters. We've seen many fallacious arguments in our time, and quite often we're irritated to hear them repeated over and over. I created the Doggerel series to save some of that time and frustration: Instead of writing up a response to a logical fallacy employed by a supporter of the supernatural, my fellow skeptics could give a prepared answer to tired old cliches and defense mechanisms.

Often in cases of religious fundamentalism, there's a deep moral divide between us and the fundamentalist: I have had far too many arguments with people who believe torture, murder, slavery, discrimination, and deception are virtuous activities because their gods allegedly command them.

We have plenty of reasons to be angry. Our passion for justice and truth is not a weakness.

Unity!

Seems they've marked the price down from $200 to FREE! Sounds like a deal to me. Downloaded the installer and might try a few things. Up for hearing if any of you have personal experiences to share. I'll probably hang out at their forum this weekend to find out more.

Trying to Light a Fire Under My Posterior

I made a resolution to try and get somewhere with my Untitled Platformer back in January. So, I'm going to exchange a few emails, browse some forums and so forth about an engine someone (I forgot who. Sorry.) recommended for me: Torque.

Anyone care to share any experiences or anything like that?

Suggestion Box: Woo of the Moment

I'm contemplating trying to pick up on some off-brand woo: Usually, I've stuck to alties and IDiots as my usual targets, but I'm thinking about doing a bit of roasting of woos outside those categories: Free energy nuts, psychics, ufologists, way-out-there conspiracy nuts, that sort of thing.

Anyone got ideas for someone specific I could analyze and roast?

The Whole Bill Maher Thing

I haven't been watching all that closely, but I think I'm pretty well on Orac's side. I do think Maher deserves some amount of kudos for the balls it takes to release an anti-religion movie in the US. The problem: Maher's an anti-scientific crank and deserves major anti-kudos for all the tripe he spouts out.

When I didn't know much about the award, I thought it was just something like a PR award, and not quite so much to fuss about. I pretty much agreed with PZ's first post about it: Yeah, throw him a bone for the movie, but do everything (within reason) to put him in the hot seat for his crazy medical beliefs and such.

Then I found out about the science standards that were originally in place, and decided that no, I don't think The Crank deserves the award, and that it should be revoked. Not long after, I found out that they changed the award criteria for his sake, removing science as a standard. At that point, I performed a facepalm.

Many woos accuse us of valuing atheism/disbelief more than the truth, saying we wouldn't believe a scientific demonstration of gods. I think this whole scenario is an enactment of that stereotype: It sends a message that religion bashing is more important to us than science.

It doesn't help that my brother mentioned some dishonest tactics employed in Religulous. I never watched it, since I already had plenty of reason not to support The Crank, but I'm sure it won't take long for me to find out additional reasons to negate the kudos given for that movie.

Blasphemy Day Suggestion Box

Only recently have I been reminded of Blasphemy day on the 30th. Anyone got ideas for something I should post?

120th Skeptics' Cricle

It's up at Pro-Science.

Open thread as usual, but shamelessly plugging your new skepticism blog is FORBIDDEN!

What Makes Me Angry and Why

This is probably an obvious thing to say, but skeptics like me are well-known for having sharp tongues. I'm sure this is pretty off-putting for those new to any of the debates about the paranormal, fringe science, alternative medicine, etcetera. Debates like this, especially when they take place on the internet, require patience and understanding. I've had a multitude of experiences that tend to cut down on my capacity for the former. So often, it's caused by a troll who doesn't bother attempting the latter. This post is aimed at those who do not have much experience in the debate. I hope you'll be able to walk away understanding why it's best to avoid certain irritations.

Why we do what we do: Whether or not you think we're right, a great many of the topics we argue about end up hurting people. Phony psychics (whether they realize they're phony or not) charge for their nonexistent services, and even if they don't, they often end up manipulating people made vulnerable from their loss. Quacks peddle false hope and drain time and money from those who either could receive real help from medicine, or squander the resources they could use to help their families. Pseudoscientists waste resources on old and/or absurd ideas while disparaging the scientific method that allowed us to discover all the advances that we so easily take for granted.

Far too often, I've dealt with people who, rather than work to convince me that these people are engaged in worthwhile efforts, ask my why I should care. A particularly cynical example I've dealt with was a pro-psychic troll named Jambo. She asked why we should care about people we know nothing about getting scammed out of their money. My skeptical friends and I like to think that we're a principled lot: We care about other people's welfare. Every once in a while, someone comments that a particularly gullible person deserves to be scammed, but I don't allow myself to think that way: Everyone has periods of vulnerability and desperation that can be exploited. The issue isn't always just the physical and monetary harm: It often involves a manipulative bastard betraying someone's trust. It's hard to be indifferent towards something like that.

Yes, skeptics like me are curmudgeonly and cynical at a glance. But we're like that because we care. If something's too good to be true, we make the effort to see if it's true. Yeah, I fantasize about worlds that are all sunshine and lollipops, but, like it or not, we haven't gotten the real world yet. There are a lot of people made untrustworthy by greed, or, more often, a lack of scientific awareness.

While I'm quite aware there are many frauds out there, there are many people who ply the psychic/quackery/whatever trade without realizing they're wrong. Someone can, for example, write up a schematic that looks like a free energy machine without realizing they've made a mistake in their calculations. They can be sincere when they ask for investment capital and honestly believe that they can succeed. If the first device fails, they can still be sincere about Plan B working out. In such a case, this would-be inventor is only being dishonest with himself. There's no moral failing in this example, just an intellectual one. Despite our would-be inventor's best intentions, however, money is still lost trying to build a device that doesn't work.

We still want to prevent harm caused by unchecked good intentions. In such a case, our anger isn't born in response to malice or apathy: It's frustration usually brought on when we but heads against defense mechanisms. It's normal for many people to be overconfident in their abilities. It's normal to react badly to people saying you're wrong. It's normal to perform mental gymnastics to excuse bad behaviors. It's normal to be biased. Usually, when I engage in comment combat, that's the core of what I'm saying: I don't necessarily think the people I'm arguing with are stupid or lying (though there's no shortage of trolls out there who likely qualify). I'm only accusing them of being normal people.

What separates a scientist or a skeptic from most people isn't some elitist fantasy of superior brain power, years of education, or even success: We strive to be aware of our flaws. Everyone has cognitive biases. Anyone is capable of jumping to unjustified conclusions. Anyone can be ignorant of key pieces of evidence. Anyone can rationalize bad decisions and beliefs. You are no exception, and should watch yourself for bad tendencies. Our flawed nature is the necessity that birthed the invention of the scientific method: We have to double check ourselves. When someone disrespects the scientific method, it comes across as arrogant, like they believe they aren't subject to the failings of us mere mortals.

One of the most important features of the scientific method is falsification. Every explanation, whether it's an untested hypothesis or a long-established theory, must be falsifiable: There must be some way to prove it wrong. Predictions might come out wrong. A founding premise might not be as accurate as originally thought. For whatever reason, newly found evidence can contradict the explanation. If this happens, the theory needs to be modified to fit or be replaced by a more accurate explanation. In the worst case, it could be replaced with "I don't know." Scientists know about this process. Every theory is "wrong," but as time goes on and more good evidence is collected, they get less wrong, or in other words, more accurate.

Quite often, this isn't the case with paranormal, supernatural, and pseudoscientific ideas: Instead of allowing an escape hatch, they're fond of ad hoc hypotheses and similar defense mechanisms: When they fail, they make up an exception that only applies to that one failure but somehow doesn't interfere with successes under similar circumstances. So often, these pile up, preventing anyone from knowing when it'll "work" or not. When it gets to this level, can you blame us for thinking it's closed-minded and insular?

Another great annoyance of ours is the quoting of stereotypes. So often, we have to fight misconceptions about how we think. We ask questions, not to nitpick, but to learn more, or to teach by the Socratic method. We don't dismiss things you consider strange or wonderful because we think the world is boring: Quite the opposite, we think the real world is an amazing place. The problem is often that the field you are touting bores us with a lack of change or progress. Don't compare us to Hollywood characters lightly. We're people, just like you. Instead, ask why we doubt your idea. The answer may surprise you.

Do your best to avoid these sorts of unnecessary annoyances, ask honest questions, and do your best to be polite. If you can accomplish that, you may find unexpected civility. We may both learn something we didn't expect.

Creationists and The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf!'

This is a post for Creationists who want to be honest. Of course, many of my readers will probably mentally snark along the lines of "there's no such thing!" as they read that first sentence. That right there is one big problem you will have to overcome: We've seen so many Creationists who seem prone to compulsive lying, that it's become a default assumption for many of us. Because of that, you'll often need to put some extra effort into your appearance of integrity. After seeing so many ways to not do that, I think I can make some suggestions on how you should approach a skeptic:

1. Know that many of those on your side are dishonest, and that you may have been fooled by one of them: There are a lot of dishonest questions, assertions, and so forth floating out there in the internet that have become detached from the liar who started them. Ask about things as honest questions in as soft a tone as you can manage. Many of us skeptics are veterans of these debates and will probably have an answer. If the skeptic points out the source of the lie, try to be gracious in response.

2. Ask honest, basic questions: By this, I mean ask about very simple concepts and definitions. Aside from the aforementioned "urban legend" deceptions, there are many misunderstandings of what the theory of evolution, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang actually are. Before a debate can really begin, you need to know what your opponents are actually arguing about. Otherwise, you're just ridiculing a straw man.

3. Don't use quotations: The dishonest Creationists absolutely love what has become known as "quote mining": The practice of taking a quote out of context to make something sound ridiculous or contrary to what a person actually believes. Darwin himself was particularly vulnerable to this because of his rhetorical style: He would raise an objection he expected opponents to make and then rebut it. Dishonest Creationists would then clip off the rebuttal and make the quote about the objection viral.

4. We don't really care about Darwin that much: This may come as a surprise, but as scientifically-minded people, we don't particularly care about Charles Darwin in terms of science. We only care about him from a historical perspective. Science is a self-correcting process, and the more we study a topic, the finer details we are able to examine and understand. We appreciate Darwin for getting the broad concept right, but no serious scientist would use the Origin of Species to research the answer to a modern question. It's essentially the same as with Newton: We can use Newtonian physics to answer some simple questions about the "medium world," but when dealing with super-massive objects, objects traveling near the speed of light, or tiny particles and quantum events, we need to refer to more modern theories about the things Newton did not yet know about.

5. Don't say "Darwinist": As said before, we appreciate Darwin's contribution to biology, but putting an "ist" on the name is a propaganda tactic popular with dishonest Creationists. They do this because they try to dismiss the science as a form of priesthood with Darwin as a saint or a prophet. He was not. We can look at the world and see the effects of evolution. Darwin was just one of the first people to figure it out and express the concept clearly. That's all Darwin is to people like me. He wasn't a saint or a prophet. He was just a guy who happened to have the smarts, luck, and data to put together a useful explanation for the diversity of life that modern scientists could build on and improve.

6. Credential don't matter: Though many of my fellow skeptics like to ridicule Creationists who tout their PhD's from diploma mills, I don't believe credentials matter: A valid point is a valid point, no matter how many letters its speaker has after his name. Credentials are merely a way of saving time in evaluating someone's opinion. When you're discussing the topic in detail, it's best to drop such distinctions and take your time to work out the quality of the evidence and the logical steps from there to conclusion.

7. Don't pretend to know us: Deception is rampant among Creationist circles, so do your best to remove any prejudices you may have developed as a result of viral arguments. Skeptics like me often have to face "woos" from many fields who treat us like stereotypes from Hollywood and network television without ever knowing how or why we've reached our conclusions, or what it takes to change our minds about them. Even if you think we're mad, there is a method to our madness.

8. Look back and remember: One way I've heard to spot a chat bot is to ask what it was talking about earlier. I sometimes feel like accusing dishonest "woos" and Creationists of being such when they can't remember an earlier rebuttal or present an argument that contradicts one of their earlier ones. Too many attempt to play "gotcha" instead of learning and adapting. Try to show that you're learning about our side of the argument. If you spot what looks like a contradiction, ask if there's an explanation, an exception, or whatever. We can make mistakes or oversimplify things. We might even learn something new if we have to look up an answer or correction if we didn't realize the mistake.

9. Don't cite faith: Many of us are vehemently opposed to the "accomodationists" who talk about reconciling faith and science. By "faith," I mean belief without or in spite of evidence. Belief without basis is essentially an act of hubris. There needs to be justification for a belief, and in science, that comes in the form of evidence and logic: The evidence must agree with your premises, and your conclusion must logically follow from those premises.

10: Do your homework: Read up on logical fallacies to avoid and existing rebuttals to common Creationist claims. Yes, I realize this may take up a lot of your time, but if you can learn more about us and our arguments, you'll be better equipped to discuss the issue. A great deal of frustration we experience is having to rebut commonly repeated arguments. If you find an answer confusing or even ridiculous, politely ask for elaboration or clarification while providing a link to it. People like me will appreciate your efforts.

Though my skeptical friends and I are known for having sharp tongues, if you practice these things while doing your best to maintain a polite tone, we're much more likely to be civil in response. A great many arguments fall into trolldom when someone violates these sorts of 'rules'. In many cases, they don't even realize why we react so negatively to the behavior in their first post. I'm not vicious by nature, just sensitive to perceived injustice, deception, and apathy. Honest curiosity is a beautiful thing that can tame this copper alloy canid into showing off the tricks he knows. I enjoy putting effort into explaining things if I believe someone is interested in hearing it.

GDL Reconfigured

I'm moving my Game Development Limbo to a forum, since I figure that's probably the most appropriate thing for what I'm doing. Right now, it's just a skeleton, but I'll be copying in some of the old GDL Master Documents over.

Be sure to sign up.

The Day of Doggerel

It's coming Monday, August 31. I've been pretty wonky lately with my medications causing insomnia and drowsiness, respectively. Thankfully, I've been on a bit of a summer break, mostly worrying about decorating my place and poking some trolls here and there. Anyway, I'm going to be doing a total of 10 Doggerel entries on Monday to try and simulate a full day's work, to get my biological clock back to normal. Here's the planned schedule.

#191: "Genius"
#192: "Go Look at [Woo's] Research, Yourself!"
#193: "There are Lots of Frauds Out There!"
#194: "I've Seen More Than You!"
#195: "You're Just Denying the Facts!"
#196: "Anomaly"
#197: "Unprofessional/Immature"
#198: "Look it Up Yourself!"
#199: "Straw Man!"
#200: "You Just Want to Tear Everything Down!"

---

As you can probably guess from the links, the Day has come and gone. Enjoy.

On the Topic of Race and Memetic Evolution

Had a thread derailed earlier with a guy following me from Pharyngula. Things got more interesting when he suddenly dropped the typical racist troll tone and actually asked questions. Here is where that derail gets onto its own rails.