Cynicism Dump

Politics was never one of my strong suits. There are plenty of areas of nuance and history that I haven't had the time or energy to wrap my head around. There are, however, some topics that seem pretty black and white to me. Take torture for example.

Torturing prisoners for any reason, including interrogation, should be self-evidently wrong, exposed whenever it's suspected, and it should constitute political suicide to be caught associating with, much less condoning, people who engage in torture. Even if something stops torturers from being put on trial, there should be a strong cultural pressure to shun those people and deny them any sort of aid or comfort. They should feel isolated from civilized society because they violated basic principles of conduct and embraced barbarism.

So, why do I feel like I'm in the minority in that attitude? It probably doesn't help that I live in Texas, where nearly anyone I meet could be a landmine of right-wing and/or theocratic insanity. My dad has to tiptoe a lot around work. Thankfully, he found out one of the newer employees is of like mind, so they can talk freely together.

I don't watch the news nearly as much as I probably should, and I keep lapsing on the Daily Show and Colbert report. I hope this is just a perception I inadvertently developed from leaving television behind for so long. If someone in the mainstream media's been trying to drill the administration for its abuses, let me know.

Lunch Break Rage

I'm worried my work plans are going to be ruined today by my current bad mood. I was eating at a restaurant with CSPAN on their TVs, which I was initially relieved, since one other member of the chain usually leaves Faux News on. Of course, that relief was shortly canceled out: The topic was a repeal of a ban on same sex marriage. I don't talk about it nearly as much as I should, but I'm one of those people who sees attacks on same sex marriage as an attack on all marriage.

The part where I came in had one person defending same sex marriage, calmly but firmly listing all the benefits that are denied to same sex spouses because of such bans. I quietly stated my agreement with him. That bit of warm fuzzy didn't last, as another person favoring the Destruction of Marriage Act (DOMA) started his spiel. Some of his points in short:

1. Tradition: He listed all sorts of "support" in the form of what nations supported as marriage in the past, neglecting to mention that for just as long, people of those traditions treated marriage as a cynical financial or political transaction. Naturally, one of the common tropes that leaps to mind is that the same argument could be used to support bans on interracial marriages.

2. Appeal to Popularity: He referred to some polls I hadn't heard of (and can't look up without more information) where the poll subjects favored "a man and a woman" as the definition of marriage. Sorry, but minority rights trump majority rule. You can't deny someone a right just because he or she wants to exercise that right in an unpopular fashion. Of course, those who are quick with search tools can probably find polls that contradict the ones he cited.

3. The Baby Factory argument: The idea that marriage exists solely for biological reproduction is one that hits close to home. There's one married couple I know where one member had to have a life-saving operation that removed her reproductive abilities. This couple already had children, but imagine if the surgery happened before they had children: If you're going to use The Baby Factory argument, you have to enforce it equally. The Baby Factory argument would require that the government annul their marriage. Combine this with the mob rule argument above, and just try to imagine what it'd be like if people voted for those two to get a divorce, and had that decision enforced by the state. The Baby Factory argument is a rejection of individual autonomy and of the modern marriage based on people wanting to share their lives with someone.

4. "Sexism says so!": He described gender roles as 'non-fungible' to claim that a child absolutely requires one man and one woman to fill the role model slots. On one level, this is a form of the tradition argument, where culture has dictated gender roles. I'd consider it foolish to think that modern culture has found the absolute limits to what the different genders are capable of. Humans are versatile beings. Some women are very good at embodying "male" roles and some men are very good at representing "female" roles. I don't think it's the state's role to dictate who can or cannot fulfill that role. What's next? If I find a woman I love, could the state force me to attend more football games and monster truck rallies to prove my "manliness" is high enough to get married?

On another level, it seems to assume that the child will be sheltered by the parents from the outside world, never meeting other adults worthy of being role models. There are other family members, friends of the family, teachers, mentors and so on who could act as role models. It takes a village to raise a child. And what are they going to do with single parents? Force them to marry a state-sanctioned spouse against their will? Funny how these people who want to regulate marriage tend to pay lip service to "smaller government."

I don't think they buy that idea themselves. Even they must realize how ridiculous it would be to enforce those stereotypes. Scratch that, I'm underestimating the capacity for stupidity in humanity, again. All these excuses reek of an attempt to rationalize an irrational bigotry after they've committed themselves to the position.

Every excuse I've ever heard for banning same-sex marriage is like this: Make up marriage rules for one type of case, and then don't enforce those same rules to heterosexual marriages when they fall short of the so-called ideal. They also roundly reject love and the individual's self-determination as the basis of a marriage in favor of the shackles of sexist traditions, the dictates of a mob, the success of insectine reproductive strategy, or the insanity of ancient religions.

That is why an attack on same-sex marriage is an attack on all marriage.

Feedin' Pen for the Troll

Our most recent troll is back, and done a much bigger derail of an ID thread. Wrangling him here. Comments in that derail below the fold.

Anonymous said...

Well, I certainly wouldn't agree that we have a purpose per say, but it does fit my views rather well, in a none related way.

The Evolution of the Human race until the White Race is rather interesting, something some of you deny as well as accept (unwillingly) using the advances we have done. America, the most technologically advanced nation on the planet, we created things people could only dream of (africans, asians etc), and they now use our technology and even modify it acting like they are the creators of it.

Will we be abolished? Maybe, with the hatred for the White Race and the Anti-white propaganda spread in school with "black month' and other silly ideas (you care to mention something as negroid made?), it seems we should be ashamed of being the best, No thankyou, I want to be proud over my White History and everything we have done and will do.

I wouldn't be suprised, on the other hand, if civilized human beings would end with us if negriods or asians would take over, lacking the ability to handle the awesome technologies we have created for them, as well as the lack of ability to comprehend Democracy and value of others such as the white race.

Lets hope we can stand against the tides of evil.

9/04/2009 12:55 PM

Yakaru said...

you care to mention something as negroid made?

Ummm, how about Western civilisation?

9/04/2009 1:13 PM

MWchase said...

Let's see... I'm not quite sure what you think about the pyramids (did some white people cross the Mediterranean to conscript the Egyptians into building giant tombs?), but, more recently, the Tuskegee Institute, at least to start with, provides a bunch of fairly obvious examples.

Part of your argument relies (semi-implicitly) on the fact that science has, in previous centuries and until recently, been dominated by white people. Would you extend a similar argument regarding women?

On the other hand, as of late, there's been a shortage of American science students in higher education, and I see mainly Indian immigrants picking up the slack. Is the recent climate of anti-intellectualism the result of genetic drift?

9/04/2009 1:37 PM

James K said...

Anoymous:

First off, there have been inventions by African peoples in the past, as an example the Ethiopians were one of the first peoples to refine steel. And do I need to point out that civilisation began in Mesopotamia, not Western Europe? China and India also has sophisticated societies going long before our ancestors did.

Secondly, Western civilisation isn't a White thing, its a British thing. Both the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution (which added together are Western Civilisation) started in the United Kingdom. The thing is, there's not really any genetic difference between the British peoples and the peoples they are descended from such as the Scandinavians and the Germans. How does that work with your theory of genetic causality?

9/04/2009 3:56 PM

Anonymous said...

Is that racist still around? It does appear at the very least he's finally admitting very clearly that he IS in fact racist, instead of denying up and down that he EVER said anything about one race being superior to another. Will he deny that he made this very post?

At any rate, Bill Watterson. Never really read those comics back in the day, but I present you with this!

http://eviljoshandbilly.keentoons.com/toons/ejb08.html

This guy made a total of 10 of these cartoons and has vanished from the face of the internet. Artwork is rough but the guy is hilarious enough to deserve a full series of 15 minute shorts on Cartoon Network.

9/04/2009 4:10 PM

djfav said...

I see racist troll is back.

That last bit about the tides of evil made me laugh so hard I nearly wet myself. And I'm at work right now.

9/04/2009 4:24 PM

Laser Potato said...

That cartoon was pure win.

9/04/2009 4:39 PM

Dark Jaguar said...

The racist doesn't appear to have ever answered my question of how he explains the existance of black or asian inventors or scientists or artists or anything that one would normally call intelligent. I think he tried to say that they are just stealing, but that really does very little to explain it all. It's a blanket explanation that totally ignores the totality of examples, one with no research at all.

We aren't so chained so very completely to our genes that they dictate every single thing about us. They can't, otherwise we'd be robots that, when presented with an elk, would immediatly start hunting it. The genes simply work from a simple basis, really simple rules that tends toward their own reproduction. One is building an intelligent brain that can figure out problems on it's own. There is no need to invoke a subconcious "true" motive. Installing that frame work has no pressure, the basic rule is all that was needed. Further, as environment changes misfirings can occur, such as

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D85yrIgA4Nk

It's these misfirings brought about, especially in humans, by our own tendancy towards invention and discovery, that are the biggest way to break free of the dominance of genes. However, that's a side note. The main point is not to talk about "breaking free" so much as to point out that just because someone DOES behave some way does not mean a genetic explanation needs to be invoked to explain WHY they act that way. Two brains otherwise identical will have two different ways of behaving if they have two different environments.

(I must be absolutely clear here. This is NOT meant to give the impression that I think one "race" or another really does have superior intelligence and it's a matter of "overcoming" that weakness. There is no evidence that intelligence is in any way linked to the classic "racial" traits.)

I'll expand on my previous challenge. There ARE some genetic traits that are linked to intelligence, in terms of such conditions as down syndrome. However, notable is that these conditions are not tracable to any one "race". They are wide spread among ALL ethnicities, having the same basic effect, as though as a general rule the genetic code for how to build a human brain was similar enough that they could be changed in identical ways across that "barrier". What is your response to this? Do you believe that one race is more or less likely to have autistic kids than others, and further, what do you think of the fact that such genetic disorders seem to have the same effect, as though they have the SAME basic genes initially? Does this not completely defeat your entire premise?

9/04/2009 5:28 PM

Bronze Dog said...

Racist troll need to talk about genetics, not cherrypick history. Why are racists so terrified of discussing the Human Genome Project and such?

9/04/2009 8:02 PM

Anonymous said...

Racist racist, yes, use the word in a negative light, all it says is that I accept the true nature of our human heritage. Just like I am superior to a dog, I am superior to a negroid, facts are hard to fight.

Is it not funny that the 'viking blood', the Scandinavians, live the longest, have the safest and most advanced societies? Utopians in fact and yet, the 'white are evil' mantra still continues, 'poor negriods' and we should feel sorry for them.

Of course, you where not aware of this, and now when you are, you will deny it claiming its a conspiracy, by the 'white man' no doubt? Or maybe they written a deal with Satan himself to get does good statistics, its all fake and false, its not true. Egypt and Peru are the beams of civilizations and advancements.

Now, the asians have taken our technology, not even you seem so daft to deny this, and you have not explained that, weird isn't it? They did not actually make any of the technology, they took ours and modified it, fine, We gae them that ability, we helped them along, we tried the same with the negriod but they started wars and chaos in Africa, I remember a internew on television with a tp-notch negroid from one of these useless nations, HE HIMSELF stated that the west should STOP GIVING to them, because they cant deal with it, they need to learn to make food themselves, if we help them they cant handle it.

And when we dont give, we get blamed for being Evil.... Funny that. Oh, and did you know does Viking Scandinavians are also amongst the top aid givers in the world? Does blond blue eyed evil whites, juck.

Its sad you are ashamed of your race, its sad how the schools have made you think you got something to be ashamed of.

9/05/2009 6:14 PM

MWchase said...

The problem with aid to Africa is that lots of the MO gets laid out using preconceptions that don't apply. It's a mix of perverse incentives and memetic disconnect. In other words, lots of foreign aid was distributed by people and agencies who did not know the best way to do their job.

On a less argument note, that comparison you made... Are you suggesting that human-dog hybrids are viable?

9/05/2009 6:27 PM

Anonymous said...

Human/Dog hybrids?

Dude you need a quick lesson in biology.

9/05/2009 6:46 PM

MWchase said...

Somebody who attempts to argue genetics based on anecdotal evidence and unfounded assertions claims that my attempt to refute an analogy represents a lack of knowledge of biology.

Thank you, good sir. A thousand Alanis Morissettes could not make anyone on this earth uncertain of the definition of irony, so long as your comment remains.

9/05/2009 7:42 PM

Open Twoofer Thread

Had breakfast with my parents today and saw how well their efforts at getting settled in are going. My dad's Man Cave is looking less cave-y and slowly looking like it might turn into an office. Anyway, over breakfast he told me about a National Geographic show he watched and recorded on the DVR. (My parents love it because they don't have to fetch me to program the VCR whenever they go out.) I believe the title was "9/11 Science and Conspiracy." So I watched about the first 45 minutes of the two hour program. I'm looking forward to seeing the rest when I'm in a better mood.

Anyway, what I've seen so far moves pretty well in favor of the science. It goes through the general idea behind the official story (which happens to be backed by science, from what I can see). They got a couple of twoofers to look at an experiment they performed, showing that a (smaller than the support pillars) steel beam loses its strength under the heat of a jet fuel fire. It only took 3 minutes, 50 seconds, and the building fires lasted about half an hour. The segment started off talking about investigating how the twoofers interpret evidence, and one bit particularly caught my attention. One of them called "straw man" on the experiment because it doesn't debunk the controlled demolition (AKA the ninja drywall worker) theory. Uh, guy, that wasn't the point: It was about verifying one of the basic principles behind the official story: Intense heat can weaken steel without melting it. You were the one erecting a straw man there.

Anyway, that, along with everything getting cut and/or rattled by the impact of a 767 with a lot of inertia pretty well cemented the reasonableness of the official story. One point my dad covered more explicitly in our conversation was static and dynamic load. Once you had one floor falling on another, the expected happened. If if a floor had a high static load, that doesn't translate into dynamic load. I may have been able to carry some of my furniture to my apartment with my dad, but we'd have a much harder time catching that same weight.

Still more to come, from my dad's description. I'll update in the comments when I see it. I'm looking forward to the thermite experiments: It sounds like it's a lot of flash with little result: The stuff apparently burned off far too quickly to maintain any sort of high temperatures. I'll be seeing it myself, soon. Maybe stop over later on Labor Daybor.

As for the "feel" of the show: It's kind of like Mythbusters with a straight face. I don't expect any surprising results, though.

WILD THREAD: What's Up With the Wingnuts?

I've always known the bulk of them are crazy, but... Wow. They've cranked it up to 11.9 over the last year. Birthers. Truly off-the-wall Godwining. What's up with that?

This thread is hereby WILD! Comment policy does not apply within.

Framing Wild Thread

I've had some time to groan over various comments from concern trolls over "framing." Yes, I know messages often need adjustment for the audience. There's no shortage of people who point that out. The big problem I have with those people is that they generally don't give constructive advice: Too often, they tell us to shut up, not what angles of approach we should use. Worse, many of them speak to my inspirations and role models as if it were impossible for them to have a positive impact on me. I tend to emulate those bloggers because they convinced me they were right, and that I could contribute to the blogosphere.

So, feel free to drop comments, preferably about good strategies for different audiences.

Creationist Invitational

Welcome to a comment thread where I have invited a Creationist. Or possibly several, if the first one ends up not accepting my invitation.

Drop any questions you have for me, and tell me how Creationism answers them. Expect evolution's/abiogenesis's/cosmology's answers and followup questions to Creationism's answers. (Usually asking for elaboration).

Possible Minefield Topic: Good Propaganda?

Yeah, skeptics like us usually talk about propaganda when it's obviously either a bad thing or at least being used for bad things.

But when, if ever, can we use it with a clear conscience?

I tend to think it's okay in the case of humor, when it's supposed to be obvious, as well as situations where you're dealing with a woo so thick you have to hold 'em up to a mirror in a desperate bid to provoke at least a couple neurons.

False Bravado

It's sometimes hard to explain how I can tell the difference between false bravado and real bravado. Well, maybe not. Most of the people with false bravado don't have the science on their side. Thanks be to statistical mathematics for being able to explicitly quantify confidence.

Creationists always come across as the most desperate to me. Unfortunately, most don't even understand the issue, so they think their random theory of randomness actually has an edge over the reliability of evolution. If they weren't so wantonly repetitive it'd be merely sad instead of frustrating.

I suspect many anti-vaxxers are aware how poor their position is, since they have to change hypotheses every couple of weeks. They were certain it was thimerosal over here, and now I'm hearing it's Children's Tylenol + vaccines, the third most common element in the Earth's crust (after oxygen and silicon), a handful of antigens out of a child's daily dose of thousands "overloading" the system, and some weird Yin and Yang crap I rolled my eyes past that I think Happeh said a while back. They can't be all that confident if they have to change stories on a continuous basis.

Homeopaths are generally clueless in my experience. They aren't even aware of what we're complaining about: Coming up with new magical mechanisms doesn't help if you don't have a cure to explain.

Most conspiracy nuts I know seem to have a bit of double-think: They're absolutely confident in their theories, but when confronted with a skeptic, they usually have to flail around and change topics.

So, experiences to share?

Crunchy!

A while back, I ended up trying to think of some little meme-worthy slogans about morality. One that came to mind was something along the lines of "If morality is objective, it's random."

The rationale behind it is essentially this: I think morality is more or less "technically relative": It's based on our instinctive needs and desires. Presumably we all want to live, therefore we outlaw murder. Essentially, we can deduce general principles to use to maximize everyone's satisfaction in life. It's messy at points, but it's fairly firm. Much more so than the typical fundie's morality.

Objective morality, well, if there's a "Don't murder" objective moral law out there... How do we find it? If magic men in the sky are supposed to tell us, how did they figure out that law? If the magic men define it, well, what gives them the ability to do so? What's the basis behind the existence behind these laws? Are they completely baseless?

Discuss.

Day of Blasphemy

May 7^th, national day of prayer? Not here. Here comes a wild thread where you can blaspheme whatever you wish. Anarchy is the rule of the comment thread.

Let's Poke a Troll! #1

Well, it's been a few days since I replied to Dave's spam that went direct into my inbox. Poked him with a few questions, including one at a link about "Disconfirmation bias" from the dark bulbs of Telic Thoughts. If Creationists can't even tell us what evidence would support their theory of randomness, well, how can we be biased into ignoring it? Given the predictability of Creationists, who've been pulling the same tricks for centuries now, I didn't bother to read the link. Until now. Bracing myself...

We've been talking about confirmation bias, which is the tendency to seek out data that confirm one's preconceptions, while ignoring data that conflict with those preconceptions. But there is a flip-side to this phenomenon known as disconfirmation bias.

Yes, we're quite knowledgeable about confirmation bias, and we routinely deal with denialism, which is ignoring contradicting evidence. Of course, on the topic of evolution versus creationism, Creationists, to my knowledge, have never bothered coming up with examples of what would be confirming or contradicting evidence for their unfalsifiable "hypothesis."

Quotes from some psychologists:

When evaluating an argument, can one assess its strength independently of one's prior belief in the conclusion? A good deal of evidence indicates the answer is an emphatic no. This phenomenon, which we refer to as the prior belief effect, has important implications. Given two people, or groups, with opposing beliefs about a social, political, or scientific issue, the degree to which they will view relevant evidence as strong will differ. This difference, in turn, may result in a failure of the opposing parties to converge on any kind of meaningful agreement, and, under some circumstances, they may become more extreme in their beliefs.

The history of science says otherwise. New ideas come up quite often, get rigorously tested, and if they keep passing tests, they become accepted. I'm sensing the usual sour grapes involved in psychobabble arguments instead of honest inquiry, but that's mostly because I have a lot of prior experience with Creationists. Cynicism is no substitute for a sound, logical argument based on evidence. Science and skepticism may be conservative, but they're inherently expansive.

More psychobabble follows, including one example involving the death penalty. Of course, that's an ethical/moral argument for the most part, not one of science.

Back to Telic Thoughts' commentary:

It makes sense that a disconfirmation bias would exist. If the human brain is wired to defend its preconceptions with confirmation bias, attacking beliefs that threaten those preconceptions would likely be part of the same strategy. This undercuts Michael Shermer's belief that "Skepticism is the antidote for the confirmation bias." In reality, hyper-skepticism, or selectively applied skepticism, may simply be another facet of the same brain processes that generate confirmation bias.

What is "hyper-skepticism"? Where are Shermer and my fellow skeptics applying our skepticism selectively? That's what I'd like to hear you talk about.

What does disconfirmation bias look like? I would like to propose three possible signs that disconfirmation bias is taking place, where one may be defending their preconceptions more so than playing the honest skeptic who is simply trying to "follow the evidence."

1. According to Edwards and Smith, "When one is presented an argument to evaluate, there will be some automatic activation in memory of material relevant to the argument." Searching one's "memory banks" can easily become relying on stereotypes. A stereotype, after all, is the brain's "summation" of previous experience that is linked by certain cues. Thus, I hypothesize that when one is confronted with an argument that challenges their preconceptions, the more that person relies on stereotypes, the more it is likely they are exhibiting disconfirmation bias to protect a preconception.

The difficulty with this is that sometimes people actually live up to negative stereotypes, and I can't recall the last time a Creationist broke from the mold. In contrast, skeptics rarely ever act according to the predictions of Creationists.

How can you tell if stereotype is involved? Often, it is obvious. For example, if a critic on the Internet poses his own argument against my design hypothesis, and I begin to rail against Richard Dawkins, obviously my brain has been tapping into information about Dawkins to interpret my opponent. Often times, however, the evidence is more subtle. And that takes me to my second sign.

Just a note: I have yet to meet a Creationist who knows anything whatsoever about Dawkins's views. From what I've seen, they've done everything they can to shove Dawkins into their straw man molds and failed. At least he deserves kudos for demonstrating some sliver of self-awareness.

2. If one's brain is on "a deliberative search of memory for material that will undermine the argument simply" and the "search include stored beliefs and arguments that offer direct evidence against the premises and conclusion of the presented argument," it stands to reason the person with disconfirmation bias will have a strong tendency to link a current argument with the perceived failures of previously-experienced arguments. This creates a mental inertia that leads to two expressions of disconfirmation bias:

Oh, boy. Have you ever considered that the presented argument is exactly the same as a previously experienced and refuted argument? That's why we've got things like the Index to Creationist Claims. I haven't seen anything new in Creationism in decades aside from this one guy claiming ice is magnetic. And even then, it seems he was copying Kent Hovind or someone of his ilk, trying to defend the "vapor canopy" tripe.

a. Misrepresentation "“ Let's say that Jones develops an argument that threatens the preconceptions of Smith. But let us also say that Smith had previously successfully dismantled a similar, but different, argument that was once posed by Miller. The memory of this experience will shape the way Smith reacts to Jones. The brain processes involved in disconfirmation bias will cause Smith to morph Jones' position into that of Miller's. Smith will feel vindicated by the disconfirmation bias, while Jones will recognize that Smith is attacking a "straw man."

The problem I experience with this: All subtle variations of Creationism have almost all the same underlying faults. Usually, if they're making a straw man claim on me, it's for an unimportant detail. Even if I concede that minor inaccuracy, they tend to continue whining about it for the rest of the thread while ignoring any questions about their premises.

b. Faulty Extrapolation "“ This is a more subtle version of misrepresentation, where Smith's brain is so highly activated that it is sensitized to "cues" from Jones that lead Smith to believe that Jones is reaching for Miller's point. Smith will not focus on the actual argument Jones is making, but will be trying to "anticipate" where he thinks the argument is going in order to cut it off. In this case, Smith is not really disconfirming Jones' argument; he is creating an illusion of disconfirmation in his mind because he thinks he knows where the argument is going (when it may not even be going in that direction).

I'm sometimes guilty of this, but mostly in an effort to rouse the creationist from his circular mill by shock. Of course, much of the time, the extrapolation is something the creationists never thought of, and never made a cutoff limit for. They tend to make up principles that only seem to apply when it's convenient for them.

3. Finally, to put this lengthy blog (and tired blogger) to bed, there is the dead give-away of personal attack. When someone attacks another person by questioning their motivations or with ridicule (and more), they are seeking to discredit the argument by discrediting the person who makes the argument. If such personal attacks are linked to stereotypes, it becomes clear the person's brain is adopting an "end justifies the means" approach to disconfirmation bias.

There's a difference between an ad hominem fallacy and an insult. None of my arguments are based on the stupidity of the opponent. Sometimes I have to use ridicule to shock someone awake at the absurdity of their arguments. Or to keep my sanity with laughter when faced with someone who parrots debunked arguments over and over and over. When I lob an insult at someone, it's a conclusion based on their poor logic, stereotypical robotic behavior, ignorance of the most basic knowledge, etcetera. I never use it as a premise to disregard someone's opinion.

In summary, skepticism is a good thing, but skepticism can be just another facet of the way brains defend "their territory." Add tribalisitic group behavior to the picture and the whole process is amplified and entrenched. I propose that you can detect disconfirmation bias at work, in individuals or groups, when hyper-skepticism, stereotype, misrepresentation, faulty extrapolations, and personal attacks occur more often than not.

There's a difference between skepticism and rationalization. Skepticism requires that someone make an escape route in the form of specific types of evidence that would openly contradict a false belief. Without leaving room for falsification of a bias, you can never get out of it.

That's why Creationism is a bad idea: It's unfalsifiable. There's no telling what kind of evidence would support or contradict it, since they tend to fall quiet or change the subject in the matter. That's why Creationists use stereotypes, misrepresentation, faulty extrapolations, straw men, and ad hominem fallacies to defend themselves.

There was a time in my life when I was willing to entertain some of the fluffier forms of Creationism like theistic evolution. The fact that I could be convinced to join the ranks of atheism means that I was perfectly able to listen to the other side. Cynicism is no substitute for a collection of good, logical arguments. I write the way I do because I seek to emulate the wonderful people who won me over with unapologetic vigilance and irreverence in the face of would-be PC Police.

Bloggin' Day

Managed to get up at a decent hour, today, and since I spent much of my weekend napping, I've decided to devote the day to blogging, both here and over at the GDL cluster of stuff. Just so you know to visit regularly today.

Open and WILD thread, so pick any topic at all.

The Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists

My comment policy normally discourages amateur psychoanalysis, but I feel the need to break that for a post. The comment thread is hereby WILD, so normal comment policy doesn't apply (for either side). Since it's been a while since I've done anything remotely serious about conspiracy theories, I thought I'd post some of my perceptions on the topic, rather than let Hollywood maintain myths.

I find many of the conspiracy theorists out there cling to implausible theories because, paradoxically, they're comforting:

Humans are thinking animals. Aside from high endurance for long distance walking, humans don't stand out very much, physically. Humans survive by their wits, detecting patterns and warning signs less intelligent animals would miss. Having special knowledge is an advantage, so it's natural to feel more secure when you know what's going on. Or if you think you know what's going on. Wisdom makes a person valuable and revered. That's why nearly every sort of woo, altie, or fundie pride themselves on being a "red pill": They have what they believe to be special knowledge. Of course, I find them to generally fail to prove it, but that's for the factual threads to cover.

On the flip side of the special knowledge angle is the fear of uncertainty. Many people, for example, couldn't deal with the idea that a lone gunman could kill the president during lax security, hence the need to assure themselves JFK had an enormous conspiracy of enemies out to get him. Many 9/11 twoofers can't deal with the idea that America could be successfully attacked in such a catastrophic manner, so they make up a special exception of an inside job of American conspirators.

To put it in geek terms, I found the Joker from The Dark Knight scary because someone like him could exist in real life:

I just did what I do best. I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hmmm? You know... You know what I've noticed? Nobody panics when things go "according to plan." Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all "part of the plan." But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!

There's no shortage of insane, violent people out there. Religious fundamentalism does a good job of encouraging those qualities. All it takes for them to cause chaos and panic in our lives is for us to get lax in security and/or them to get clever. If you're an overzealous conspiracy theorist, those sorts of people aren't a problem because it's all "according to plan" of some guy who manages to grab some sort of advantage in the end result. Without good evidence for a plan, about all you can say about those who benefit is that they're opportunistic bastards.

Additionally, there's so much in this world that's a result of stupidity. Popular idiots can get elected into office. People can fall for basic logical fallacies and in turn mislead voters with propaganda that results from those fallacies. People who should be experts in their fields can get sloppy or complacent enough to miss fundamental problems. This world is very much subject to Hanlon's Razor: Incompetence runs the planet far more than malice. Incompetence is harder to predict than malice, so it's more uncomfortable to deal with.

On an Emotional/Subconscious Level

Usually, when we talk about woos, we've done it on a conscious level, pointing out fallacies, lack of evidence, and so forth. One thing I'm curious about for this thread: How do you think about them on an emotional level? What mental associations have you developed?

I've gotten to think of some generic crystal-waver sort, stuck in linear, robotic lines of thought and prone to what I call 'categorical thinking' which leaves them particular vulnerable to things like false dichotomies and unable to understand fuzzy logic or the idea that human labels are constructs.

This thread is WILD and thus not subject to most of my comment rules.

Divine Command Theory is Crap

I'm sure you all know the standard complaints about Divine Command Theory. I'm going to be a-rambling in some of those directions and a few others.

In the real world, people can reason what the most moral action is. We can talk about who it helps, who it hurts, why some costs or sacrifices are acceptable, why some aren't, the dangers of some precedents and so on. We can ask all those questions and make our decisions based on the answers. With DCT, however, there is no reasoning. Morality is arbitrary. You look at the stone idol's dice roll and look at the charts. If the charts don't cover a scenario, you have to do crazy jury-rigging to make 'em fit. No Rule Zero to let you figure out what makes things the most fun for all of the players. Just follow the charts, no matter how crazy or impractical the result is.

When a stone idol that (allegedly) randomly popped into the universe, was randomly given powers from nowhere, including randomly having a rule saying that it can make up new rules (the laws of physics, magic), I don't see any reason it'd need a "transcendent mind" (whatever that means) in order to make up morality. The arbitrary standards it makes up don't have any reason to add up to anything, except maybe this random being's amusement.

Take a look at some of the "transcendent" morality this stone idol is often associated with: If a rapist's victim is unengaged, he gets to marry her. Stone your kids if they're disobedient. No multi-species plowing. No fabric blends. No church if you have a certain bit of flesh injured. Certain (nonexistent) abilities randomly labeled "supernatural" by postmodernist hippies are wrong.

...Random ass shit, isn't it?

This thread is hereby WILD!

I Wonder if She Likes Dogs

Video of awesome:


She got censored for a while, but she's back.

Since she wants us to open our mouths, this thread is hereby WILD. Comment policy is minimized.

Yet Another Sign

You know that movie Scanners, where that guy's head explodes for some reason or another? I think mine's about to do the same out of rage. That's why I'm trying to phrase this post calmly. Link to PZ.

I'd better be hearing about some candidates denouncing this thing. Until then, this thread is wild. As long as it's on topic, you can say anything.

Open Question: Poll Crashing

You've probably all seen PZ's new binging on poll crashing, where he directs readers to certain polls, often overwhelming the votes made by presumably regular readers. It's fun.

But I've got some nagging feeling about it. Those sorts of polls are never scientific, so it doesn't really matter. It's also getting word out that there are people who care about issues to click on a contrary opinion... assuming there aren't too many people dropping multiple votes. About the worst I can imagine happening is websites upping the polling mechanism to combat vote tampering or disposing of unscientific polls altogether (which might be good).

But I've still got that nag in my head. Your thoughts?