A Long Response to Gabriel

Gabriel managed to type a series of comments in a cooler manner, apparently in Notepad while offline, judging from the page breaks I've removed for ease of reading. (A very useful trick. Tip: I find that turning off Word Wrap before saving helps) I have written a long response and don't feel like slicing it up for the 4096 character limit. Besides, I think it's worthy of a full-blown post in itself.

Alot of people do not do much with their lives, they sit at home, play World of Warcraft, Diablo or similar games, and the most they do in socializing is when they invite their riends over for some live roleplay, I am not saying you are one of these rather pathetic people, but wanted to point out that you have shown signs of it, and most of your followers certainly seems to fit this bill.

I'll make an exception in the tone for this defense of us nerds, geeks, and weirdoes:

Translation: "Stereotypical nerdy hobbies means everything I say about science is meaningless because Hollywood loves to depict all of them as chronic LARPers in everyday contexts."

What's wrong with having a few friends over for a role-playing game? How's that any different from having a few buddies over to watch football? Or going over to a bar to chat?

Don't believe every stereotype you see in movies and TV. I tend to facepalm at the antics of those over-eager convention radicals who established the stereotypes Hollywood uses. I play D&D and Magic, but I don't even so much as own a plastic sword, though I do have a bad habit of collecting pretty dice or rummaging through common card boxes. I'm currently going neat freak on my apartment as I pause between typing.

About the absolute worst convention behavior I can imagine doing is putting together a simple, cheap costume to wear or asking Patrick Stewart to give me a moment to get un-starstruck so I can talk to him like a regular guy.

And what the hell does this red herring have to do with epistemology?

I prefer experiencing the world, that is, Learn about the real world we live in rather then sitting infront of the computer. Computers and the Internet are a great thing indeed, and sure, Wikipedia, something you have shown you truly admire (and sure, I admit taking cheapshots at you with that one, but comeone, you don't think twice before insulting me) is clearly a useful tool, but it is not the truth(tm) and this is something I think you need to realize.

I admire Wikipedia and the Internet in the same sense I admire books and radio. Contrary to what Fox News tells you, New Media are not necessarily evil.

I read blogs and search engines because they're generally faster and more relevant than the travesties of journalism that so often occur with mainstream media. The information I get from one internet source doesn't magically transform into false information just because another internet source is popular with internet cranks.

Information is information is information. No media or personal experience is magically exempt from critical thinking. Science exists so that we can collaborate and ask critical questions. When you badmouth us for daring to ask such questions, you're acting the same as any old media mogul who thinks he can issue truth from on high. Learning is a team sport, and if you don't answer our basic questions, we can't learn.

[About Peru] This is not relevant, I just wanted to state what I am doing now.

I successfully stopped myself from wondering if we ran you off. I hope this can mean you can take your time to think and communicate clearly.

When I lived in Africa just a couple of years ago, I travelled between South Africa, Botswana and Namibia trying to improve education and make it better for the people (and this is the relevant part-> ), now, to the contrary to how you act and behave, we do not insult people and degenerate others, we work on passion of Love. We want to make it better and with knowledge comes understanding, and therefore a better life.

Yes, I imagine like many other people, you can maintain a civil tone. I live in Texas, so I'm very familiar with the process of self-censorship in "meatspace." Like many people, I'm much more outspoken in "cyberspace" because I'm less likely to need to file a wrongful discharge lawsuit (that the right term?) if I find out my boss is a little too fundie and doesn't like atheists.

...no, we calmly educate them just as you would with dogs. We
do not kick or harm dogs because they are inferior, we teach them and make them understand, just as we do with the negriods when I worked there.

This problem is usually your cyberspace manners over here, not the meatspace ones. It doesn't shock me that you can be a perfect gentleman.

Of course, the other problem is that you're characterizing them as dogs. I had a Master's level spatial science course with a native Nigerian. Aside from being longwinded and having a thick accent at a class presentation, he was perfectly on the level with the rest of us. I've also been reconnecting with a black childhood friend who has apparently gone on to lead a troupe of thespians in NY. (I don't know how far back his US presence goes, but he was always doing something to keep himself busy.)

I don't intend to generalize from those two, but I would think exceptions to your theory that severe cast doubt on it, especially since there are many causes of laziness.

They know very well they are inferior, they see America, the most advanced nation the world as ever seen, they see our history and the Whites building it and want to become like us, I try to make it so, I try to teach them to become just like us and act like us. I want to Help and I am doing it as much as I can. They ask me about the White world and Why we are so great, and I teach them and let them understand that they cant live like savages anymore, not if they want to live a good life, get technology like ours and so forth.

It's true that all the first world nations have a high standard of living, and we have a lot to share and teach the world.

The problem I have is calling it "white." White skin may be correlated with a nation's prosperity in 2009, but there's no logical connect beyond that. Correlation does not imply causation. There are no "smart white genes" or any physical reason for "whites" being smarter that I am aware of to lend plausibility to that causation. As far as scientific consensus goes, we're genetically almost identical. Translate all the unique base pairs the average human has into binary code, and you've barely got a few minutes of an MP3, and by statistical odds, the vast majority of that tiny uniqueness will be parts of space-holding "junk DNA".

We aren't superior because of genetics, but because we have an infrastructure that supports and rewards intellectualism and science: We have the resources and knowledge base it takes to teach everything we know to new generations as well as give them the time to build on those things. That same infrastructure has spread to the "Eastern" world. The Enlightenment was founded on the happy accident of ideal resources in Europe and North America that gave us the stability needed to think about the world around us instead of just where the next meal is coming from. Globalization is steadily spreading those resources around to, hopefully someday, level the playing field. That's why we're hearing about a new satellite from India, and why many of my favorite video games come from Japan.

...but we cant pretent they are somehow equal to us, they know themselves they are inferior...

There's a fundamental problem with that mindset, Gabe. This may sound like a squishy after-school special, but the best way to make sure the gifted people excel is to give everyone equal opportunity and measure them by the same standards. Sometimes genius can show up in unexpected places. We can't know a person's limits without giving them every opportunity to test them. Humans are amazing things full of surprises.

You don't tell a kid whose parents never went to college that he's destined for the same blue collar work of his ancestors. Humans are very plastic creatures. That's what separates us from most other animals: Our big brains with all that neural plasticity means that we're the species with the greatest capacity for learning. Our entire way of life called "civilization" is built on the ability to pass down knowledge to new generations so that they can invent new ideas on the foundations set forth by previous generations. That same plasticity is why you shouldn't allow yourself to think you know someone's destiny before hand. The right words at the right time could cause an otherwise dull person to be inspired to achieve a greatness we didn't realize was just waiting to happen.

If I'm utterly wrong about race, and that there is some undiscovered difference in "white" and "non-white" brains, then there's no harm done: Those with great talent still succeed, and those without still fail in the ideal meritocracy. I just don't think someone should be nailed down by their family's or even nation's history. Of course, as a side note, multi-generation interracial people would be a grab bag, unless you intend to argue that some brain gene actually is connected to melanin production genes in some fashion.

The argument's the same whether we're talking about race, brain damage, family background of scholarship or lack thereof.

Well, with education and understanding, if they know they need help, they can be given it, but without understanding it, you cant. If you do not know your sick, you wont be able to treat it, and the same is here, they need to understand their place, just like dogs, but people like you need to get rid of the hatred you have in you and understand to spread love instead, just because you know something, say a dog is inferior, does not mean, which you seem to believe, you need to hate it. Thats not how to do it.

If we were instead talking about some gifted white kid from a "working class" family instead of black people from an impoverished nation, this would be exceptionally cruel and closed-minded to say about him. There were times that upper class land owners would say this sort of thing about serfs, as if they were a different species.

Treat everyone as an individual, instead of some collective drawn in the sand. That way, if you encounter a talented individual, he can rise above poor backgrounds. I'm glad to live in the modern US where we have a degree of social mobility, and hope for more. The problem I have with this "inferior/superior" thing in this quote is that it seems to me that you're just substituting one trivial phenotype for class to make excuses.

Additionally, inferiority doesn't really matter to me, just content of character. If I were to spontaneously develop some unexpected ability that made me superior to humankind, I wouldn't change a thing about how I treat them. They're still sapient, sentient beings. It wouldn't matter if some yet-undemonstrated genetic factor caused it. I don't treat the brain damaged worse than the average stranger, though I might err in the direction of protectiveness.

A thousand years ago the negriods where living on the savanna, no technology, most die at a young age.

A thousand years ago, "whites" were having a superstitious dark age after a backlash from almost getting the Enlightenment right.

White man where travelling the oceans discovering new continents and creating new cities.

Likely because, by happy accident, a lot of really good resources where far enough north that white skin just happened to be a useful adaptation. A civilization's prosperity is not determined by genetics alone, so there could be a myriad other explanations in that noise. What I'm asking for, as a scientifically-minded person, is something to filter out a genetic signal from all that noise. It's the same technique I use if my car has a problem.

White man had conquered most of Europe, western Europe was spawning (need to use that word) technologies and making the world a better place (for us humans).

And killing and torturing one another for the sake of magical sky fairies. Oh, and dark-skinned Moores were having a little renaissance of their own, making breakthroughs in science and mathematics, which is why today we whites use Arabic Numerals.

Fifty years ago the negriods where mostly living on the savanna, no technology, most die at a young age. A few exceptions such as the areas controlled by Whites, which turned into civilized societies.

After the whites slowed down on performing attrocities for the sake of shiny rocks.

White man went out in space and landed on the moon.

Thanks in part to the knowledge of the Arabs and their invention of the decimal point, and the Asians for providing the first forms of gunpowder and rocketry. Oh, and I imagine there were some blacks who contributed more directly, if they managed to overcome artificial obstacles planted by segregation.

A new disease, HIV, had taken over most of the continent, because of lack of education, common sense and general savage behaviour the disease was spreading like wildfire through rapes, unprotected sex and blood transplants and various other ways.

And would be spreading even faster today without any form of treatment if it were not for the Enlightenment values you've previously rejected being applied to the field of medicine.

White man had created the most advanced nation the world has ever seen, United States of America. White man where working night and day to try to find the cure for AIDS and other diseases, already abolishing alot of them, such as tuberculosis and others.

All thanks to the Enlightenment value known as the scientific method, and not newage (rhymes with sewage) anecdotalism. From the looks of things, it's not going to last, with the crystal wavers, alties, psychics, and religious fanatics spitting on the foundation of that prosperity and embracing anti-intellectualism.

Why does the facts not get through?/In that scull of yours?

Aside from mentioning there were some African empires, a lot of that is indeed true. It's your genetic explanation that's the problem. It contradicts everything civilization is founded on, and no, I don't mean stuff like democratic values or the Constitution: I mean the science that separates me from being just another religious fanatic. For me to accept your genetic explanation, I would have to stop believing in evolution. I would have to stop believing in the value of a good education. I would have to stop believing everything all those white scientists you praise say about how to repeat their success.

Those premises are pretty much true, but your conclusion about a magical, unspecified, undefineable, undetectable gene is the problem. Even if I didn't have any alternative explanations, I wouldn't see any reason to accept such a hypothesis without a LOT more footwork on your part.

What constitutes facts is a hard one, especially looking at the logic followed by the Bronze Dog himself, he has so far shown that if he does not like/accept it, it is generally not True, making by default, anything Dog likes, true and factual.

You're reading from a newage crystal-waver's diatribe, aren't you? The problems I'm talking about are fundamental to the structure of your argument, not the conclusion. I want to believe in psychic powers, but even I won't give them the inches you're asking for. I'm not saying you believe in psychic powers. I'm saying you ask for the same special exceptions to the rules of logic and science I'm unwilling to give anyone, even people I wish were right.

This brings a bit of a problem to the real world and people like me, as he decided not to 'like' anything I say, and therefore it is not true. I need to find entries in Wikipedia to be able to 'confirm' any fact, it seems, I wonder what he think about CreationWiki???

Gabe, you're really desperate if you're still trying to milk that Wikipedia straw man. Wikipedia is irrelevant to this conversation, since that one Wikipedia link I used wasn't even used to make an important point against you. I'm using simple logic to point out your fallacies. Logic that predates the printing press as well as Wikipedia.

First of all, I travelled and experienced alot. Far more then you, I suspect, that is not a insult, and certainly not a way of saying that my opinions is somehow better then yours, I just wanted to make you understand that I seen and done alot in this WORLD of ours, not World of Warcraft, not in a TV sitcom, but the Real World, out there, and however you want to dismiss any experience and knowledge I gained, As a minimum we are equally as functional, mentally, atleast on my side (I dont know if you have some mental disorder but presume not), there must be a limit, must it not?

You still don't understand a thing about me, or what I'm saying. Making fun of Wikipedia or WoW doesn't make your conclusions valid. They are invalid for the same reason penis enlargment pill testimonials are invalid. If someone wants to convince me penis enlargement pills work, they should use a ruler before and after on a randomly selected group of men and include a placebo control group. Once you understand why I don't trust TV ads that promise miracle cures (even from people who can be verified not to be actors or paid for testimonials), you'll understand why I don't trust your conclusions based on your anecdotes and noisy historical data.

Instead of addressing that sort of thing, I predict you'll just bring up Wikipedia and WoW again, and beat the stuffing out of them as if they had anything to do with me or the conversation. I suppose next, you're going to ridicule me for reading books, as if that automatically equates to me believing everything in the fiction section. Don't bother mentioning Wikipedia or WoW again. I'm advising you to avoid that for the sake of generosity: It makes you look like some stupid jock stereotype from "Revenge of the Nerds" who would rather beat up some kid with glasses on random compulsion, rather than have a meaningful conversation about science.

'Science' is based on people, people just like me, alot of them do not see as much as I see and certainly not as intelligent as me, so they must generally, in a minimum, in your own standard, be equal to me, correct? And therefore, what is the big deal trying to give authority to 'Science' and not 'Gabe and others' if we follow the same procedure?

What sets science apart from pseudoscience is that we have to ask each other AND ourselves questions to make sure we're not deceiving ourselves. Why are you asking for a special exemption from that process? Why is it, that when we bring up an alternative hypothesis that explains the same facts more parsimoniously (using forces we already know and agree exist), you randomly start beating the stuffing out of a straw man called "That WoW-playing nerd on that children's cartoon show who bookmarked Wikipedia"?

It's like you have a programmed reflex to mindlessly ridicule certain media instead of actually thinking about what we over here, not over there, are saying. You're like a spambot who locked onto one key word early on and shows up everyday to advertise something completely irrelevant at hand. It's like Boney on that thread about the nuts who believe in The Secret: I mention D&D once, and suddenly the science of quantum mechanics and his logical fallacies don't matter: It's "beat up the geek" time.

In the science world today there is alot of politcally correctness, you are not allowed to state certain facts and not even try to step into the realm of what is not allowed.

That's pretty much what all cranks say about, well, everything. It's usually an excuse for them to be lazy and refuse to talk about their data, even on forums. It's false bravado combined with sour grapes.

Racial matters is just like that, you see no research in how Whites are superior to negriods, Why is that?

You can't research an idea if the question is gibberish. And they have done a lot of research on humans in general. Even if you manage to describe what the hell you're asking about, I don't see the purpose in doing it from a pragmatic point of view: Treat everyone equally, and the talented will naturally excel. That's true, regardless of whether the difference is on the individual level or on some population genetic level.

I would be curious on strictly an academic level, but you can't talk about it: All I ever get out of you is some gibberish about a fictional WoW player who spends too much time on Wikipedia.

About the only thing I've done with Wikipedia in earnest lately was look up a few celebrity names to help my mother with a crossword puzzle while I was visiting this weekend. I'm terrible with celebrity trivia.

And yet you see people claiming it is not so, that EVERYONE IS EQUAL, yet no evidence is produced.

Fallacy: Shifting the burden of proof. I suggest you learn something about the "null hypothesis": Equality means "there is no difference." Science isn't in the business of proving the nonexistence of stuff. That's like a psychic asking us to prove there is no such thing as psychic power. Why waste time and resources exploring the entire universe from start to finish when they can expedite the process by proving the existence of one psychic over the course of an afternoon.

In statistics, one of the very first things you have to do with a dataset is prove that the groups are NOT equal. This is basic philosophy of science.

And even then, it's a straw man: I don't believe everyone is equal. Some people are better at math. Some people are quicker on their feet. I just see very little reason to use race to change how I'd treat someone in an educational context.

Politically correct has become a huge hindrence in knowledge, we are not allowed to study the difference between niggers and spics, spics and whites and whites and niggers, because it does not suit.

How exactly can they stop you? Okay, let's say they don't publish you. You can shout from the mountaintops the logical fallacies the peer reviewers employed in the letters. You can self-publish and dare someone to contest your results.

What I'm seeing here is, "I know with absolute god-like certainty how you'll respond, so I won't even bother trying to make my case."

Well, we've been busy asking you to try, and all we get are anti-science diatribes that would be quite welcome on the tongues of crystal-waving hippies who are racist in the opposite direction: They ask for watered-down Hollywood "Eastern" mysticism to be exempt from "Western" "white" science.

All you're doing, Gabe, is posting excuses for your exemption from basic scientific rigor and even basic chat room critical thinking.

Anyone wanting to go into this field would be condemed, no grants and most likely lose their jobs, thats not a overly 'paranoid(ic)' statement, really.

Let's say you're right, and these people would lose their jobs. How is that going to change the evidence they present? How is that going to prevent them from posting it online for the world to see and analyze in detail? Science takes a lot of courage, even if you're just trying to get data on slime mold published. Peer review can be vicious, even for topics we would consider trivial. If someone can rigorously collect the data and display sound logic, their critics will be demonstrably unarmed.

Instead of any of these people bravely stepping forward just to try, they just repeat this cliched mantra borrowed from B-movie science fiction.

Just like I do every time a parapsychologist comes forward to say that they've got proof, I call their bluff. The studies they present are always underwhelming and easily explained by bad statistics, a magician's sleight of hand, or a mentalist's stage act. So far, Gabe, you're no different in that regard: Every fact you bring up can be explained by countless other forces.

That is an issue, people like you, and not to mention your rather pathetic followers, who truly are a shining example of close-minded nimrods, they are truly people you should distance yourserlf from if you want to seem intellectual and spread information.

What, I should distance myself from people who believe in the value of peer review and the scientific method? Should I try getting in bed with the cranks and weirdoes who say all the pseudo-rebellious nonsense you do?

Conspiracy nuts really are a force for the status quo. No wonder I fear for the United States' scientific future.

You shouldn't need to be ashamed because you know your place in society.

An ideal society gives everyone an equality of opportunity. Those who have the drive and the talent, regardless of some smug individual's evaluation of their background, are the ones who will grasp those opportunities and succeed.

Many smug, closed-minded individuals told scientists and other great thinkers their place in society was at the heels of those in power, or bound to false laws of nature. Science and civilization are inmical to those preconceptions.

I close with Qualia Soup's most excellent video on what open-mindedness really means:

Gone to the Dogs: Doggerel For a Title

Decided to watch "Lock and Load" with R. Lee Ermie last night. I liked Mail Call, and enjoyed the new show and the history lessons about various weapons. Unfortunately, I was treated to another of History Channel's forays into woo, and it's pretty bad when it's got Doggerel #18 for a title: "I Know What I Saw!"

It's about aliens.

Gabe's Theory Thread

I'm transferring a comment over here, since I don't want Gabe adding unnecessary heat to a topic that's intended for believers who want to be civil. First, Gabe, I want you to spell out your theory about the perceived "laziness" of the South American and African people you've witnessed. Give us a list of definitions. Give us a list of premises and evidence that you use. Give us your conclusion, and the logical steps you used to arrive at it. Surprise us by doing something we haven't seen from countless pseudoscientists.

Gabe's transferred comment is below the fold, and contains evidence that he hasn't been paying attention to what we've been arguing.

[Gabe] said...

I thought, as I was sitting here I would correct and try to teach the ignorant masses that seem to assemble here, something.

I remembered users here claiming that niggers in Africa and spicks in latin america are not lazy, even when I have first hand experience in this, they seem to say "you just saw someone sitting around, therefore you claim all to be lazy", which is rather ironic.

This was called, by our friend Freud, Self-projection. This is what you do, and this is how you act and cogitate, its not the rest of the world. I speak objectively when I refer to other people, especially in this context for obvious reason.

As I lived in both Africa and South America, I have not 'seen someone sitting around', no, I LIVED WITH THEM and EXPERIENCED how they are, by nature, lazy. It is very simple, most here have never travelled and will never travel because of lack of funds or fear or whatever it may be, so they simple repeat or use their own self-projected image of the world and how they want it to be.

No, if you go down here, where I am now, you EXPERIENCE the 'laziness', if you find educated and, if i may, more white people, you will note they know this as well, the people themselves do not pretend they are not lazy, THEY KNOW THEY ARE, I spoken to them about it.

This is not a "I seen someone sittng down on his break, therefore lazy" mantra scenario you seem to conjure up, excuses excuses it seems, no, this is from LIVING WITH THEM and EXPERIENCING their lifes and what they care about and how they relate to the world.

They are lazy, you should be, whats the word, Skeptic about someone claiming otherwise, maybe ask them if they lived together with these people, or even visited it? Maybe gone down to the Ghettos in america which we have ourself, spicks and niggers, sitting around, generally not 'working', and when they are, that is, they call it 'working', we call it robberies murder and rape, but that is what they consider 'work', thats how their monkey brothers in africa do it as well, mayben you should go to Congo or any other country in Africa, and see it yourself.

Rather then claiming people who have experienced it, to be false.

10/01/2009 1:39 PM

What "Skeptic" Really Means

I thought since tomorrow is Blasphemy Day, I'd post this before sharpening my tongue. This post is intended for the various types of believers new to the skeptical blogosphere. Please forgive my use of the term. I can't think of one that would cover the variety of people I want to address: Those who believe in things such as religion, alien visitations, alternative medicine, psychic powers, worldwide conspiracy theories, cryptozoology, ghosts, free energy devices, and so on. I know plenty of you don't like to be lumped with those others, but I do that because I tend to see similar methods used to reach those beliefs, and that they generally neglect the demands of logic and science. It's my hope to teach you about what skepticism really means and to counteract all the negative stereotypes spread in the mainstream and by other believers. It has a nasty habit of preventing communication and understanding. To this day, I still get trolls who cite stereotypes rather than answer questions.

The first point I really want to emphasize: Skepticism and science are not collections of beliefs. They are methods of using logic and evidence to reach tentative conclusions. We recognize these conclusions to be tentative, and can question and test them when new evidence arrives. This is what makes skepticism a self-correcting process, which is antithetical to dogma. Skeptics do not, as a matter of definition, disbelieve in, say psychic power. We are skeptics because we try to examine the evidence. To date, that process just happens to lead to our lack of belief in psychic powers. If a genuine psychic were to repeatedly demonstrate their powers under carefully controlled conditions designed to eliminate the possibility of trickery or self-deception, we would be convinced of that psychic's powers. Colloquially, you could say we're no longer skeptics, but I do not use that form of the word to describe myself. We're skeptics because we stick to the rigorous standards.

Science is full of new discoveries being made and tested. As skeptics, we know that the theories we use to explain the universe are always going to be wrong: We're just getting more accurate (less wrong) as we gather more evidence. We don't expect to achieve 100%. If Gödel is right, it's impossible. That won't stop us from trying our best, though. This leads into what I see as the inherent optimism and open-mindedness of skepticism: We can never allow ourselves the closed-mindedness of certainty. "Science knows it doesn't know everything otherwise it'd stop," as Dara O'Briain says in a comedy routine. We also know that people can make mistakes, and science is primarily a method of counteracting that.

As you probably gathered from the opening paragraph, I'm something of a firebrand skeptic. I have plenty to say for my own "deconversion," but I will try to summarize. These firebrand skeptics were harsh, but they were honest, determined, and passionate. I watched debates online between them and believers, looking beyond the simple insults to see the points being made. Ridicule, done right, can bring hidden logical fallacies to the surface. A consistent demand to a simple, honest question can be a powerful point if the adversary only evades, delays, and spits venom for an answer. The skeptics were the ones asking important questions, illustrating holes in their opponents' arguments, and so forth. They were worthy adversaries, and, when I displayed genuine curiosity and a willingness to learn, they gave me much to think about when they met my politeness with their own.

Most of all, they cared. People were being cheated out of their money, harmed by ill-evidenced quackery, and psychologically put down for innocent actions. Like them, I now blog out of a passion for helping people. Science gave us many great wonders we often take for granted. The hucksters and incurious wanted us to abandon the rigor that brought forth all that knowledge so that they could remain in an ivory tower where their ideas and only their ideas could be coddled. Such closed-mindedness was repulsive in the face of the hope science and skepticism presented.

Skeptics demand great rigor because everyone is capable of being biased or mistaken. Anecdotes cannot be taken at face value because the person who experienced it may have missed important details, be ignorant of alternative explanations, or connect events that might have just been a coincidence. These anecdotes aren't worthless. They can be used as a lead for something unusual to investigate, but they are never the end of the story. For a conclusion, we need objective evidence, some way to measure success or failure of the explanation, and a way to reduce or eliminate alternative explanations.

Skeptics such as myself tend to find the most frustration on these points. First, many believers dismiss alternative explanations for no rational reason. Many of us have a good grasp of science and how we can be deceived by others, and most importantly, ourselves. We're often brimming with ideas to explain various happenings, and we don't like getting slapped down when we speak up or ask questions to narrow down the possibilities.

Second, we've faced many believers who talk about events that actually aren't unusual at all. With enough people watching the world, "weird" coincidences happen all the time. One person's ghostly image is often a photographer's annoying dust reflection or passing insect. There are many people out there who know enough about certain fields to render various things mundane and readily explainable. Science is a team sport, and we try to apply the knowledge others have discovered to whatever the current discussion is. When we're presented with an interesting mystery, many of us will put in the effort to solve it. When someone new presents a nearly identical "mystery" that we've dealt with over and over, we can get frustrated and bored.

We're not Gloomy Gusses trying to rain on someone's parade. We're mystery solvers who want to find the truth, regardless of your sense of aesthetics. We don't dismiss all the magical things people believe in because we want the world to be dull and gray: We just want to know the truth, and when I look back at the history of science, the universe is always more interesting than what believers say. It's not without disappointment, but knowing the truth is the first step to solving problems. Self-deception and low standards are not the answer.

We need standards to evaluate the evidence for claims. Most people we argue with don't seem to realize that we can't lower our standards without opening up a quagmire of problems. Without controls against alternate explanations or verification to negate self-deception, the result can easily be eternal indecision: There are nearly an infinite number of possibilities. If we don't use our knowledge to favor the most probable answers, we can't know what to do or what to expect. Everyone practices critical thinking, but not everyone tries to be consistent. Usually, belief in the supernatural comes from making unwarranted exceptions for those beliefs.

Many of you are probably familiar with the phrase, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Though it is often a useful quote, many people don't appreciate that the mundane claims we live by already have extraordinary evidence behind them. It's not that we're raising the standard, it's that simpler claims tend to have more evidence already in their favor.

This post has gone on for a bit, but it will be subject to updates if I remember something to add or from suggestions.

Crack a Chemistry Book!

Watched this video, and unsurprisingly, some members of the Mercury Militia showed up in the comments.

If their propaganda tactics weren't causing so much harm to children, I could find them hilarious.

1) So many of them refer to thimerosal as mercury, it implies that they believe, against all of modern chemistry taught at grade school level and up, that an element and a compound containing that element are the same thing.

2) If they're claiming thimerosal breaks down, releasing the mercury, why can't I find one who's actually willing to crack open a high school chemistry book and use the tables in the back (or the same ones online) to calculate plausible breakdown reactions? Or even reference the work of someone who did that for them?

3) Even if it was mercury, isn't it kind of moot since mercury poisoning and autism produce very different symptoms?

Blasphemy Day Suggestion Box

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

False Piety

Found this post with a link to one of my Doggerel entries. The Raging Reverend pretty well covers some problems with prayer. You know, beyond being a catalog for the superstitious: It's a convenient way for the egotistical to show off their piety.

I left a rambly comment covering some of my thoughts. Some will get reiterated here: Early in my life, I developed a suspicion about anyone who put a lot of effort into displaying their Christianity after learning about corruption among televangelists. Discovering fundies who were just hunky-dory with Hell, Old Testament genocide, and so forth didn't inspire confidence.

The general principle that followed was that the more effort a person put into demonstrating their religiosity, the more immoral they were likely to be. From that point on, I was pretty much uncomfortable whenever I saw a religious t-shirt, whether or not it was being worn. Eventually, I got sick enough after meeting a fire and brimstone fundie serving as a Sunday School teacher that I pretty much rejected the "Christian" label and went squishy "spiritual, not religious" before eventually finding my way to atheism.

I may be an atheist blogger, but I'm sure I've got a fair share of Christians, 'squishy' theists, and so on and so forth who, for some reason or another, don't show off. You're welcome to speak up here. And it'd be heartwarming to hear some of you take on the fundies for their vicious nature.

Oh, and you don't have to worry too much about me taking you through the troll-wringing process, since you're more than likely kind-hearted people, if a little off.

"Noisy Chaff"

Today, PZ posted something that included a phrase that summarizes so many arguments I've had with woos: "Noisy Chaff."

Quite often, I ask what I think to be fundamental questions, and get brushed off so that a troll can throw more chaff into the air. Witness Gabriel suddenly spawning an interest in German history from some side remarks while we're still trying to get him to define what he's even talking about. "Straw man" accusations fall flat if you're unwilling to tell us anything.

When we ask Creationists for their evidence, they tend to continue throwing stones at evolution, geology, abiogenesis, and cosmology, rather than answer what should be an easy question.

When we ask for details about a newage (rhymes with sewage) "other way of knowing," we more often get diatribes against the scientific method.

When we ask for reasons to believe some random woo's anecdotes, we get rants about being cynics, over-analyzing, or not being "true skeptics" for failing to take what someone has seen "with his own eyes" at face value.

Doggerel #203: "Just Asking Questions"

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

Asking questions is how we learn from others. As a scientifically-minded skeptic, I certainly don't want to discourage someone's curiosity. Unfortunately, some questions come across as dishonest. This doggerel is a common response when we call them on it.

Quite popular among conspiracy theorists, this doggerel tends to follow a session of "whack-a-mole": The questions asked are essentially about trivial details, filled with innuendo. Answering them would require attention to detail, and once answered, the conspiracy theorist will typically move to another tenuous connection. Details can be important, but conspiracy theories tend to have failings on a fundamental level: We don't need to explain why "suspicious" coincidence #592 happened if the laws of physics or simple logistics make their conspiracy untenable.

In other fields, it can often be a response to skeptical frustration: You may not realize it, but a common skeptical frustration is having to answer the same questions over and over again. We don't mean to discourage curiosity, especially since many of us used to have sympathies for your position, but it can be tiring to deal with repetition. The best thing you can do is try to maintain a tone of polite curiosity: Repetition with an air of smugness doesn't inspire our patience.

A third use as doggerel is the result of misunderstanding the importance of the questions being asked. Skeptics such as myself strive to ask fundamental questions, often just to get to a basic understanding of what someone is claiming, or for essential details about a piece of evidence we need to accept it. Some of us are fond of going the Socratic route, asking questions so that the answers might raise awareness of a key point. Take a moment to think about what's being asked of everyone.

Curiosity is a wonderful thing, but it needs tempering. More often than not, skepticism and science are about asking the right kinds of questions.

Doggerel #202: "Google It!"

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

Search engines can be wonderful tools. There's a lot of information out there, and these valuable programs can help us sift through the mess to find the most relevant bits.

But they aren't magical. A web page's tendency to show up in a search is based on whether it contains relevant words, combined with how popular it is. And, as you should know by now, popularity is not an indication of quality.

The main complaint skeptics have about woo is the low quality of evidence: A search engine can't tell if an experiment's methods really constitute "double-blinding," or if the author simply used it as a buzz phrase in hopes of placating critics. Search engines aren't mathematicians either, so they can't tell the difference between a genuine subtle effect and an artifact of statistical legerdemain. Search engines can be useful tools, but they're no substitute for critical thought.

In its more cynical use, an appeal to a search engine can be seen as a "shotgun response": Rather than provide one good example, we're expected to search the massive haystack for a needle that may not exist. It would be much simpler for everyone if our adversaries would move directly to their best shots. If you want to convince us, try to learn what we demand and why we demand it. That way, if you find a needle, you'll be able to lead us straight to it, instead of demanding that we sift through the haystack.

Doggerel #201: "Something to Think About"

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

The real world, viewed through science, is full of strange and wonderful things. New knowledge tends to add to its depth and form novel interactions. Science gives us a lot to think about. This post is not about that sort of thing.

Most of the time, in the context of skeptic versus believer, "It's just something to think about" comes across as a last ditch attempt to sound deeper than thou. The problem is that skeptics like me know a lot about the claims and methods of our adversaries. In short, we probably have thought about it and came to or reinforced our disbelief as a result of that thought.

One of the most frustrating things for me in such debates is a lack of new, useful information. Science demands certain standards. We have those standards because we are aware of how perceptions can be biased, and what methods we need to minimize those biases. Anything less is typically an anecdote with biases and lack of detail left intact, ad hoc hypotheses that exist to explain away failures, doggerel, and other innumerable defense mechanisms.

To me, "woo" is often just an attempt to disguise the mundane and boring as magical. Those who know about the flaws in human perception, the laws of probability, and science in general know a great deal about what is possible, and how it can be misinterpreted. It takes something truly extraordinary, unexpected, or unlikely to grab our attention. Unfortunately, we often face off against people who don't understand what that really means.

Woo Enthymemes #6: "It's All About Brains!"

Welcome to another edition of Woo Enthymemes. My previous post covered much of this in relatively elaborate detail, but for this, I will strive to keep things simpler and more direct.

Contrary to popular belief, being smart, being right, and being a scientist is not about sheer brain power. You don't have to be a large-brained genius to make a breakthrough discovery, though it often helps. It can also hinder.

One cynical stereotype skeptics like me often face is the idea that we think we're right because we're smarter. Let's ignite that straw man before someone claims their 200+ IQ, MENSA membership, PhD, or whatever "proves" them to be smarter. It's never a matter of who's "smarter" or has the largest brain mass. Intelligence, wielded incorrectly, can be a great hindrance as well as it can be a great asset when used correctly: Intelligent people often have a great ability to rationalize bad decisions after the fact.

Parapsychology is a field with many intelligent people backing it. Early in my growing passion for skepticism, I read the Skeptic's Dictionary entry on "psi-missing" and similar rationalizations. I did have some sympathy for parapsychology, but it shrank greatly when I saw those "explanations" for failure. I already dismissed "big" performances of psychic power thanks to a particular Nova special. A magician could replicate the big tricks, and now I knew the "subtle" psychic powers were the result of some self-deception and statistical legerdemain.

My brain did not grow that day. I simply learned some new ways to look at things. People are often prone to forming layers of rationalization, and if you don't question yourself on all those layers, no enormous number of IQ points is going to help break you out of a bad idea.

Sometimes it takes a child to point out that the emperor has no clothes. As a skeptic, that's often what it feels like I'm doing: Stepping out of all the expectations I've grown up with and go over all the disconnects I see when I allow myself to be an outsider. I am not afraid to ask fundamental questions like "can you prove psi even exists?" Once I asked that question, I refused to allow myself to accept the word of others who just appeared smart.

When I did the same with science, the answers tended to be enamoring tales of elaborate experiments producing unexpected results. It didn't matter who did it so much as how they did it, and how mixing all those new pieces of knowledge produced something I took for granted. When I asked similar questions of psi-believers, I instead got venomous insults, evasions, and appeals to authorities.

Knowledge isn't just about your Intelligence score. You need the Wisdom to be cautious about your assumptions. And I just needed some Charisma-filled firebrand skeptics to excite my mind into realizing that.

What We Take For Granted

I'm sure the vast majority of my readers are pretty up-to-date with technology, since reading my blog typically requires some form of electronic device with a display screen and a connection to other, similar devices. Thankfully, many of my readers are skeptics, which should make writing this post a little bit easier: Skepticism is, after all, a way of thinking that requires an ability to raise your awareness about how you think. (As an aside, don't you think it's kind of funny that woos will make similar claims?)

There's a large bulk of our technology and cultural landscape that is so fundamental to us that it has become invisible. Many people in our society aren't even aware of it and, when it comes up, they often want the benefits that came from those technologies and philosophies without what they perceive to be downsides. The philosophy of science is one of these things that routinely comes up when we face off against Creationists and other woos: They base comforting beliefs and actions on many logical fallacies, and will often lash out against anyone who presents ideas that threaten those beliefs. But they still want easily accessible and nourishing food, convenient methods of transportation and communication, and other products and services we're used to. They also tend to want steady improvement of those things. Unfortunately for them, those improvements require the scientific method to test them for safety and utility. Unlike games like Civilization, you can't simply provide a collection of beakers for scientists to mix colored liquids or specify what you want to result from their research.

It's the historian's fallacy writ large: In science, we don't know all the possibilities for the outcome. If a doctor researches treatments for a new disease, he should know very well that his efforts may very well be in vain: It could be there is no effective treatment. It takes a bit of optimism to be a scientist and hope for answers that might not come. Because scientists don't know the answer in advance, science needs a willingness to put aside presupposition. In short, scientists need the freedom to say "I do not know." That is where many woos draw the line: They often aren't optimistic enough to hope for an answer, so they latch onto an invented answer and attempt to undermine inquiry. I can go on for longer, but I digress from this particular example.

There are many things other than the scientific method that have allowed us to grasp prosperity. Many of them were prerequisites to the development of the philosophy behind science. I'm sure I'll be missing plenty of subtle examples, but I will attempt to lay them out.

Biology: To "rise above" our non-sapient kin and form a civilization, we needed some key details: Fine manipulation so that we could make tools and shape our environment. Methods of detailed communication. A large brain with great plasticity: We need the wonderful ability to learn.

Resources for the first city: Contrary to what many Creationists seem to think, having hands, brains, and a versatile ability to make sounds and gestures isn't enough to invent the village. Humans are omnivores: We can eat an enormous variety of things, whether we hunt, scavenge, or gather from plants. If you think it's safer and easier to just follow the nearby herd of tasty prey animals, you aren't exactly inclined to settle down in one place for a year on the off chance your gatherer friend really is able to grow berry bushes like he theorizes.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and early nomadic humans didn't necessarily see the potential applications of settling down in one place. We are not genetically predisposed towards science fiction. Instead, the invention of villages was more likely a gradual process: They didn't settle down completely, but someone invented tents or similar structures that could be easily made and/or transported to provide protection while still being able to follow game migration. If someone did find that they could turn a local plant into an efficient and palatable crop, then they would be more inclined to a sedentary lifestyle. Of course, that would require the existence of such a plant. We've grown so used to our modern, eugenically modified crops that some Creationists aren't even aware of the wild cousins and ancestors of our "perfect" seedless banana clones.

Resources for thought: The very concept of leisure time is something else we've come to take for granted. Someone who is struggling to survive, who devotes all his time to tracking down food or a safe place to sleep for the night isn't at all likely to become a great thinker: He's too busy using his mental resources on what we now consider trifles. Many of us only have to think about getting some money for a trip to the grocery store or paying the rent. If I recall correctly, Maslow, when describing his well-known hierarchy of needs, essentially said that most people in developed nations never truly experience hunger, only appetite. A hungry man thinks and dreams only of food.

We have a society where a fraction of the population can make enough food for the rest of us. A fraction of our society can provide safe and comfortable shelters. A fraction of our society can keep certain dangers at bay. That leaves a lot of man-hours that can be devoted to loftier goals. If a primitive village achieves enough production of these fundamentals through division of labor, this leaves spare time for the star gazer to look up at the sky and find patterns. If it helps him predict the start of the growing season, that adds even more time and security for the village to use in other pursuits. Many early scientific pursuits formed positive feedback loops: More efficient food production lead to more time people could use to figure out more efficient ways to produce food.

Resources for new ideas: A small population of people by themselves can only achieve so much over time. Cooperation with other villages, and eventually other nations can open up new opportunities. If one village had people who knew how to make a better bow, they could share or trade that knowledge with another village if they could communicate with one another. Of course, they would also be able to pass on that knowledge to the next generation, rather than leaving them to work out all the steps from scratch. That is why communication is such a valuable ability: It can lead to cooperation. If all human knowledge is shared, that means there is less time spent researching redundant ideas: One person in one village doesn't have to figure out for himself how another village does something: He can just look it up.

Right now, you are also using another form of communication that is taken for granted, and I don't mean anything as recent as electronics or the internet: The invention of writing. With writing, knowledge can be recorded and shared without the need for a human brain. If someone writes an important new discovery of his, it can be preserved after his death. Lost knowledge can be rediscovered in a library. It could simply be a matter of learning the language it's written in. Writing gave language and, by extension, ideas a new permanence. The internet, to Barbara Streisand's dismay, has extended this ability even further.

Because of writing, many people have a concept taken for granted: The indestructibility of an idea. In ancient times, superstition could maintain a hold many of us can scarcely imagine: Destroying a useful, beneficial meme for scientific development was as easy as killing the person who dreamed it up. After the invention of writing, and especially the printing press, you often had to burn countless copies of a book and hope that you got them all. In a time and place where the internet is easy to access, this is all but impossible. I am quite glad to live in these interesting times. Without these meme-saving technologies, scientific progress could be stopped and even reversed by the word of a superstitious leader.

The simple stamp-collecting of useful ideas alone does not guarantee prosperity and progress: Many ideas themselves have a synergy with others: The ideals of free speech, curiosity for its own sake, that truth is more valuable than stubborn faith, epistemology, and the philosophy of science all work together to make discoveries easier for the people who possess those memes and allow them to be dominant in their minds. Any thought can be brought up, subjected to criticism, and if it meets the necessary standards for its usefulness, accepted until a better one goes through the process.

Without a stable source of food, a feeling of security, the time and freedom to wonder about the world, and open channels of communication with the outside world, a civilization will fall behind. A nation that achieves those basics and embraces all of those force-multiplying memes can go far. I do my best for the latter. The United States is a wonderful nation, but it has been held back by the superstitious, the incurious, and the cynical anti-intellectuals.

120th Skeptics' Cricle

It's up at Pro-Science.

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

Texas is, and Ever Shall Be, DOOMED!

PZ says it all.

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.

Science Fiction and Missing Bits

Watching The Empire Strikes Back on Spike, right now, thinking about other Sci-Fi shows. One thing I sometimes find interesting is what can happen when you take something out of the standard sci-fi setting. I'd like to hear some thoughts about the topic. Here are some of mine:

1. When I was young, and managed to catch a few episodes of Babylon 5, tension was often added when this Trek fan realized they couldn't simply beam people out in the nick of time.

2. Didn't watch the show, but in a note on TV Tropes, I heard that Andromeda didn't have FTL communications to go with their FTL travel. As a result, they had to use couriers in small ships to send messages over long distances. Might be interesting to have a show about such a courier.

3. It might be interesting to some effort at realistic space combat, since I've been exposed to everyone turning it into a metaphor for air and/or sea combat.

Avast, Ye! Thar Be Downloads to Plunder!

Telltale Games be givin' away the first chapter o' Tales o' Monkey Island. Be quick or be dead, mateys! They be closing their ports at the first stroke o' midnight!

(Haven't played the series myself, but I've been thinking of getting all the games. Imagine this sample will help me decide... Was there ever a updated release of all the games on the way, or did I just imagine that?)

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.

Gabe's Contradictions

Thanks to a little bit of medication change, I had a good night sleep instead of a bout of insomnia. So I'm in a good mood again for continuing with Gabriel, our current troll. I thought I'd spell out some stuff that Gabe has a lot of explaining to do about, especially since he seems rather tight-lipped about explaining what exactly he's arguing.

The nature of "race":
1. He mocked for allegedly being scared to talk about race.
2. When we asked for genetic data, he tended to ignore it, and at least once said that genetics were irrelevant. (What is race, then, metaphysical?)
3. People start pointing out his use of "dilution" in reference to race, suggesting it is a continuous phenomenon, rather than a discrete one like genes. (So, is he arguing that the modern synthesis of evolution, the foundation of biology, is wrong?)
4. We ask for a definition of race and how it encourages or discourages stable societies and scientific progress. Gabe pretends it's obvious.

The nature of science:
1. Gabe praises the "white race" for various breakthroughs in science and technology.
2. We use the philosophy of science (used by those "white" scientists Gabe speaks highly of) to dismiss the validity of anecdotal experience, and logic to point out that correlation does not equal causation.
3. Gabe responds to these logical conundrums with the standard anti-science diatribe and an appeal to other ways of knowing. He also tosses in various insults, suggesting that we're nothing but basement-dwelling WoW players. As if that validates his use of logical fallacies.

Memes:
1. I point out that humans, with their great brain plasticity, must learn to survive and thrive. That's why we build civilizations, instead of hunting and gathering like less intelligent omnivores tend to do. I point out that science is a "build on the work of others" enterprise: As a result, learning something new with science typically requires access to the best knowledge (memes) already present. I also point out that someone scrounging around for food doesn't have the time or energy to devote himself to education.
2. Gabe dismisses "non-whites" building on the work of "whites" as "stealing." He dismisses memes as "magic."

Responsibility:
1. Gabe tries to claim that people are responsible for their culture.
2. I point out that each person has no control over the cultural memes in other people's heads at the time of birth, and that as an adult, a person can't necessarily choose memes he hasn't been exposed to.
3. Gabe argues ???.

Similarity to other woos:
1. I point out that Gabe's arguments are structured in a nearly identical manner to all sorts of quacks, fraudulent psychics, newage (rhymes with sewage) hippies, religious nuts, etcetera.
2. Gabe just seems to ignore the analogy.

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.

Qualia Soup or Salad?

Pick the soup!

Woos and Experience

I've got six of these so far. Guess that qualifies as a series.

Granted, this comes from personal experience, and that requires taking it with a grain of salt, but in my experience, many woos prize personal experience above all other forms of evidence. This is precisely backwards.

There's a reason anecdotes are considered the least credible form of evidence. People have biases. These biases can change what details a person focuses their attention on. Lack of knowledge can make a known, boring phenomenon into a supernatural experience. That same lack of knowledge can also render them vulnerable to trickery a more wary person could see through. Biases can color a person's memory. Biases can force connections and causes where none exist.

When we point these things out, it's common for the woo to indignantly say we're accusing them of stupidity or dishonesty. That's hardly the case: Everyone has these problems. Often, the only dishonesty involved is that which the woo performs on himself: They aren't being honestly acknowledging their flawed nature. This is known as arrogance, and is one of the most frustrating things I have to deal with.

Raw volume of experience is worth nothing if you don't know how to take measures against your biases. I've seen ufologists so excited about seeing alien spacecraft that they apparently watch the sky every night, but can't even identify an airplane. Most cases don't go nearly that extreme, but those biases do affect a person's perceptions.

Those flaws that affect all of us are part and parcel of why we need science. Scientists don't perform statistical analysis for the fun of it. They don't repeat experiments out of boredom. They don't replicate other people's work for the "me too!" glory. They don't point out other people's experimental flaws in peer review because they're jerks. They do it because they're diligently double-checking all the work. Small mistakes can really add up over time, and science is quite often a field where lives and livelihood are at stake. Catching mistakes when they're still small in scope is vital.

Too many woos, however, spend their time thinking they can't make mistakes when it comes to personal experience.

Help Me With a Little Mystery

I've been watching There Will Be Brawl. Think Smash Bros. meets Sin City. I've gotten more motivated to try to figure out who the butcher is before they reveal it since the creators are claiming it's a fair play mystery, and we should be able to guess based on the clues so far (and, I presume, knowledge of the characters from the games). Also said it won't be someone "out of left field." Some evidence and thoughts of mine (and possible spoilers for those who haven't watched, yet) are below the fold.

Butcher's MO:

Leaves behind the internal organs, minus bones and skin. Included some flair with Mewtwo's remains popping out of a pokeball.
Able to sneak into and out of DeDeDe's room and perform the total disembowelment without getting caught.
According to Link, some skull fragments in his remains indicate he was struck from behind with blunt force.

Victims so far:

Pichu (Pokemon, Meta-reason: Removed between Melee and Brawl)
Roy (Fire Emblem, Meta-reason: Removed character)
Mewtwo (Pokemon, Meta-reason: Removed character)
Princess Peach (Mario Franchise: Kidnapped, death not confirmed)
DeDeDe (Kirby Franchise: First killing where we were allowed to see the remains.)

Brawl Characters not seen yet: Ness, Lucas, Bowser.

Characters never going to be seen: Master/Crazy Hand, Tabuu, Fighting Polygon Team.

Characters with alibis during DeDeDe's murder:
Mario and Donkey Kong: Fighting one another.
Luigi, Little Mac, Pauline, Mr. Game & Watch, Diddy Kong: Watching the fight.
Samus: Present, but not accounted for. (My genre savvy tells me she's a red herring, since she didn't use any blunt weaponry, favoring her stun pistol/whip.)

Some things to think about:

What game characters steal skins/appearances/etcetera? Kirby is one, but he was allegedly being closely watched by Meta Knight.

What, if anything, do the victims have in common?

Is this really related to Zelda and Link's power grab?

Existing hypothesis I've read on Escapist's forum: It's Red, the pokemon trainer. Mostly it amounts to people using genre savvy to point out how much his impossible naivete clashes with the cynical world, how unsuspecting we should be of someone so innocent, and building ideas on that. I don't buy it.

Notes for fellow speculators: Please point out if you have ideas based on genre savvy instead of solid evidence. Citing episodes and timestamps is encouraged.

Woo Enthymemes #5: "My Experience is Reliable"

Welcome to another edition of Woo Enthymemes.

This entry is often at the core of just about any anti-science viewpoint. It's true that our perception of the universe is based on experience, whether it was personal or by someone else who documented it. One big thing that separates a skeptic from a woo is that the skeptic knows his senses and memory are not all that reliable. Skeptics know that we're subject to confirmation bias, selection effects, apophenia, and so forth. We are mere mortals.

Some woos might have an awareness of their flawed nature, but they seldom put serious effort or thought into counteracting those flaws. Skeptics, on the other hand, practice the scientific method: Control for alternate explanations. Record both successes and failures. Look for others who have or will replicate the event or experiment. Double check everything. It's still not perfect, but with all these sorts of checks working together, the odds of being wrong diminish.

The closest I can recall woos ever coming to this is the appeal to popularity, which is only the countermeasure of multiple people doing the same thing. Those others, however, seldom do anything to rule out alternative causes for the results or check against all our various cognitive biases. In short, without going through all the hoops of the scientific method, you're being sloppy and opening yourself up to simply confirm your biases.

That's why I want to hear about experimental protocols and statistical analysis of the results instead of just another ghost anecdote.

119th Skeptics' Circle

It's up at Cubik's Rube.

Open thread as usual, but summoning Hastur with children's puzzle toys is FORBIDDEN! I mean, think about it. You're Hastur, sitting in some remote part of the cosmos, and some guy thoughtlessly solves a plastic cube that says "Hastur" on each face, and all of the sudden *GAWCK!*

---

Note: This post was scheduled to appear at this time in the event that Bronze Dog was called away to handle other things.

Pointless Question #67

Whycome videogame and anime characters jump so high? [/Atrocious Grammar]