A Sceptical I

Farewell...

2009-08-01T02:08:00.002+01:00

Well, Blogspot, it's been eighteen and a half months. You've been good to me, but now I'm moving on.

This blog is no longer active. All updates are now to be found on my new website, Skeptophile.com. The blog has been reincarnated there, under the same name. So update your bookmarks:

http://skeptophile.com/blog is the new address for A Sceptical I.

See you on the other side!

Rumblings...

2009-07-29T10:04:00.002+01:00

For various reasons, I've decided that the time has come to move my personal website from a friend's server, where it has been sat happily for a good number of years, to a more .. official .. position. To this end, I have purchased a domain name and begun renting the old web hosting thingy.

I'm still deciding what the new site should involve, as I want more than just the basics I had on the old one. For starters, I intend to move this blog to the new address; but I also want the wider site to be about the general theme of this blog - science meets the humanities, finds they can get along, and all that.

I'll keep you updated here, of course, at least until the new site is up and running and can get by on its own without stabilisers. Any suggestions you have for the new site will be gratefully received, of course.

Mythology

2009-07-25T11:04:00.006+01:00

If you know me (whether personally or simply through my posts here), you'll probably know I have a fascination with mythology. This extends beyond a mere enjoyment of the stories, into what they can tell us about the human condition, and our cultural history. But recently, I heard a wonderful quote which I'd like to share with you, as best as I can remember it:

"Mythology is a vital part of our history, and must be kept alive. But to claim that one mythology is more valid, or holds more truth than another, is arrogant and dangerous. (pause) Basically what I'm saying is that religion is bullshit."

An elegant summary if ever there was one. The speaker in this case was a man I'm coming to admire more and more - Heri Joensen, vocalist of the very excellent Faeroese folk metal band Tyr. They've always had strong pagan overtones in their music, and he is becoming less subtle and more outspoken about his distaste for religion - particularly Christianity purely due to the history of persecution in Northern Europe around the turn of the second millennium.

Thinking about this recently, I recalled a teacher I had at A-Level, in Religious Studies. A creationist (and a bloody nice bloke by the way), he objected to the term "Christian mythology", because he felt it somehow denigrated the religion. I disagreed silently at the time, unsure of my ability to marshal arguments against his position. But on reflection now, it's not a difficult case to demolish. The real question is, why on earth would Christianity not count as mythology?

Perhaps on first glance it's a little more subtle (or perhaps dull and boring would be a more honest appraisal) than most mythologies, with highlights being a rather tame collection of stories that would seem unremarkable indeed amongst the vibrant madness that one encounters in those of Egypt, Greece, India, and Scandinavia (to name but a few). But a lack of imagination does not exempt it from being mythological.

It is still, after all, a collection of stories, with symbolism and morals and magic and impossible events. There is no objective reason to place it above any other set of mythologies, and of course the impulse to do so comes simply for one's own biased regard for that one belief system. Which is why I think it is sad (however inevitable it may be) when one set of mythologies manages to all but wipe out a competing one, and I think that Christianity's triumph in Europe is one of the great cultural tragedies of history. But why did it succeed? Why did people choose to follow the teachings of the Bible over their own cultural stories?

Well of course, to get the answer to that question we need to look predominantly to the ruling class; it was they who converted first, and passed on that conversion to their people, through force, persuasion, or simply a kind of peer pressure. So the question becomes one of why those in power adopted the new faith from the south. Was it a resonance of truth and goodness they felt? Possibly, I'll not deny that. But looking at it realistically, I'd say it was more likely that the majority of them simply found it more useful, more expedient.

I don't think it is too controversial to suggest that most of those in power are there because they sought it. It is hardly a leap to also suggest that those who seek power and attain it do not cease to seek it. Is it any wonder that they chose to adopt a religion which preaches meekness, obedience, unquestioning devotion, and enforces it with fear? I'm afraid I have another quote for you, this time from a novel I read fairly recently. It's Viking: King's Man, book three of a wonderful trilogy by Tim Severin:

"...the worship of the White Christ suits men who seek to dominate others. It is not the belief of the humble, but of despots and tyrants. When a man claims he is specially selected by the White Christ, then all those who follow that religion must treat him as if they are revering the God himself... This is a contradiction of all that the God is meant to stand for, yet I have witnessed how, among rulers of men, it is the truly ruthless and the ambitious who adopt the Christian faith, then use it to suppress the dignity of their fellows."

Simply, Christianity succeeded where other mythologies failed because it was a useful tool by which men might gain and maintain power. Politics has, once again, shown itself to be a (if not the) driving force behind major cultural change. However innocent, bland and otherwise fluffy and inoffensive* a belief system might be, there will always be someone there to exploit it. That's human nature.

* Though I might note here that, despite the commendable and generally positive attitude of many of its adherents, Christianity isn't the nicest of religions once you examine the literature. No, sir.

Provoked thoughts

2009-07-22T15:14:00.004+01:00

Last night I went to see a talk by the great Richard Wiseman at Leicester Skeptics in the Pub. A most entertaining and interesting evening was had by all (if my own experience and that of my friends was representative). When we got home, we had a look at some of the things Richard has on his blog, and came across this video:

Of course we partook of the rather bizarre-looking ritual and by the end there was a great deal of space between my hands, while my partner's had barely moved. This is of only passing interest, really. The really thought-provoking part came later when I considered this in relation to the next talk taking place in Leicester.

On the 18th of AUgust, Dr Christine Mohr is giving a talk about the links between imagination / creativity and belief in the paranormal. Perhaps it's not immediately apparent where this is going, but bear with me.

The personality test from Richard Wiseman is (unless I am somewhat mistaken) an example of the ideomotor effect. It is not a stretch to suggest (indeed Richard does so himself, I think) a connection between this effect and greater imagination. Is there, then, a case to be made for a related connection between the ideomotor effect and belief in the paranormal?

I'd hardly be surprised if there were, but it just struck me as one of those neat little webs of interrelated causes and effects that make science (and fringe science, like psychology) so very interesting.

On a partly-related note, you might be interested to learn that movements are being made in the direction of establishing a Skeptics in the Pub event in Birmingham. Seeing as this is so close to my current residence, I'm trying to get involved in helping set it up. Hopefully I will have some solid news to report on this front soon, or at least a tentative update.

The Power of the Hypothetical

2009-07-15T09:36:00.004+01:00

"So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth..."

In science, an hypothesis is a wonderful thing. It is the glimmer of imagination and possibility that can give rise to years of research and fascinating advances in our knowledge of the world. But it is still just the preliminary stage - when people say something is "just a theory", they are thinking of the colloquial meaning which is more analogous to hypothesis. It's a weak form of knowledge, little better than conjecture.

But the power of the hypothetical goes beyond that. In philosophy, hypothetical scenarios are often (or indeed exhaustively) used to examine arguments, beliefs, and assumptions - of which the subject is sometimes previously unaware of using / having / making. I'm currently leafing through a book full of such hypotheticals - called The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten. The title is perfectly demonstrative of the kind of thinking contained therein - thought experiments which are often semi-nonsensical, but which nevertheless challenge us to examine our underlying reasons for what we believe. IS it immoral to eat a pig that wants to be eaten (assuming it is immoral to eat one that does not)? And if so, why?

This is one of the reasons I so enjoy science fiction - there is such an immense crossover with so many areas of philosophy, and there is no better arena for bringing thought experiments and hypotheticals into the mainstream consciousness. Just look at The Matrix - how many people had questioned the very nature of reality, and the evidence of their senses, before watching that film? Every philosopher was familiar with the idea, of course - as it was an imaginative adaptation of Descartes' hyperbolic doubt and evil demon hypothetical. But it wasn't well-known, in the public sense of the phrase.

Now it seems the hypothetical has been given yet more power - or rather, yet another facet of its power has been discovered. Previous to this recent research, people were often encouraged to promote a positive outlook in themselves by focusing on the good things in their lives, "counting their blessings", as it were. However, studies into this method returned mixed results at best, and a new hypothesis was tested - that, rather than simply thinking about the positive aspects of one's life, one should imagine what one's life would be like had those things never happened at all. The contrast this creates between the present and the parallel (and negative) "possible presents" reinforces the positivity of one's life.

So next time, instead of just thinking "it could be worse", perhaps you should actually think about exactly how it could be worse. And how easily it might have turned out that way.

Koo, M., Algoe, S., Wilson, T., & Gilbert, D. (2008). It's a wonderful life: Mentally subtracting positive events improves people's affective states, contrary to their affective forecasts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (5), 1217-1224 DOI: 10.1037/a0013316

Breaking my silence to support free speech

2009-06-11T13:10:00.003+01:00

It's no surprise to those who read this blog that I'm kind of in favour of free speech - you know, just a bit. It's one of the many reasons I've taken an interest in the ongoing legal battle between Simon Singh and the British Chiropractic Association. It's also why I'm here to promote the Sense About Science campaign to keep libel laws out of science. I've added the badge to the side bar and I recommend you click on it. If you're just too damn lazy to scroll down (and who could blame you?) here it is:

And with that, I leave you again. I apologise for my long silences of late, but we still have no internet access in the flat and with my new job I have a lot less free time than I used to when I was unemployed. Hopefully the former situation will resolve soon, and I'll be back with you, boring your eyes out as usual.

All the best, dear hypothetical reader. Until next time.

BCA vs Singh update

2009-05-08T15:42:00.003+01:00

On the offchance any of my readers do not also read the great bloggings of my friend Jack of Kent, I recommend that you take a gander at his new update on the preliminary hearing of the libel case brought against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association (to be found here).

I have nothing to add, except in echoing Jack's sentiment that this is an astonishing, bizarre and horrendously illiberal ruling.

Two apologies, and a follow-up

2009-05-06T10:33:00.002+01:00

The first apology is for the past month - not only has it been a hectic and internetless move to the new flat, but calamity and illness have also meant that I've been far from being in the right frame of mind to write here. The second apology is for the future, because I don't know how often I'm going to be able to post over the next month or two. The internet connection is hardly forthcoming, and the precious hours I'm able to squeeze out of the wi-fi access at the pub are being consumed simply by trying to stay up-to-date and in contact with my friends. So, I apologise.

You might be interested to know that there have been a great many reasons to believe that the rune casting I made a month ago has proven to be true - certainly the move was made, and I even went down to Southampton for a very brief visit to bring more of my belongings up to the flat. This would definitely justify the presence of the "Raido" journeying rune. The "Algiz" sanctuary rune is similarly easy to explain through the new flat, as it is definitely starting to feel like a home and safe haven. The reversed "Dagaz" night rune, which apparently can serve as a warning of plans going awry, can also be seen to have come true. Let's just say the move has not been without problems.

So a clean sweep with my first cast. Not bad going. It's definitely illustrating for me how people can easily believe in the power of these things, particularly when the interpretation is so vague and malleable.

I hope I'll be able to post a little more often now that things are starting to straighten out at home. I'll definitely be back when the internet manages to make its glittering and wondrous way into our abode. Perhaps the next entry will be another rune casting. Whenever and whatever that next post is, I'll see you then.

Premonitions

2009-04-03T14:21:00.003+01:00

Today's entry is about the future.

Firstly, because I need to warn you that the blog might be a little quiet over the next few weeks as I move to a new flat with the very special feature of Uncertain Internets. Got a few ideas in the pipeline, though, so hopefully I'll be able to get online enough to keep this blog up and running.

Secondly, it strikes me that this is an ideal time to introduce a new regular feature here, tying into my status as a pagan atheist. You may or may not know that the Northern European mythologies, with which I most closely relate, contain a system of auguries involving runes. These work in much the same way as the more popular tarot cards, with a number of symbols standing for various ideas.

What I thought I'd do is something of an experiment, in no way scientific, into the practice of using these runes to read my "fortune". After setting up the rules (the method of taking a reading, the meanings of each rune, and any restrictions on interpretation), I'll try to take regular-ish readings and then see how true they turn out to be. So, on with it.

Right from the outset, let me make this clear: this is not a test of the ability of rune-casting to predict the future or disclose facts about the past. The sole purpose of this little exercise is basically to just get an insight into how these readings can be interpreted to fit a normal life with normal events, without the intervention of a cold reader or medium.

My method will be simple: when making a cast, I will shake all the runes in my cupped hands, and carefully let three fall at random, without seeing which they are. Those will be my reading, and the rest put aside for the time being. If a rune lands facing up, its standard meaning will hold sway; if it is face down, I will interpret that as a reversed meaning - for instance, if Eihwaz lands facing up, it means safety; if facing down, it means danger or vulnerability.

Here's a basic list of the runes and their primary meanings. Fehu: wealth. Uraz: strength. Thurisaz: chaos. Ansuz: wisdom. Raido: journey. Kaunaz: fire. Gebo: gift. Wunjo: joy. Hagalaz: disruption. Nauthiz: need. Isa: standstill. Jera: success. Eihwaz: safety. Pertho: future. Algiz: sanctuary. Sowulo: sun. Teiwaz: victory. Berkana: life. Ehwaz: horse. Mannaz: man. Laguz: water. Inguz: fertility. Othila: inheritance. Dagaz: day. Blank: destiny.

So right away we see that runes are representative of some very vague and open-to-interpretation notions. Virtually any reading could probably be twisted to fit the complexities of a normal life. But let's not allow that to dissuade us! This should be fun. So here's the first cast:

Raido. Algiz. A reversed Dagaz.

So a journey, sanctuary, and something that probably represents night. I'd call that a pretty great hit for a first cast - we're moving (or "journeying") to a new flat (or "sanctuary") after all. Not sure what the night part represents, though. I'm led to understand that "day" carries along with it implications of certainty and optimism - as in, daylight is the time to get things done. Is it telling me that this is not the right time for a journey to our new sanctuary? Or is it reflecting our feelings of insecurity about the enterprise? Or perhaps it's referring the the lack of security in my partner's job right now. Hmmmm.

Well this might turn into a regular feature, it might not. Either way, it's always interesting to think about why these methods of prediction and fate-reading are so popular, and why they seem to work so well a lot of the time. As I said, I'm not going to change my mind on this - I don't believe that the rocks I drop with scratches in can tell me what's going to happen next week. It's just something I'm using to gain and share some insight into the interpretation process. I hope you enjoy and value it as much as I do.

A symbol too far?

2009-03-30T16:35:00.002+01:00

Just a quick thought today, prompted by the news that over 100,000 people in Britain are seeking to reverse their childhood baptism/christening [via AFP]. I sympathise with them, though I myself was never put through such a farcical abusive ceremony (thanks mum!) - but I can't help but think that by doing this they are imbuing the ceremonies with far more meaning than they deserve.

If I'm right in thinking that these people want to be de-baptised because they have discovered the enormous unlikeliness of the Christian teachings and would prefer to live their lives as rational beings, then why do they care so much that some old chap mumbled some mumbo-jumbo over them and splashed their foreheads with water when they were kids? Surely their seeking of this piece of paper is demonstrative of their belief that the whole ceremony is completely meaningless. The piece of paper is also meaningless, so why seek it out and pay cash money for it? Why do you care?

I fully support the National Secular Society, and if you're going to donate money to an organisation and haven't decided which yet, you could do worse than consider them in your shortlist. But I don't approve of them selling something which is entirely meaningless. I thought they were against that sort of business.

In an entirely unrelated topic, I will soon be opening up a service for anyone who wants to be declared "Nice". If you, as a child, were told by a parent or other authoritative adult (perhaps in a costume) that you were on Santa's "Naughty List", send me the small sum of £3 and I'll happily print you off a piece of paper reversing your status as "Naughty" and declaring you "Nice" - for all the world to see.

Fictional Sceptics #6: Star Trek (part 2)

2009-03-27T09:06:00.001Z

In my previous entry on the matter, I discussed how (early) Star Trek acted as a kind of utopian vision for secular humanism. I also showed that, despite how dated it can seem at times, it was always a highly progressive series - particularly in terms of race and gender equality.

This time, I want to examine the numinous aspects of Star Trek - that is to say, the ways in which it preserved the sense of wonder to an almost spiritual level while remaining secular. It is closely linked to the spirit of scientific discovery, and the kind of excitement exemplified by the likes of Carl Sagan in his Cosmos series, and Phil Plait at a new development or line of research. It is an important aspect of science and scepticism which religious people often claim cannot be found outside of supernatural belief systems.

There are dozens of examples I could use to illustrate this point; it seemed that every other episode of The Next Generation involved the crew investigating, researching or just sightseeing at some interesting nebula, supernova or what have you; sometimes it was the premise of the show, sometimes it was an incidental detail along the way - but it always managed to express that they were explorers and scientists first, experiencing the wonder of the galaxy first-hand.

The particular example I want to use today, however, is a little more complex. Those of you who read my footnote on the post-Roddenberry Star Trek in my previous post will know that I noted a drop in secular humanism as a theme after Gene Roddenberry's departure. What I'd like to add to that is that subsequent series did seem to be more morally complex than TOS and TNG, and, while they were more accommodating to religion, they rarely - if ever - attributed to it powers that it does not and could not possess.

The case of the Prophets of Bajor is a particularly interesting case. Here we have a hugely pervasive religion with a tremendous amount of power over its followers - and incidentally a vehicle through which the series can explore themes relevant to scepticism and religion. The interesting thing is that their "prophets" - spirits or gods, essentially - are real. That is, they are actual beings who reside within the stable wormhole proximate to Bajor.

It is interesting to note the contrast in reactions between the Starfleet personnel and the Bajoran clergy (for want of a better term) to the scientific discoveries made in the wormhole. Both are awestruck, but that's where the similarities end. The officers, Sisko in particular, are desperate to know more about the wormhole and the beings that reside within in it - from what little they already know, the wormhole is stable because it was constructed by the aliens, and the aliens themselves do not experience a "linear existence" as we do, and thus have no concept of time. The Bajorans remain steadfast in their dogma, though at first it seems that the two can coexist - the spiritual definition of the prophets, and the scientific explanation of them.

But when a religious controversy springs up about the teaching of science in school, the tensions become clear. The question is asked as to why the station's single school is teaching only about the science of the wormhole and not the spiritual dimensions acknowledged by the Bajorans (a majority of the students, it should be noted). The teacher is adamant that only the science will be taught, and that the school is not a suitable place for spiritual instruction. It's a great parallel to the evolution/creationism debate.

But to get back to my point, at no time does it seem that there is less wonder and beauty to be found through the scientific perspective as opposed to the religious one. Indeed, it seems as if the religious people, having caught a glimpse of the truth, immediately shut their eyes so as to preserve that glimmer of wonder, and, having instilled it with all their hopes and expanded it with their imaginations, are unwilling to then open their eyes and see the truth of the wonders - which is no less amazing.

The best thing about post-Roddenberry Star Trek is that it becomes more complex in terms of morality and personalities, and therefore far more relevant to the real world. It is no longer a Utopia, but perhaps more of a realistic cultural extrapolation of where humanity might find itself a few centuries from now.

Hampshire: The Report

2009-03-19T16:33:00.004Z

Firstly, if you've not read my earlier post on the subject of creationism-in-schools advice being given to Hampshire County Council, go ahead and read up. I'll still be here when you get back. All done? Good.

I have located a copy of the report I mentioned. It can be found here:

"Teaching About Creationism and Evolution in Schools"

It begins in a reasonable fashion - and in fact continues likewise until the section vaguely headed "Evaluate". Up until this point, I've not had a major problem with anything said, and in fact it sounds like a decent attempt at providing support for conducting a debate on this matter. After that point, however, it all gets a bit Disco.

For instance, it is quite insistent on the difference between creationism and intelligent design, and actually uses the words "the scientific theory of intelligent design". This is horrifically misleading, disingenuous and false. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory; it is barely an hypothesis (which, incidentally, is the word they use earlier in the report - consistency please?). Almost as bad is their use of the word "scholar" to describe such unthinking dogmatists as Behe and Minnich

What is also telling is that, despite the fact that the language being used seems to be pluralist, it is clear that the report is centered on a Christian worldview. Creationism is defined as "typically" conforming to Genesis and the Bible, whereas "Intelligent Design" apparently doesn't. There is no mention (except through the most vague implication) that other faiths involve a creation myth. I know we're nominally a Christian nation, but our non-faith schools are generally meant to be cosmopolitan in this regard.

There are numerous other reasons I dislike this report, including its quoting of William Bloody Paley and not the counter-argument from Dawkins et al; but the main question I wanted answered was: where is this debate intended to take place? In the science class, or in religious education?

I was disappointed. There was nothing there to suggest that this was being proposed as a discussion to have in a particular setting or context. It could well be that this report itself has a context of which I am unaware, and the text toward to top of the report was sufficiently indecipherable to allow that perhaps that information is contained within that section; but if this is not the case, and the debate is being offered regardless of context, then I have to conclude that the news items surrounding this report are misleading.

That is not to say that there is nothing to worry about. This report is indicative of a greatly disturbing trend in our education system: there is no doubt in my mind that this report was compiled by a creationist and that the intent behind it is to push discussion of intelligent design into places it does not belong. That being said, however, there are a few questions that still need to be asked:

1. Where are these discussions intended to take place?
2. Are they trying to get intelligent design discussed as a scientific theory?
3. How seriously is this report being taken?
4. Are there advisory bodies in opposition to, and on the same level as, SACRE (Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education) that are pushing the scientific, secularist viewpoint?

I'm going to do my best to get answers to these questions, but until then I must conclude that the report is deeply worrying, but not as bad as it could be. Intelligent design is still not a part of the science curriculum, and this report doesn't suggest that it should be.

Hampshire = Kansas? Not yet.

2009-03-19T10:43:00.003Z

Being a Hampshire lad by birth, I was somewhat perturbed by the news that Hampshire schools are getting "advice" on creationism. Now, don't get me wrong, there's nothing inherently wrong with that fact - but it's the kind of phrase that sets off alarm bells.

The worry is that it's a "foot in the door" scenario which could lead to creationism* being taught in the classroom alongside science, and being given equal credence. Of course, this need not necessarily be the case here: at the moment the language being used to refer to this move is stressing advice rather than curriculum.

It is important that teachers know how to respond to inquiries from students about the relationship between creationism and evolution, and therefore an "advice package" seems like a jolly good idea. Exactly how good an idea it is, though, depends solely on the content of the report. I have written to Hampshire County Council asking them for a copy of the report, after having no luck searching online (there seems to be a direct link on the RichardDawkins.net forum, but at the time of writing this there's a quite serious problem with the website).

So until I find out what is actually advised, I'd like to take a moment to think about what I'd like it to say. Ideally, as far as the science classroom is concerned, I think the advice should be simply about how to deal with pupils' questions, and not how to raise the subject itself outside of that context. Creationism has no place in the science class. But that does not mean that pupils' questions on the subject should be ignored or simply rebuffed. It is important that they are informed about why creationism is not science, and why it is not appropriate to discuss metaphysics in the science classroom. Also, I have no problem with creationism - and its relationship with science - being discussed in religious education classes; that's where it belongs.

What I am afraid of is that this is not the tone that has been taken by the report; that, instead, it advises that it is entirely appropriate and even necessary to discuss creationism as a rival theory to evolution and the big bang. This is the area in which the creationists have been gaining most ground: in simply muddying the waters. The real problem will be that introducing guidelines for talking about religion in the science classroom will confuse rather than inform.

I'm all for getting pupils to discuss these issues, but everything that is done in the context of a science lesson should be science. Metaphysics should be checked at the door; it has no place in that setting.

* I use the word creationism as synonymous with so-called "intelligent design theory" because I hope that by this point nobody has any illusions. They are one and the same.

Antidisestablishmentarianism: a Comparison

2009-03-15T08:00:00.000Z

Yes, part of the reason for this entry is that it is a legitimate excuse to use that word, much the same as happened with my A-Level Politics coursework. But at the same time, it's also a very interesting subject, particularly when taken comparatively. Some of the issues I want to address here are: the prominence of the issue of the separation of church and state in the United States and United Kingdom; the reason for those different levels of prominence; and any implications there might be for the two societies. No doubt the discussion will range more widely, but that's the basic structure I have in mind. So let's begin.

I suppose the best place to start with this issue, as with most, is to define it. The separation of church and state is the phrase used to describe either the distance that organised religion keeps from the apparatus and activity of state politics, or the official, constitutional provisions for that distance. In short, it can refer to the rules, or to the reality. The U.S. and the U.K. have very different situations in both cases, and those differences are the subject of this entry.

Firstly, then, let's look at the prominence of the issue - how high up is it in terms of public concern/awareness? Well, in the U.S., there are few more visible issues than the separation of church and state, with strong advocacy groups on the matter and implications for such diverse issues as prayer in schools, "In God We Trust" on the currency, and even gay rights. In the U.K., meanwhile, the issue is hardly on the radar at all; certainly there are similar issues with gay rights, creationism in the classroom, and various others, but rarely do discussions on these matters make mention of the established nature of the Church of England. It doesn't seem to affect either legislation on, or public opinion of, the major issues.

So what is the formal position of religion in each of these nations? In the United States, there is a clear clause in the Constitution (Amendment I, concerning freedom of expression) prohibiting the establishment of religion by the state. What does this mean? Well, a fairly good example is the situation in the United Kingdom, as it happens: we have what is called an "established" Church here, the Anglican Church or Church of England. This means that not only is their brand of protestantism the official state religion (the monarch is still required to be a member of that religion because he or she is the nominal head of the Church), but also that members of that Church have seats in our national legislature.

Without going into great and tedious detail, the House of Lords is the upper house of the British Parliament, but has less legislative power than the House of Commons. It is also the highest court in the country. Among its 743 members, there are 26 bishops of the Church of England, known as the Lords Spiritual. It is hardly contentious to suggest that the presence of such figures in the legislature of the United States would be controversial and hugely unconstitutional.

So why is there no such uproar here? Well, the right answer (to the extent that there is one) is of course terribly complex and most likely involves matters of social history, and the complex interplay of power between the state, the church, and the people. But at least a part of the reason is simply that we don't have a constitution; there is no hallowed sacred document to which we can refer to determine if a certain practice or state of affairs is "allowed" by the rules upon which our nation was founded. Because, when you get right down to it, it's hard to say exactly how or when - or even if - that happened. Certainly there have been a slew of treaties (the latest coming as late as 1927), but there has never been a document drawn up to compare significantly with the strict and explicit terms of the U.S. Constitution.

It is strange to note how reversed the situation seems to be between the U.S. and the U.K.; one might expect the country with overt religious influence in the legislature to be the one that experiences a great deal of religious influence on legislation. But rather, it is the nation with explicit prohibition of religious influence on the legislature that is the arena for so much religious lobbying and debate. So on the one side of the Atlantic we have a secular government and a predominantly religious society, and on the other we have a nominally religious government and a - for all intents and purposes - secular society. Is it a case of causation, or correlation?

The answer is, of course, complicated. I am tempted to argue that it is a combination of the two on both sides of the ocean, but in the States it seems to be more causation than correlation, and in Britain more correlation than causation. I don't think it would be too controversial to suggest that the majority of British subjects are generally of an apathetic disposition with regards to religious matters; even the few who do attend church seem to be, for the most part, relatively liberal. Equally uncontroversial to me would be the suggestion that the U.S. was settled predominantly by religious persons, many fleeing persecution. For one reason or another, religion has persisted in a much stronger way in the U.S. than in Britain.

Now this is just speculation, but it seems to me reasonable to suggest that the current state of affairs, with religious lobbyists jostling and campaigning ceaselessly to crowbar some small modicum of their faith into the affairs of state, could have its genesis in the very constitutional measures designed to thwart them. Imposing secularism upon a strongly religious society could quite conceivably lead to strong resentment and this very kind of campaigning. Now, I'm not saying that the constitution is the only reason for the current state of affairs, or even that this is a worse situation than exists in Britain. Indeed, I think that the U.S. constitution is the only thing standing in the way of the country becoming an overtly religious one at the governmental level.

I can't purport to know the reasons why Britain is, broadly speaking, a secular society. Perhaps it is partly because of the establishment of religion; perhaps it has instilled in the religious groups a kind of complacency. But I doubt that this is the case. The fact of the matter is that in Britain, the Church enjoys far greater official power than religious groups in the U.S., but far less public support. As far as creating secular legislation is concerned, ultimately, having a secular society is more important than having a secular government.

The Power of Metaphor, or, Don't Blame Santa

2009-03-10T10:50:00.006Z

Before I begin, I ought to warn you that there is no real conclusion or argument to be found in this entry; it is rather intended as a collection of musings hoped to inform but primarily provoke further thought. Most of what is contained herein is part of an ongoing internal discussion I'm holding with myself, and this forms something of an update as to the point that that debate has reached. So open your mind, and read on.

I have made mention before of my status as a pagan atheist. It's not just an incidental matter for me, either; while I don't believe the Gods or spirits are actual entities capable of any kind of interaction with this world, I believe they are powerful and practically useful metaphors for a great deal of human life. The Gods we choose for ourselves - if choose them we do - represent those principles which are most important to us. For this reason I tend more toward the Northern European pantheon, in particular the Norse Gods. If I had a Sabbath like the Christian Sunday or Jewish Friday, it would be Wednesday, named for Odin, a.k.a. Woden (Woden's Daeg -> Wednesday) - for he is the figure with whom I most identify.

He is the symbol for wisdom, courage, and honour - among many other things. He is also seen as the guardian of travellers, much as the Christian Saint Christopher. All of these themes are ones which ring true with me: I aspire to be wise, courageous and honourable above all else; I can think of no qualities I would rather possess. There is also an emphasis on respect and reverence for nature in the Northern European religions, which it won't surprise you to find has particular resonance with me.

So why, you might ask, don't I just identify with those qualities directly instead of expressing them through the language of mythology and religious faith? It is a good question, and one which I have asked myself on many an occasion. I think the answer, as far as I can fathom it, lies in what I refer to as the "power of metaphor"; that is, the linguistic and emotional force that can be expressed only in terms of phenomena that transcend the physical, evidential world. Humanity is known for being a fickle race, and a claimed devotion to an abstract concept such as justice seems to hold less force, somehow, than a claimed devotion to a deity personifying that concept. It is an appeal to the eternal nature of these ideals as opposed to the sometimes-fleeting nature of humanity's adherence to them.

Another example of this that I recently found out about (thanks to my friend the Nietzschean feminist) is Laveyan satanism, which again is essentially an atheist religion. The ideals it favours are individualism, a realistic approach to humanity's darker impulses and an acceptance of these drives as an inevitable an essential component of understanding what it is to be human. There is also a strong element of anarchism, a rebelliousness and hostility toward authority that is reflected in few other mythologies. But it is atheist - and specifically non-Christian, a claim which cannot be made by theistic Satanism - because it entails a commitment to these ideals only, not a belief in a literal Satan or lesser demons. There is much in LaVeyan Satanism which rings true with me and values which are shared by the pagan faith.

On a tangentally-related topic, I also want to address the topic of Santa Claus - not as a metaphor, but as a belief tantamount to religion but treated as a socially-acceptable falsehood. This line of thought comes from listening to my backlog of Point of Inquiry podcasts, specifically the interview with Todd C. Riniolo. He noted an objection to the widely-used argument in sceptical circles that it is little wonder that people are credulous in adulthood when they are raised to believe in Santa Claus as children. It is rarely used as a forceful argument, usually instead forming a arbitrary comment; but nonetheless is worth addressing. Riniolo's objection is that there is simply no proof that belief in Santa during childhood leads to credulity in adulthood. Indeed, he argues, the "debunking" of Santa constitutes many a child's first truly sceptical activity.

I thought this was a very interesting point, and it contributed to an ongoing internal debate I've been conducting with regards to how best to raise a child in the sceptical mindset. It hasn't helped me make up my mind on the subject, but has made a significant contribution to the complexity of the issue. Is it wrong to lie to one's children in this regard, or is it a valuable experience that teaches them that deception (harmless or otherwise) is everywhere and that nobody is to be trusted implicitly? On a personal note, I think I "grew out of" notions like God and spiritualism around the same time as I did the notion of Santa. I don't recall being annoyed at the deception, either; at some point it just became a childish absurdity and I scoffed at my parents for persisting in the charade.

So would it be better or worse to deny one's child this experience? Should we rather explain as best we can the lessons that would be learned through it, rather than perpetuate the white lies? At the very least, it seems that the lies do less harm than one might think.

Virus-avoidance advice

2009-03-07T10:07:00.002Z

There has been a great deal of news and rumour recently about a new virus or worm targeting users of FarceBook, MurdochSpace, and the other one. Normally not the sort of thing that would find its way to these pages, as it seems to be a completely genuine danger and not in any way fraudulent. What prompted this blog post, however, was the public reaction to the news; I know of people who have decided to not use the networking sites at all while this thing persists. Not an unreasonable precaution, but why deny yourself the distractions of social networking if it's not necessary? And according to the details of this case, it's really not.

As with most digital viruses, the best advice for avoiding infection seems to be "don't be a moron"; though it does appear that this worm is more sneaky than most. It's also not new - it's been around since at least December, when there was a big news event on the subject - see articles from The Guardian, PC World, BBC News, The Huffington Post and Reuters.

This virus, known as "Koobface" can be avoided by simply knowing the way in which it operates. The best source for this information seems to be the video here, the summary of which is that the virus works through sending messages from infected accounts to friends of that account. The message comprises of a link to a video, ostensibly on YouTube, and a phrase or two suggesting that the target is featured in that video. Now listen carefully to the next part, because it's the one thing you should remember about the Koobface virus:

The only way it can infect your account or computer is if you click that link and then install what it requests that you install.

So the obvious advice is: don't do that.

Knowing how these individual virii operate is the key to avoiding them - besides good old common sense, anyway. If you get a link to a video with a message suggesting you're in it, don't follow the link, delete the message. If in doubt, ask your friend if the message is genuine. There is no evidence to suggest that the virus is so clever as to be able to respond to such an inquiry.

Darwinism

2009-03-06T07:46:00.004Z

There have been times on this blog when I have alluded to my dislike for the word "Darwinism". Well, now I have an excuse to let rip with a rant on the subject, courtesy of a new article on BBC News by Andrew Marr:

The danger of worshipping Darwin

I have a lot of time for Andrew Marr; I think as a historian and particularly as a presenter of history, he has a great deal to offer. But in this case, he is either ignorant of the facts, or simply creating a controversy for the sake of having something to say on the matter. Because what does his article actually argue?

The majority of it is taken up with what he himself describes as "trivial" comparisons between evolution and religion, such as the observation that the natural history museums of Oxford and London bare a striking resemblance to cathedrals. Religion has heretics, evolution has heretics - Richard Owen. Religions have holy artifacts, evolution has holy artifacts - dinosaur bones. Religious people make pilgrimages, and Darwin's journey could be compared to such a trek. Marr's admission of the triviality of these weak parallels points to exactly how useless and arbitrary they are.

After this horrendous triviality, he goes on to what might be called the "meat" of his argument. Which is that the more striking similarity between what he calls "Darwinism" (shudder) and religion is that it "offers both a method and a message". The method is the scientific method of observation and experiment, contrasted with the religious method of prayer and mantras. The message is about the importance of the web of life, as opposed to religion's emphasis on, I suppose, nonsense.

He claims that "to deal with the consequences [of climate change and species extinction], we have to turn to scientific evidence, which will be brought to us by - yes - Darwinists." This reveals the definition of "Darwinism" with which he is working in this article: to my eye, it seems to be nothing more than a synonym for "scientist". The only criteria by which he judges someone to be a Darwinist is her adherence to the scientific method, something which predates Darwin himself by a good number of years (try hundreds if not thousands).

This is why I object to the term "Darwinism". Because that's not what it's describing. The word seems to describe a dogma whereby one man's word is taken as unquestionable truth; this is not the case with Darwin, as often it is scientists (those Marr would not hesitate to describe as Darwinists) who are the first to point out the flaws in his theory. Indeed, he himself devoted much of his great work On the Origin of Species to detailing the holes and flaws in what he had produced, challenging if not pleading others to improve upon it. When you use the word "Darwinism" to describe the pursuit of the scientific method, which unavoidably questions Darwin, you are setting up a confusing, oxymoronic term.

So what is the conclusion of Marr's argument, answering the question he asks at the start, "In this year of his double anniversary, are we in danger of turning Charles Darwin if not into God, at least into the founder of a secular religion?"?

"Darwinism, as I take it, is a creed of observation, fact, a deep modesty about conclusions and lifelong readiness to be proved wrong.

I don't say it offers everything that religion can. But I do say that, in this respect, it is better.

However we celebrate the old man, we mustn't let his work crust into creed or harden to dogma."

So, basically, there is no danger of Darwinism (taken as he takes it, in that oxymoronic way) turning into a religion - as long as we don't let it turn into a religion.

Thank you, Andrew. That was a truly ~~tautological~~ useful piece of journalism.

Maybe I'm just bitter because when I heard the TV programme announced upon which this article is based, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, I was hoping beyond hope for some kind of adaptation of the Dan Dennett book of the same name, which I guarantee you is a worthier read.

Scepticism and Denial

2009-03-02T10:36:00.003Z

During an interview on Point of Inquiry with Kendrick Frazier, the editor of The Skeptical Inquirer, I was interested to hear him address a point on what is often called "denialism". This is the phenomenon whereby someone who has grave doubts about a certain doctrine or set of facts is labelled a "denier", such as with holocaust denial, climate change denial, or vaccine denial. It is a point of annoyance for many freethinkers like myself that these deniers are given, by themselves and others, the epithet "sceptic" (so a climate change denier becomes a climate change sceptic and so forth).

Surely, though, that's what they are - to some degree at least. They are "sceptical" of the claims made by those who believe climate change is real, or that the holocaust did happen, in so much as they doubt the claims. It is, as is so often the case, a matter of definition. In common parlance, there is nothing wrong with calling these people sceptics - it is much more usually seen as a position of doubt than as an attitude toward inquiry and evidence. But when the context of the conversation changes, and scepticism takes on its newer meaning with which readers of this blog will be familiar, it is no longer appropriate to refer to them in those terms.

The new meaning of sceptic, which has its origin in the U.S. with figures such as Carl Sagan and James Randi, is associated not with denial or promotion of particular doctrines, but rather an outlook. This outlook is one of free-thought, rational discourse and unbiased inquiry, and it is therefore a mistake to associate it primarily with doubt alone. Under this definition, those who oppose the ideas of climate change and the holocaust, for instance, should by no means be named as sceptics. Their minds are not open to the evidence, and their position is not flexible, as that of any good sceptic (under this definition) should be.

What they do is far more accurately described as "denial" than "scepticism", so I agree with Kendrick Frazier that they should be referred to in this way. It is all part and parcel of the process to stake a claim on the word "sceptic", and turn it into something far more positive than the curmudgeonly, narrow-minded, blind denial with which it is still too often associated in everyday contexts. Will this endeavour ever bear fruit, and is it worth it? Those are questions for another day. For now, it is enough to remember, whenever you hear someone referred to as a "sceptic" with respect to a particular issue, to ask whether the word "denier" would be a more accurate description.

What else could it be?

2009-02-20T11:02:00.005Z

Via Neil Gaiman on Twitter, comes the news that not only has Plato been revived from the dead, not only is he now writing for The Sun, but his fabled lost city of Atlantis has been found. Quite the news day.

In typical Sun fashion, the article could hardly be more credulous; nothing is considered as alternative explanation for the find. But when the Telegraph article on the same subject follows suit, perhaps credulity is indeed the answer. Especially if Plato says it's true.

Here are but a few reasons to be sceptical (other than the very good reason of simply having this as a default position): the reported "city" is the size of Wales. Does anyone else think that maybe that's just a little on the large side, even for a fabled city of legend? There isn't the kind of detail you'd expect to see in the outline if this was indeed a city the size of a relatively small country. There are only ten or so "streets" in either plane, and no less distinct, narrower lines in between to indicate smaller streets or buildings of any normal size.

Secondly, Atlantis is generally accepted in scholoarly circles as being nothing more than a narrative, heuristic device by Plato to illustrate his points and tell a story. In this way it can be seen as any product of imagination as opposed to history: nothing of the Atlantis myth (aside from the sheer scale, a classic exaggeration of such tales) cannot be traced to something historical with which Plato would have been familiar; wars were certainly no stranger to the Athens of his lifetime, and even a city lost to the sea overnight would have been a familiar concept.

Finally, we have the problem of all the other discoveries of Atlantis over the years; as recently as 2004, sites have been found and claimed to be the fabled lost city because of some feature or other that matches with Plato's rhetorical account. What makes this one more likely than the others?

Now, I don't know enough about oceanography or indeed Google Ocean to postulate convincingly on what this picture might show - the possibilities as far as I can think are some kind of geological formation, or perhaps an artifact of the mapping process. I'd welcome any suggestions, but will take some considerable convincing that what this picture shows is a city our only source of knowledge for which is the probably-rhetorical account of a philosopher well known for talking out of his arse.

----

UPDATE: The Daily Mail, of all things, has "dashed hopes" that Atlantis had been found. Guess what it was. Yup, an artifact of the mapping process.

"Details for the ocean maps on Google Earth come from sonar measurements of the sea floor recorded by boats - and the area around the Canaries was mapped by boats travelling in a series of straight lines."

Well that explains that, then. Is the magic gone, now that the truth is known? Only in a literal sense; the explanation of how this illusion happened is still very interesting. Or maybe that's just me.

Small Wonders #1: Evolution

2009-02-13T14:48:00.003Z

My head is somewhat fuzzy with The Ill at the moment, so just a quick entry today in case coherence is in short supply.

What better way to inaugurate my "Small Wonders" series than with Darwin's Theory of Evolution, something so often taken for granted? It seems common sense to say that life as we know it has evolved from less complex forms, and yet look at it more closely and it is truly an absolute wonder that one man (ignoring, as most of the world sadly does, young Wallace) formulated, researched, developed and presented a theory with such staggering implications for virtually every field of study.

It seems so elegantly simple, and yet at the same time mind-numbingly complex. "Species change over time" is the pithy, easily-understood summary of literally a lifetime's work, and it has branches reaching off into innumerable other lifetimes' works. Genetics; medicine; zoology; biology; even ethics and philosophy were profoundly affected by the dawn of the Theory.

I greatly recommend finding out more about this subject; there should be no lack of freely-available information at this of all times. It is quite simply one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of all time, and one which can be appreciated at any level - from its simplest summary to the greatest levels of detail.

At Long Last...

2009-02-03T20:01:00.002Z

It was announced in the later hours of yesterday that the 3rd and 4th of October 2009 would see a TAM in London. I am, to put it mildly, rather excited by this news.

Those who know what TAM is have probably already heard this news; for those who don't, TAM stands for The Amaz!ng Meeting - an annual conference in Las Vegas sponsored by the James Randi Educational Foundation. It is a gathering of atheists, sceptics, scientists, secularists and freethinkers of all colours. There is also a healthy dose of wit and jocularity to be had, of course. We all know of the connection between intelligence and comedy...

Not only is it guaranteed to be stuffed to the brim with absolutely fascinating keynote lectures, but it's also an opportunity to meet like-minded people in an environment where there is no need to disguise one's scepticism. It's a shame that the wider world is so often hostile to free debate, but TAM is an oasis of reason in the harsh desert of ignorance. Yes, I'm somewhat looking forward to it.

If you want to learn more, here's the (somewhat terse) news in the official press release; they're also on Twitter and FarceBook.

I hope to see you there!

Ignorance and Obfuscation

2009-02-02T15:47:00.004Z

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds.

"More than one-fifth prefer creationism or intelligent design, while many others are confused about Darwin's theory."

Right from the start, we have a misleading headline which suggests (not explicitly, but leaves open for misinterpretation) that half of Britons are creationists. In fact it's less than one quarter.

The real story here is that, to my mind at least, the creationist campaign - particularly that of intelligent design - has succeeded in blurring the issue. While I don't know that more people believe in creationism, I think more people are under the impression that there is doubt where no serious rational doubt exists. I can't seem to bring the previous figures to hand, though - so if you know what they were, please let me know - particularly if I've got it wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if this poll returned the exact same results as last time, actually. It wasn't that long ago. Also, let's not go over the many ways this data could be skewed - I'd at least want to know what questions were asked before trying to draw any sensible conclusions.

I'm all in favour of having these issues out in the open where they can be discussed, but that's not what we're dealing with here. Creationists are campaigning to get their rubbish accepted to the same degree as evidence-based theories, and disguising it under the banner of freedom of speech and open debate. Scientists are not blameless, either - more needs to be done to promote the public understanding of science, which would hopefully prevent a quarter of people from simply being "confused" by evolution. Those who bear the overwhelming burden of responsibility here, though, are the media; while there is a great deal of good science on the BBC and elsewhere (Attenborough being the absolute pinnacle), there is too much dumbing-down, and ignoring of science stories in favour of sensationalism and big headlines.

There is no easy solution, nor one single person or group to blame. What I do know is that 50% is too high a proportion of the population to be in any serious doubt about the theory of evolution.

Cursed Cowell

2009-01-29T09:36:00.002Z

I'm almost one hundred per cent certain that Simon Cowell has been cursed more than once. So the question is, why did this instance become news?

"She [...] said, 'You're all doomed'.

"Then we had a really bad session, the worst ever, in fact."

Is there even a point playing the "spot the logical fallacy" game with this? I'm not sure I've ever seen a clearer case.

Does this mean a witch put a curse on the MSN news website? Because it's reall bad reporting, possibly the worst ever, in fact.

Small wonders

2009-01-28T07:48:00.002Z

By way of a new semi-regular feature on this blog, I intend to write a number of short pieces on the small things that one can so easily forget about, but which are nevertheless quite amazing when one stops to think. It is basically meant not only to inform and remind my readers of these small wonders, but also to reinforce the numinous aspect of atheism and scepticism. I've decided there's not enough "holy crap this is amazing!" on this blog, and the new discoveries provoking that reaction are more or less covered by the main science blogs out there such as Pharyngula, Bad Astronomy, and Not Exactly Rocket Science. So I'm left with the stuff hiding in plain sight.

Look out for this new feature, coming soon to A Sceptical I near you. Early posts in the series are planned to cover aeroplanes, electricity, and cats.

A New Hope?

2009-01-21T20:38:00.000Z

I was among the many millions of people who tuned in yesterday to witness the historic inauguration of the 44th president of the U.S.A.. It was as superb a speech as I had come to expect from Obama, and it was nice to see and hear true oratory art return to what is arguably the highest public office in the world.

But of course it is the content of the speech that truly matters, and here again he did not disappoint. Again he made history (to the best of my knowledge) by becoming the first president to acknowledge the existence and importance of atheists and agnostics in their inaugural speech. Even better than this, however, was the promise that science would be restored to its rightful place; the scientific community had been given promises along those lines throughout the campaign - and it was truly gratifying to see it given such prominence.

The overwhelming theme of the speech, however, had a distinct secular humanist feel, one of shared responsibility and a positive belief in society's ability to effect change.

The future looks, despite the present dark, a lot brighter than it has for some time. Thank you to every American who chose hope over fear.

A year of my Sceptical I

2009-01-15T07:28:00.002Z

Well here we are, one year to the day since the birth of this blog. A lot has happened in that time, and all in all I'm pleased with the result; I remember the first excitement of getting a comment from someone with whom I'd never had any prior contact. In fact, I'd like to say thank you here to everyone who has commented on this blog over the last twelve months. There aren't many of you, it's true, but I am grateful for every word. In particular that first commenter, who has remained a regular reader throughout the short life of this blog - Andrew of WongaBlog. Thanks for sticking with me!

I was aiming to get 100 entries up by today, but sadly I have missed this target by just a few posts. Not that it matters, of course - and I'll be passing this entirely arbitrary waypoint in the very near future. I have managed to meet my one entry per week target with only two exceptions thus far, which I am very pleased with.

Anyway, to mark this occasion I've been looking back through the archives from this past year, and here I present a few of my choice highlights:

Add pinch of salt before swallowing whole
This was the subject which first sparked my desire to start a sceptically-themed blog. It turned into something of an essay, which I have tried to avoid in more recent months - certainly without use of pictures. It is an examination of a piece of propaganda on YouTube which was being put about by supporters of Ron Paul in the run-up to the primaries. I still look on it as one of the better pieces of in-depth sceptical analysis to have appeared on this blog.

A Cautionary Tale
This was a big moment for me. A very short entry just to bring Messers Fry & Laurie to my reader's attention became that little bit more special when it was linked from Skepchick. It's still awesome.

The Pagan Atheist
My post finally explaining my position on mixing paganism with atheism. Quite a popular hit on google since, it seems, and one of my better entries.

Fictional Sceptics in Pop Culture
In the first of what has become a series of posts on the subject, I discuss the importance of fictional representatives of scepticism, particularly in sitcoms - in which they are everyday people who just happen to have a rational outlook.

The importance of antidote
Here I wax verbose about the links between two of my favourite subjects: scepticism, and philosophy as therapy. It's hardly surprising the subject was on my mind, given that the latter formed a significant part of my MA dissertation.

Home Turf and Away Turf
A pair of entries on the relationship between science and religion, which got a significant number of comments between them.

The Life, Death and Legacy of Deep Throat
One of my better recent entries, this one examines the character of Deep Throat, the informant who leaked Watergate to the press. His significance for scepticism is greater than one might expect.

Still in the pipeline at the moment are posts about the links between scepticism and idealism, an examination of Obama from a rational perspective, and of course the second part of my look at Star Trek.

In the meantime, thank you again for reading my little blog - I hope it was as good a use of your time as it has been of mine.

MP ignorant, offensive

2009-01-14T15:15:00.005Z

MP brands dyslexia a 'fiction'

I accept that Graham Stringer MP has the best interests of children at heart, and wants to improve standards of education by introducing a system of synthetic phonics, something that has show promise in trials in Scotland. I'm all for that.

But to do this by attacking dyslexia as nothing but a myth is misinformed, misguided, and wrong. There have been studies conducted using FMRI which apparently show clear evidence of differences in physiology (referenced here); the evidence is not yet incontrovertible, by any means, but it is far from being a myth.

Mr Stringer needs to shut the hell up and listen to the evidence before shooting his mouth off and dismissing a troubling condition which affects millions of people. There are better ways to promote more efficient teaching methods - the trials speak for themselves in this regard. If there are funding issues, you can't just call a costly condition a myth and divert its section of the budget. Yes it's a simple solution to a complex problem, but that's not always what we need. In fact, it's quite rare that that would suffice.

Fictional Sceptics #6: Star Trek (part 1)

2009-01-07T09:50:00.003Z

Star Trek is one of the best-realised and most popular science fiction universes in the history of the genre. It is also fertile ground for musings on the subject of scepticism in its content; so fertile, in fact, that I've decided to give over more than the usual solitary entry to the discussion thereof.

In this, the first part, I want to focus on the secular humanism that can be seen in virtually every episode of both the original series (TOS) and the Next Generation (TNG). As noted in this thread on the Richard Dawkins forum, atheism and secularism is often portrayed as amoral; one of the best arguments against this (in the world of fiction anyway) is the Star Trek of Gene Roddenberry*.

If anything, the Star Trek morality is too prominent much of the time, and can make for some rather cheesy (some even tedious) moments of moralising. Wherever one stands on this issue, it's hard if not impossible to make a case that there is no moral message in Star Trek; and equally hard to make a case that the morality that is there is religious in origin. Indeed, back in the early days, it was quite the controversy that there wasn't a chaplain of any kind on board the Enterprise - despite the network executives' attempts to crowbar one in, Roddenberry was adamant.

What is also worth remembering is the radically progressive nature of TOS when it first aired. Not only were men and women portrayed working side by side as equals, but people of different races also. In fact, a previous draft of the proposal to the network for the show had Majel Barrett (later Roddenberry's wife) in the role of second-in-command. While this was more radical than the network could accept at the time, the version that finally aired was certainly still very progressive for its time.

This entry is not intended as an exhaustive essay on humanist morality in Star Trek; for more details on this fascinating subject, see this interview with Gene Roddenberry for The Humanist. Try to ignore the occasional typo or spellcheck error (though I have to say, "Captain Piracy" is one of the better ones I've ever seen). I also recommend the recent Point of Inquiry interview with Tom Flynn.

Tune in next time when I'll be discussing the numinous aspects of Star Trek, and how it shows brilliantly that secular doesn't mean soulless (except perhaps in the literal sense).

* Once Rick Berman took over, coming into the series of Deep Space Nine and Voyager, there is a noticeable trend of greater accommodation for the supernatural, religion, and things that cannot be explained by science. The Bajorans (particularly the crazy weirdness they had going on with Sisko) and Chakotay's Native American spiritualism are the obvious examples. While not intrinsically a bad thing, the secular messages took a substantial nose-dive with the departure of Roddenberry.

Subtext and subterfuge

2009-01-05T12:32:00.005Z

Recently in my travels and travails around the city of Wolverhampton, I came across a substantially large advertisement which looked a little like this:

Which I thought was interesting. Beyond the obvious point being made, the implication that belief in a god and belief in Santa Claus were comparable struck me as unusual in what is a relatively mainstream commercial context. My first thought was that you wouldn't get that in the U.S., at least not without tremendous uproar. Perhaps I'm wrong though - I welcome any comments on the matter.

What was more interesting was the logo in the corner, showing that it was an advert for the Prince's Trust. The Prince (of Wales) isn't exactly well known for his liberal views on anything other than the barmier portions of pseudoscience, so this was a surprise. Perhaps, being simply the founder and figurehead of the organisation, he remains unaware of this particular campaign. Again, I could easily be wrong on this score.

What this allows me to do, however, is mention the charity's work itself. The Prince's Trust has a commendable mission of supporting young people in business and personal development, but I don't intend to give them any money any time soon - and not just because I'm penniless.

Firstly, some of their top dogs (or fat cats) are earning in excess of £80,000 per year. That's too much, even for those at the top, considering the organisation is set up purely for the benefit of young people looking to better themselves. Well, as long as the majority of its income goes on that, I guess it's not so bad, right? Right. Sadly this is not the case. The figures from the 2006/7 financial year are reported as follows on the Wikipedia page:

So from a total income of nearly £51 million, less than £21 million was spent on directly helping young people.

Of course, charities need administration/promotion/etc costs. But 40% of income being spent on the charity's target is simply not good enough.

I cannot deny that the Trust does good work, nor indeed that their advertising caught my eye on this occasion; but it's not a charity I intend to patronise.

Dog bites man

2008-12-23T14:48:00.003Z

The sexual-liberal community is apparently up in arms about the Pope's latest comments on gender theory. I, however, welcome this news because it contributes further to the exposition of the Pope as a right-wing, conservative religious crazy person. Yes, his remarks are offensive and ignorant; but they should not be surprising.

It is quite telling that the majority of negative comments in the article come from Christian sources. It is my fond hope that this trend continues, and the religious right does more to marginalise itself in the eyes of society. I look forward to the day when "Pope spews yet more hateful ignorant pigshit" is not news.

The Life, Death and Legacy of Deep Throat

2008-12-19T08:33:00.006Z

Possibly the most famous informant since Judas, the man known until just three years ago only as "Deep Throat", has died, aged 95. There are a few reasons for mentioning this here.

Firstly, he is an interesting figure for sceptics - he contributed one of the greatest amounts of fuel to the fire of the conspiracy theory culture that any one person has managed. It finally proved, in the eyes of many, that the government cannot be trusted; that there really are conspiracies and cover-ups at the highest levels of government.

Despite this being a perfectly valid point, however, what is rarely if ever taken into account by conspiracy ~~nuts~~ theorists is that not only do conspiracies and cover-ups happen, but so does whistleblowing. Compared to some conspiracy theories, the Watergate scandal was relatively small in terms of how many people knew the truth; and yet someone spoke up. This is a perfect demonstration of one of the mainstays of arguing against conspiracies - the whistleblower argument. So not only did Deep Throat provide conspiracy theorists with the perfect proof, he also provided the perfect counter-argument.

The second thing I find interesting about Mark Felt is his expressed misgivings about what he did; apparently he felt guilty about "betraying his FBI badge". Some critics agree with this assessment and brand him a traitor for turning on the Commander in Chief - a strange assessment considering the FBI is not a military organisation but a civilian one. Either way, I disagree with his critics and argue rather that he upheld his oath as a federal employee; the oath he took bound him to uphold the constitution, not to defend the president.

Of course, it's not as simple as that. As associate director of the FBI, he was also supposed to protect the information relating to the investigation, and send it through the correct channels. This is the obligation he violated, and surely the source of his moral discomfort. What he did, though, fulfilled the spirit of his role rather than the by-the-letter procedure thereof.

Here comes the quick ethical philosophy section, because me being me I find it hard to resist. Mark Felt suffered a moral dilemma, which is what happens when one or more roles in which you sees yourself oblige you to take two conflicting courses of action. In this case, he was obliged to follow procedure, and also to see that justice was done. Normally these two obligations would not conflict - and indeed the theory is that they are more or less synonymous. However, with regards to the Watergate scandal, the procedure was blocked, hindered, and/or corrupt - giving rise to the dilemma.

I say he did the right thing. He chose principle over procedure, and in exposing the Nixon administration's misdeeds, he carried out the most important role of his position. It was, after all, an important founding tenet of the constitution that nobody would be above the law; his obligation to defend and enact this principle overrode his obligation to follow Bureau procedure. What's more interesting than the whole Watergate débacle is his later conviction (and pardon) for approving illegal raids. That has echoes in recent legislation, and involves arguments about the right to privacy and the measures necessary to combat terrorism.

That will have to wait for another day and another blog entry. For now, it is enough to remember the man known for over thirty years only as Deep Throat, and what he did. I only hope that his Alzheimer's provided him some degree of moral peace in his final years, and he died free of torment.

Fictional Sceptics #5: Questionable Content

2008-12-04T07:58:00.002Z

A very brief Fictional Sceptics post today, because this is something which has only just become apparent to me and there's not a lot to say on the matter.

You may or may not be familiar with the webcomic Questionable Content, drawn by Jeph Jacques. It's a usually-amusing serial comic about a bunch of twenty-somethings, most of whom have some pretty messed up issues. You know, the usual. It's not my favourite webcomic, certainly, but it's usually entertaining enough.

Today, it climbed up a little more in my estimations by having one of the characters fly off into a rant about metaphysical beliefs and evidence. It may not be much, but it's nice to see the sceptical mindset portrayed as another facet of an everyday person's persona.

It's a shame it had to invoke the clichéd "strict religious upbringing" as the cause of the character's scepticism, but it is true that many sceptics have that in their past. Certainly not all, however - I'm pleased to say I'm part of the exception.

So thanks, Jeph. I'm looking forward to seeing more of this aspect of Penelope's personality.

Brief update

2008-12-02T09:22:00.003Z

Apologies for not writing for a while - I think this is the longest I've gone without uploading a new entry. There's a lot going on at the moment, and most of it is less than enjoyable - this means that updates here are likely to continue to be sporadic for a while. I'll write when I can, but my at-least-one-post-a-week aim might be ambitious.

In the meantime, however, I thought I'd inform you of an interesting development which is in the pipeline. As you may well be aware, London Skeptics in the Pub has been a roaring success, particularly in the last year or so. The sister event in Leicester is also doing well, with speakers booked for most of the coming year and attendance at a decent level. These two groups may be soon joined by a third - one in Birmingham. This is pretty great news for me, as I now live a stone's throw away in Wolverhampton - so naturally I'd love to see it get off the ground.

The main organiser at the moment is none other than Jon Donni, of BadPsychics fame/infamy. There's not yet a website set up, as this is still an idea being tested for feasibility. If you think you'd be interested in attending regular meet-ups with fellow skeptics in Birmingham, then head over to the FarceBook group and put your name down.

Hopefully you'll hear from me again soon - at least one post a week is still the aim - but don't be surprised if I'm a little quiet for a while. I'm still around, the blog is still active, so please be patient with me.

BCA vs Simon Singh

2008-11-23T09:00:00.000Z

You may or may not be aware of the libel action being brought against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association. But if you're interested in finding out more, the current best sources are Holford Watch and the ongoing coverage at Jack of Kent.

The bad news is that the BCA aren't backing off. The good news (as I understand it) is that this means that, as part of the "fair comment" defence, the evidence for and against chiropractic - in respect to the six named child health conditions - is centrally relevant to the case, and will be well and truly put in the spotlight.

An important point to keep in mind, however, is whether this is the correct arena for this matter. Should it really be a matter decided legally, when the legal concept of evidence is so far removed from the scientific one as to be almost indistinguishable? Sadly, it seems to be a symptom of the horrific state of defamation legislation in this country.

Too much to ask?

2008-11-19T10:40:00.003Z

I have no problem with people believing in gods, or indeed holding any supernatural beliefs - I think I've made that quite clear in previous entries here. I also have no problem with people who believe that these irrationalities are compatible with science. I think they're horribly and utterly wrong, but I also accept that they're quite entitled to hold those beliefs.

What I do have a problem with, however, is when this sort of person is appointed to a top position related to science. Such as, oh I don't know, The British Science Minister, who claims to have a "sixth sense". Also, he believes in God and sees no conflict between these beliefs and science.

Also, apparently, the new Canadian Minister for Science and Technology is a doctor of chiropractic.

Is it too much to ask that our top science positions are filled by people with the ability to think critically, and in a scientific manner?

Apparently.

What do you do?

2008-11-12T00:07:00.000Z

You are the presidential candidate of the same party as the incumbent, in the last few months of the campaign. The president makes a controversial decision which, by association, could harm your chances. Polls show that a significant majority of the population does not approve. The press is asking for your comment.

What do you do?

In all likelihood, your advisors will be telling you to distance yourself from the president, and perhaps even go so far as criticising his decision. It's the obvious political choice, as the alternative offers very little advantage - siding with the president may keep some bridges intact, but burning those bridges keeps your chances of getting elected intact.

Some among you may recognise the scenario. It was one of the many complications on the road to the election in the final season of The West Wing. The reason I'm writing about it here is that Matt Santos' solution to the problem struck me as an approach characteristic of the sceptical mindset.

He did not distance himself from the president's decision. However, he also did not simply state his approval of Bartlett's actions. He stated his support for the president and then went about explaining his reasons for doing so - and the president's reasons for doing what he did. He saw that the main reason Bartlett's approval ratings were so low was the presentation of the matter in the media; his tactic was aimed at improving the information available to the public.

Perhaps it was a somewhat naïve move, based on the assumption that the press would report his full explanation and not the simple summary that he sided with the president. But one of the more appealing aspects of this particular presidential candidate is his determined idealism and reluctance to play by the standard rules of campaigning.

There are a number of different branches I could follow from this anecdote, and I probably will do so at some point. A rant about soundbite campaigning; the connection between scepticism and idealism; maybe even a comparison of the West Wing election to the most recent one. For now, it is just interesting to note that, when presented with a dilemma, it's a good idea to make sure it's not a false one.

Nihil illegitimae carborundum...

2008-11-04T10:51:00.002Z

Councils ban use of Latin terms.

I'll admit this right now: I'm an elitist. Oddly, I think people should strive to better themselves with no upper limit to this endeavour, and the people who have succeeded more in this regard should be respected and heeded for their greater experience. I also believe that if you come across a term you don't understand, you should go look it up, or ask someone you think would know. Laziness in this regard is rewarded with continued ignorance. Your fate is in your own hands.

This having been said, however, the headline is misleading. The councils in question are not seeking to ban the Latin phrases in question - I don't know what kind of repercussions might await someone using one of them, but the quotes given in the article seem to make quite clear that it is an advisory step, not a prohibitive one.

I'm all in favour of reducing jargon, particularly in those media which are likely to have a wide and varied audience. But come on, are you seriously telling me that the majority of people get confused by "e.g." - or don't understand "via"? That seems somewhat unlikely to me, somehow.

The only bright side I see to this is that it might prevent people from saying "icksetra" instead of "et cetera", which, what with my being an elitist bastard, really annoys me.

Point of Empathy

2008-10-27T17:02:00.006Z

It was with a certain sense of anticipation that I read a recent entry on Skepchick, entitled My Confession. Not because I thought it was finally Rebbecca declaring her secret crush on me, but because there had been rumblings that Elyse would be telling the tale of her time as a phone psychic. It did not disappoint; what followed was sad, fascinating, and heartbreaking. Go read it now, because if you don't then I'm talking to the wall - this post was entirely inspired by that one.

Usually when I hear something like that, I search for what might be called a point of empathy: something in my own life which I can use to relate to what's going on in the other person's life. In this case, the loss of her sister brought a comparison with the loss of my father, 6 years ago. Did I cope in the same or similar way that Elyse was trying to? My immediate reaction was no - I didn't consciously turn to anything for comfort initially. But then I remembered the Wicca Incident, and realised my story of loss may have a lot more in common with Elyse's than I had first thought.

It started, as these things so often do, with my girlfriend at the time (she will naturally remain anonymous here, but for the sake of all those potentially abused pronouns and synonyms, let's call her Alicia. I will not be speculating on her motivations). She was far more spiritual than I was, but being as I was young and in love, it didn't stay that way for long. I've always been fascinated by mythology and magic, so it was perhaps only natural that when spiritualism came calling, it was in the form of Wicca. Normally I would just take an interest, and study it objectively; but Alicia was of the belief that to fully understand you had to experience first-hand. So we became Wiccans.

It was only a matter of time before I applied my new faith in the supernatural (and hopelessly vague) concept of "energy" and some kind of spirit world to the recent loss of my father (for anyone interested in the chronology, Alicia and I started our relationship around 7 months after my father's death; the Wicca came a month or two after that). It was the first time I'd truly dealt with the emotions of it, and I don't know if it was the belief system or just having someone that close to me to confide in, but I finally cried. 8 or 9 months after his death, I finally started mourning for him. I will always be indebted to Alicia for that, at least.

It was the ouija board that finally did it. While I hadn't heard of the ideomotor effect, I was fairly certain that ouija boards involved some trickery, be it conscious or not. Yet somehow Alicia convinced me that we had contacted the spirit of my father, and that it would be a good idea to go tell my mum this bit of news. I will never forget her reaction, and we haven't spoken of it since - and not in one of those "unspoken agreement" things. She actually told me that we would never mention it again. I try not to have any regrets in my life - but it's hard to think of this incident any other way. Is it possible to feel ashamed but not count it as a regret?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this was what set me on the path to what I now recognise as scepticism; like Elyse, I was already heading that way anyway - mostly because of a secular, open-minded upbringing. But I think this was when I first realised the harm that these practices can cause. My heart was no longer in the Wicca, and I gave it up completely when I split with Alicia; the only thing I kept was the name I created for myself and which I now use as my internet pseudonym.

It is because of this episode in my life that I feel able to empathise with people who turn to spiritualism and pseudoscience in order to cope with the loss of a loved one. I can also empathise with those who find it wanting. I am ashamed of what happened, yes, but I do not regret it; because, after the complex interplay of cause and effect had woven their magic, it turns out to have been another push along the road to scepticism and rationality. I cannot regret anything that has brought me here.

Asking the Question

2008-10-27T09:00:00.005Z

There was recently an utterly fantastic post on Skepchick which hit the nail on the head in far too many ways to mention:

My instinct is that if we just keep on being ourselves, unapologetically, things will change. I think things are changing, but socialized norms are tricky things to overcome. Also I think it is crucial that we talk about these things. Making skeptics of all genders examine critically how they think about these issues can only help root out previously unrecognized stereotypes and prejudices, and, hopefully, lead to a more diverse movement.

The comment thread very much does justice to the quality of the original entry, which is unsurprising - Skepchick is always a great source of open, intelligent debate. One comment did remind me of something which I would like to share with you all; you may have seen it already - it did the rounds on the internet a little while ago - but it cannot be viewed too many times. If you needed more convincing that Joss Whedon is a man worth his weight in gold, hearken ye well:

Stop worrying?

2008-10-23T15:43:00.003+01:00

The biggest news in the athiest/sceptical sphere at the moment is probably the "atheist bus campaign" - by which I mean that it is the story that has garnered the most attention among the news/opinion sources I read on a regular basis.

When I first got wind of the idea a little while ago, I greeted it with mirth and interest; I thought it was about time we had some secular, atheist or agnostic messages out in the "real world". It would help stimulate debate, and perhaps make people realise that they're not alone in feeling detached from religion (a feeling I'm sure is more prevalent than generally believed).

Now that the campaign has well and truly taken off (last I heard they had exceeded their target by a staggering £75,000 or so), it's even turning up in the "Politics" section of my RSS feeds - at Liberal Conspiracy and even a spoof by the great Beau Bo D'Or.

Of course, being sceptics, there has been little agreement on whether the slogan that had been settled upon was the right one to use. The first objections centered around the use of the word "probably", and this choice may or may not have been down to advertising regulations not allowing more assertive statements. Others have claimed it's too patronising and will not achieve what it aims to.

The most interesting objections come from an authoritative source, Tracy King at Skepchick.org, who expands on her initial misgivings in this comment. As someone who not only works in marketing, but was also a one-time Christian, her opinion is a very well-informed one on this matter. For her, the slogan not only doesn't cut it, but is actually counter-productive. Sadly, I'm inclined to agree.

The question that needs to be asked when designing this sort of thing has to be about what the effect of the advert is intended to be. As far as I can tell, the motivation behind this one is to get people thinking, talking, and questioning religion, and also to put a friendly face on the alternatives - in this case, humanism. So will the chosen slogan have the intended effect? The general consensus among those discussing it seems to be "no". The thread on the UK-Skeptics Forum has now turned mostly toward what the slogan should be.

I have no experience as a slogan-writer so can do little to offer alternatives; but as far as concepts go, I'd prefer one that didn't evoke "God" at all. I feel that a campaign simply promoting rational, free, and intelligent debate would be more beneficial. The biggest problem faced in this regard is how best to word it so that average people will actually look at it and think.

I don't know how far along the process is as far as the advertising is concerned, but if it's at all possible, those organising the campaign should rethink the slogan in consultation with marketing advisers. The amount of money they have raised is a mandate to take it seriously and do the best job they possibly can.

This is what we were afraid of

2008-10-17T10:25:00.002+01:00

There is a reason I have opposed the majority of the anti-terror legislation passed in Britain in recent years. In fact, there is more than one.

Firstly and not to be overlooked is the simple ideological opposition to the erosion of civil liberties. I don't actually care if someone is suspected of terrorism - that does not, and should not, negate their rights.

Secondly, in regards to the legislation seeking to introduce databases of information on the public at large (such as the ID cards database and the NHS patient information database), there is the concern that the data would be misplaced. It has happened so regularly in the last year or two that it hardly seems to be newsworthy any more. Even if we think the system is necessary, how can we trust the government to keep our information suitably protected?

Finally, and most seriously, is the point that so few seem to grasp. When I raise the subject of anti-terror legislation, I'm sometimes met by the argument that these things are necessary and the only people who should be afraid are the terrorists; the only people who lose liberties are those who arguably don't deserve them in the first place. This misses the point entirely.

It is now unnecessary for someone to be charged if the police want to hold them for up to 28 days. A month, without charge. All they need to do is say "terrorism", and, like magic, superpowers are unlocked. Already we have had examples of so-called anti-terror legislation being used against people not even suspected of being terrorists. A heckler at a Labour party conference, for instance; and, most recently and shockingly, the state of Iceland.

This is the real danger of anti-terror legislation. Whenever it proves expedient, it will be used against those not under suspicion of the crimes it was created to fight.

Which is why I am less than pleased by the proposed Communications Data Bill. "Orwellian" barely does it justice. If you are resident in the UK, I urge you to review the proposed new measures (which are well summarised by the Skeptobot here) and write to your MP. Consent by silence is an awful, awful thing.

"...while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense."
V, V For Vendetta

Fuck (aspects of) the mainstream

2008-10-16T18:08:00.004+01:00

Sorry if this entry is a little incoherent. I'm feeling somewhat crap and yet felt the need to blog.

It's something I see a lot, particularly among the friends I have in what is bafflingly and tediously known as the "alternative" community: a shunning of the mainstream. A friend told me today that she liked a TV series before it arrived on the BBC, but as soon as it did, she went off it because it went "too mainstream". I share the irrational urge to shun things which are being hyped and which are becoming popular; perhaps it's just a result of the questioning of authority, or not wanting to appear conformist. Whatever the reason, it's clear to me at least that it can be an irrational urge: if the TV show didn't change at all simply by becoming popular, then there is no reason to dislike it if you liked it before.

Of course, this is not always the case. Sometimes, when something becomes popular it changes in order to remain so, or become more so. This is often the case in music, and one of the reasons the "mainstream" is so reviled by fans of so-called alternative music: it means that a band will sometimes compromise its style etc. in order to increase appeal.

So, on the one hand, I sympathise with those who sport t-shirts with the amusingly widespread "Fuck the mainstream" slogan. But, as usual, I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. I'm tempted to put the title of this post on a t-shirt too, now.

For instance, as a band becomes more popular, they are more likely to be able to continue making music and touring - and their fans will have greater access to that band. If they make no compromise in their sound, then as far as I can see it's win-win; the only thing they gain that can be seen as negative is popularity, which is not terribly rational to view in that light. Even if they do change their sound, do them the courtesy of seriously considering the change from an aesthetic point of view before dismissing it. Dimmu Borgir undeniably changed their sound as they became more popular, and this has proven less than popular with their original fanbase. But you know what? I like the music they're making these days.

The trend is even more pronounced for a television series: the more people watch it, the less likely it is that ~~Fox~~ the network will cancel it. In a roundabout way, I suppose it makes some kind of sense to curse the mainstream for being so heavily relied upon in this regard - the mere fact that something is not embraced by a lot of people should not condemn it to oblivion and obscurity. But at the same time, the way it is is the way it is - mainstream acceptance allows our favourite shows to continue on and entertain us.

There is a more important message here, for sceptics, rationalists, freethinkers and all the other categories of the sane: the mainstream is to be shunned at your own risk. There is a reason why entire organisations are set up to promote the public understanding of science: if more people understand its value - its necessity - then progress becomes easier. More young people will choose science as a career path; more will consider it an important issue in politics; more funding becomes available to scientific projects.

As much as the state of the mainstream media pains me at present, simply saying "fuck it" helps nobody. What is needed is improvement in standards, and more general promotion of just how useful, important, and cool science can be. We need to work with the mainstream, get rationality out of the shadows, and being freely discussed by the majority of people.

Rebel without an advertising campaign

2008-10-08T10:11:00.004+01:00

There has been an advertising campaign over here recently, in the style of the classic American road movie - girl meets boy, girl gets pregnant, mother doesn't approve of boy, boy and girl shout "screw you!" and run away together. Oh, and in this particular case, the boy is made of cactus.

I was generally uninterested in this, as I am with most advertising campaigns. Until the advert was pulled, after a series of complaints about its content and message:

BBC News: Cactus kid advert ordered off air.

Apparently this is because it depicts teenage pregnancy in a less than demonising light, and its hookline, "for people who don't like water", discourages a healthy diet. Let's take the latter first, because it's easier to deal with.

Discourages a healthy diet. Unlike, for instance, adverts for McDonalds, Galaxy chocolate, Haribo, and every other advert on television? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash. At all. If anyone can see sense in that proposition, please tell me, because it entirely escapes my grasp.

The pregnancy is the more interesting part; as far as I can see, it's there as part of the spoof/homage referring to the classic genre of American road movies. I don't think there is any danger that anyone watching it would take away from the advert the message that "teenage pregnancy is desirable" - it doesn't play a significant enough role in the advert for it to be anything more than a plot device.

Did it "condone teenage pregnancy and underage sex"? Not that I could see. The girl didn't seem to be underage, though she may have been in her late teens. Underage sex (in this country at least) would imply under 16 - and she certainly didn't look that young. As for the pregnancy, all it did was acknowledge that these things happen; if that's enough for some people to claim that it condones the action, then they should be complaining until they're blue in the face about soap operas.

Poor Cactus Kid. They'll never stop persecuting rebels.

Away Turf

2008-10-08T00:58:00.005+01:00

One of the more commented posts here recently was Home Turf, in which I inveighed at some length regarding the logically necessary divide between science and religion. Religion is fine, I concluded, as long as it remains in the private sphere.

My good friend Von made a comment which brought to attention something which was left unsaid (though perhaps implied) in my original rant - why religion is actually OK at all.

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that religion has played a positive role in a great many lives. The advantages it brings are almost too numerous to list, but here's a cursory top-of-the-head job: removes/reduces fear of death; provides consolation after a loss; creates a sense of wonder; absolves from guilt; "explains" everything; provides cast-iron moral code; binds communities together... I could go on, but I won't.

These are the things which should be celebrated about religion; but they should not be considered - as they so often are - the sole domain thereof. As an atheist, I am truly and profoundly insulted when people argue that atheism means amorality; I don't fear death because all evidence suggests that it is the absence of experience, and it is thus senseless to fear it; and a sense of wonder is certainly no stranger to me - nature in all its complex splendour is quite amazing enough without having to resort to supernature.

But isn't it more interesting (and fruitful) to discuss these issues, like the true value of religion and the role it might, should, does - or not - play in society? Rather than obsessing over complete and eternal non-starters like the verifiability of deities? Religious-types: stop offering proof. Scientific-types: stop demanding it.

The first step in looking for meaningful answers is to ask meaningful questions.

Dear YouTube...

2008-10-01T16:27:00.003+01:00

Please stop censoring freedom of expression.

Either: reinstate fsmdude's account and his videos which offend only those who have some wacky beliefs in regard to a biscuit...

Or: define yourselves officially as a Catholic website for only Catholic-friendly videos, and I can begin looking for alternative video-hosting websites to frequent.

Thank you.

[Via here and here. (PZ, naturally)]

UPDATE: fsmdude is now back online. Thank you, YouTube. Now don't do it again.

On a personal note, the dissertation is handed in and the Masters degree is officially over and done with. Posting to this blog should slowly start getting back to normal now. Thanks for your patience.

Blink 8: That's no temple...

2008-09-21T19:45:00.003+01:00

Just a quick one today, as the dissertation is becoming something of a priority to put it mildly. I just got back from my first visit to Stonehenge, which was pretty magnificent. The tour bus I used to get there from nearby Salisbury had audio commentary which included the busting of a couple of myths about the site - so I thought it would be an easy thing to post here in lieu of more substantial entries.

Stonehenge was not built as a druidic temple. The druids were part of a Celtic religious framework which did not exist in Britain until millennia after the stone circle was constructed. It was later adopted by them for use in religious ceremonies, but this was not the purpose for which it was built. It is a Neolithic monument.

So there you go - a popular myth dispelled. Find more information in the following locations:

Stonehenge on Wikipedia
Druids on Wikipedia
Stonehenge at English Heritage
Animated history of Stonehenge from the BBC

Repentance

2008-09-16T10:39:00.000+01:00

It has recently come to my attention that I have been terribly disingenuous to you all. I have been repeating the poisoned lies of Big Pharma and misleading people in their honest pursuit of wellness.

Homeopathy can and does work. The anecdotal evidence is enough to void the claims of any so-called "scientific trial". This doesn't mean, however, that I have ceased to have any problem with homeopathy. I still think there are better alternatives.

I mean, it's just so expensive isn't it? Do we really want to pay that much for sugar (and lactose) pills?

My solution to this problem is something I like to call Haribology. I, like the homeopaths, make no claims that the treatment contains even a molecule of active ingredient; rather, the healing powers of Haribo™ come from the spirit of joy and wellness embodied by the smiling face on the packaging. This instills the very same essence into the tasty, sugary goodness within, and leads to optimal health - at a fraction of the cost of homeopathic remedies.

Not suitable for vegetarians.

...

Hopefully back to regular (and moderately serious) posting within a couple of weeks. As a taste of what's to come, I already have two entries in the making - both quite large, hence not having the time to work on them at the moment. One is another in my "Fictional Sceptics in Popular Culture" series, and the other concerns an interesting and amusing email I received this weekend. Stay tuned.

Home Turf

2008-09-10T21:30:00.000+01:00

Yes, dear reader, you're getting treated to another of my regular helpings of "Why philosophy is great". I'm sure you're suitably thrilled at this prospect.

There is a school of thought within philosophy (generally Wittgensteinian if you're interested) which argues that the most (perhaps the only) important contribution philosophy can make to real life is the diagnosis and treatment of misunderstandings, particularly those caused by language. There are many possible examples of this, such as subjective definitions of "proof", "knowledge", "belief", etc.

As an illustrative anecdote from my own life, I occasionally have arguments (not rows; series of progressive statements intended to establish a consensus) with my dear mother about - amongst other topics - alternative medicine. Toward the end of one such discussion, I made note of the fact that we actually agreed, despite appearances. This was because I had noticed that we were simply operating on different definitions of the word "work"; when considering what it is for a treatment to "work", she includes the placebo effect and I do not. Aside from this, we were making entirely the same points and agreeing throughout; once I pointed out this fundamental misunderstanding, the discussion was less confrontational.

I believe there is a misunderstanding at the core much of the antagonism between science and religion, and it is what will always happen when a naturally rational being attempts to justify their irrational beliefs in rational terms. There is nothing wrong with irrational beliefs, as long as one accepts that they are irrational; as soon as you start trying to justify (for example) your belief in a deity on empirical grounds, you invite, if not outright ridicule, at least a sound defeat in rational debate.

God and all metaphysical phenomena lie outside empirical perception - that is why they're called metaphysical. There is no point looking for evidence because the very (supposed) nature of these things denies the possibility of evidence. All attempts to prove the existence of deities on purely logical grounds, too, have failed miserably and laughably. The fact that claims of the supernatural are exclusively beyond the purview of rational science means that there is a huge gulf separating them from it. Irrationality should never try to justify itself on rational grounds - its very nature precludes success.

This is why I believe religion should be kept on the personal level; as long as it does no harm and doesn't pretend to be rational, I have no problem with it - but society as a whole cannot afford to be irrational.

The only time that science and religion should engage each other is when one is attempting to pass itself off as the other. I won't lie here - it's (almost?) always religion trying to pass itself off as science; because guess what? They think that seeming rational and basing their beliefs on empirical evidence is a desirable trait - cognitive dissonance anyone? The current classic example of this is creationism (a completely irrational belief if ever there was one) trying to pass itself off as science under the guise of Intelligent Design. Apparently there are those who believe that irrationality has a place in science classrooms; this is exactly when science and the rational community should defend with every argument at our disposal, and keep the irrational separate.

The divide between religion and science is identical with the divide between rationality and irrationality. As long as you keep them separate, all is well. But cross over from one to the other and you've got a fight on your hands.

Respect and Guilt

2008-09-03T18:45:00.004+01:00

I will attempt to get through this post without intentional innuendo.

There has been an uproar in Australia recently over a book accused of encouraging girls to take up the didgeridoo. It seems that there are those among the aboriginal leaders who argue that the instrument is a male one and forbid women from even touching it, let alone playing it. [original story via BBC News Online]

The publisher has apologised for this "extreme faux pas", but I've heard nothing regarding what - if anything - they plan to do about it. I'm hoping it will stop at an apology, but would not be surprised if the book were retracted, edited and reissued to remove the offending section.

There is an automatic respect accorded to these ancient tribal customs which is comparable to (and indeed is in places literally) that accorded religion. I don't think I need to necessarily go into why this is unwarranted, especially where oppression based on gender is concerned. Why is sexual discrimination alright when it's done for reasons based on tradition alone?

But further to this, there is often a degree of racial guilt when dealing with the indigenous peoples of Australia, North America, and other such places where they have been less than generously treated in the past. There is a terrible fear of offending these aboriginal societies in the West, lest they bring up that touchy subject of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Now I'm not saying we need to stop respecting them - quite the opposite; I'm saying we need to respect them enough to tell them when they're doing something unjust. Irrational beliefs should not be accorded respect simply by virtue of their antiquity. This even applies to those cultures whose ancestors our ancestors greatly wronged.

Basically, if an aboriginal girl wants to give that big stick a damn good blow, she should be perfectly free to do so.

Damnit. So close.

So what is it?*

2008-09-01T12:44:00.003+01:00

A looming dissertation deadline means that updates here are likely to be weekly at best over the course of September. Also, for the week or two after that I may be too drunk to write coherently. Anyway, on with today's entry...

Oddly enough, one of the most discussed topics among sceptics is the definition of scepticism itself. All seem to agree that it involves doubt in some way, but many also argue that this is not the most important defining feature; indeed, some argue that the perception of a sceptic as "one who doubts" is one which gives a false impression of the endeavour of modern scepticism.

So what is this endeavour? There must be some core principle that unites sceptics, or some certain resemblances between them - or the label of "sceptic" itself has nothing upon which to attach and is thus essentially meaningless. I would submit that rather than characterising it as a disposition to doubt, it should be regarded at its most basic level as a firm belief in the necessary freedom of enquiry. This seems to me to be a fairly solid definition of that elusive core principle that unites all sceptics.

Of course, diversity abounds when we move past that point and build further ideas into the framework - the addition of (still seemingly fundamental) ideals can and does alienate a certain minority of people who nonetheless consider themselves sceptics and promoters above all else of the absolute freedom of enquiry. There are those among the remaining majority, however, who claim that those in the minority are simply misapplying the central idea of scepticism.

For instance, what does freedom of enquiry entail? Presumably that there is no subject off-limits, no taboo and no reason to resist rational discussion of any topic. But does that go to say that equal time should be given over to each discussion? Should the ongoing controversy of string theory be given less attention so as to make way for UFOlogists, conspiracy theorists and psychics? I, and most of my fellow sceptics, would answer "no". Yet there are those who disagree.

Is a sceptic one who agrees with mantras such as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? I'm tempted to say yes. Perhaps it is more clearly expressed, however, by saying that a sceptic is one who changes her mind when presented with sufficient evidence. Obviously a lot of diversity among sceptics occurs because of their varying definitions of where the line of sufficiency lies.

There is too much material out there defining sceptics in negative terms (by this I don't mean derogatory terms, simply that the definitions are negative ones) such as "sceptics don't believe in psychic powers" or "sceptics don't believe in alien abduction". Well, a significant part of the agenda for those making scepticism more visible has to be presenting it in terms of what a sceptic is, and does believe, rather than what he does not. Of course, it is also important that this does not consume the entire agenda; it's all very well promoting freedom of enquiry - but one ought to leave time to carry some out as well.

* 14 Geek Points for whichever smegheads get this reference.

Cows... with Magnets!

2008-08-25T22:59:00.009+01:00

Now here's a headline to set off a healthy bit of scepticism:

"Cattle shown to align north-south"

I'm not going to rubbish that claim straight off the bat, but I'd definitely need a little more proof than a few anecdotes and images before thinking there was something to it. Why would they do that? I'm well aware that a sense of magnetic direction is seemingly quite a widespread phenomenon among Terran fauna, but I have a hard time understanding why this particular ability would be of any use to cattle.

Over eight and a half thousand images of cattle were examined, apparently. That's a pretty good sample size, I'd say; but nowhere do I see the numbers involved in working out the incidence of north-south alignment (if anyone can grab access to the actual article, I'd be grateful for a link).

A couple of other points stood out for me in the BBC report of this: firstly, that in Africa and South America, the scientists carrying out the study noted a north-east/south-west alignment rather than the north-south seen elsewhere; they explain this by pointing out that the magnetic field is weaker there. OK, granted. But why then are they still aligning along a different line? Without seeing the data itself, that sounds to me like whatever method they used to determine significant alignment might be a little too generous.

Secondly comes the speculation of reasons why this north-south alignment might be happening; the lead scientist is quoted as speculating that it could be anti-predatory behaviour.

I'm sorry, what?

Do most predators come from the north or south? Would it not be a more effective technique to have the herd facing in different directions if it's an alert system you're looking for? I can appreciate the use in having the herd facing the same direction - if the need to flee arises, it makes that safety-in-numbers thing much easier to manage. This would seem to be the most reasonable explanation for a herd facing in generally the same direction as each other. But if this is the case, why north-south? Perhaps they just like facing south; perhaps it feels like going downhill...

Basically this sounds like fluff reporting of a half-baked investigation. I'd like to see the numbers involved, but at the moment I remain unconvinced that there is a phenomenon to explain here; I'll agree that in general a herd will face in more or less the same direction. That much is hardly news. The north-south thing, though? Needs a little more work.

--------------------------

EDIT: The story has been taken up by Ed at Not Exactly Rocket Science, and it seems that he's read the article! Here's his take on it. Reading through, it seems like those numbers I was after do actually add up quite nicely; as for the reason behind it, the general notion seems to be that they have as much reason to line up in this way as a compass needle does. It's just what they do. Some intriguing ideas are being thrown around about physiological processes running smoother when aligned with the poles, but these are still at the hypothesis stage.

I wouldn't be much of a sceptic if I didn't change my tune when faced with the numbers. I still maintain my opinion of the original piece on the BBC, though. The quality of science reporting is, as I should have come to expect by now, somewhat south (haha) of optimal.

Feminism and I

2008-08-19T12:38:00.004+01:00

I consider myself a feminist. I am far from being alone in this (Skepchick.org, for instance), but I just had reason to consider this label which I place upon myself might be in need of elucidation.

A friend of mine blogging under the name Lost Reverence recently wrote an entry entitled The Punishment of Women for Men's Own Failings..., and as she doesn't allow comments on her blog, I thought I'd post my feelings on it here.

While I widely agree with her - which has a tendency to happen - I do worry a little at some of the language used, particularly toward the end of the entry. Yes, I suppose that "men cannot control their emotions" - but I'd rather there was a qualifier in front of that, such as "some", or maybe even "most". The problem I have here is that, while promoting the rights and dignity of women (which I fully endorse, as part of being a feminist), it is all-too-easy to fall into the trap of painting all men with the same brush, much as has been - and is - done to women.

I suppose the best way of understanding the kind of feminism I endorse (and which I think has the greatest chance of succeeding) is as being more about gender equality. This is an end which, in the current social climate, can best be achieved by promoting the rights of women, which is why it's usually included under the heading of feminism. What I'm not out to do is deny that there are differences between the sexes - and it's quite possible that emotional stability is one of the things which tends to be found more in one than the other. But the ultimate aim of gender equality, I think, should be to finally be able to appreciate individuals as complex beings in their own right; this would naturally include influences of biology upon them, but would not end there as it so often does today.

On a personal note in response to LR's post, I have had my heart broken* at least once - and despite this fact and the fact of my gender, I also consider myself relatively stable on an emotional level. I certainly don't see any way in which I am punishing my current partner for my past mistakes or failings. But then maybe it's all subconscious and terribly Freudian. I do hope not.

* I too dislike this overly-emotional term. It smacks of rhetoric. Suggestions for alternatives appreciated.

Alternative Flight and our Gappy Friend.

2008-08-09T15:19:00.005+01:00

In a recent QuackCast, Dr Mark Crislip put together a rather amusing satire on the topic of "alternative flight", taken largely from his earlier blog post at Science-Based Medicine. The jist of it is that we should be introducing more alternative modalities into aeronautics just as they have been introduced to medicine; if there's a problem with the plane, don't necessarily just call the engineers - get some Reiki Masters and Tarot readers in there. Crislip's actual satire is far more involved and entertaining than that brief summary, but you get the idea.

Now I do hope I'll be forgiven if I'm wrong in this assessment, but I got the impression that the general point of the satire was to say "you wouldn't apply these crazy unscientific methods to something like aeronautical engineering, so why would you do so with medicine and the science of human biology? It's a fair question up to a point: if the scientific method is good enough for flight, why do people go elsewhere when it comes to their own bodies?

It is a fair question, but the analogy is limited in its scope; a cursory probing will actually adequately answer the question it poses. We created aircraft; the science of aeronautics is pretty complete - we (or at least, those qualified in the necessary fields) know how every last bit of an aircraft works, because we came up with the damned things and have been developing them for over a century now. The same can hardly be said of the human body; we certainly didn't design them ourselves and had only an "ignition" role to play in their actual creation. As for the expertise, even the most qualified and knowledgeable in the medical profession don't know everything there is to know about the function of the human body - certainly not to the extent that aeronautical engineers understand that of aircraft.

This isn't to say either a) that we never will or b) that there is any other way to get the answers than the tried-and-true scientific method. But it does explain why people are far more willing to look into "alternatives" in medicine than in aeronautics: there are far more unknowns. SCAMs are just another God of the Gaps.

Fictional Sceptics #4: Something New

2008-08-03T18:40:00.002+01:00

OK, so my "fictional sceptics" feature was originally named "Fictional Sceptics in Pop Culture". But today I'm breaking with that particular pattern because I want to bring you something that is most certainly not part of the popular culture. It's a short story by an unknown author going by the name of Nick Westwood*, set in a parallel future the better part of a thousand years distant. It's part of a wider collection of stories which will eventually form The Unity Chronicles. Various other background pieces for this collection can be found at the author's page on DeviantART.

The Uraz Research Facility never slept. This was aided by its positioning at the temperate northern pole of the planet, where they experienced only two hours of semi-darkness in every thirty. The sun was at its highest in the sky when Nakato finally lost his temper.

'It's what we're made of! Please try to lift your mind out of religious complacency and comprehend what I'm telling you!'

'I'm sorry, Hari. I'm trying to understand what you're saying but it goes against everything we know about the universe and our place in it. You can't just dismiss centuries of knowledge with a few simple phrases.'

'I agree. But that's not what's going on here; firstly, it's not centuries of knowledge - it's centuries of willful ignorance. Secondly, I'm not dismissing it with a few simple phrases, I'm dismantling it with logic and reason.'

'But how do you know all those old texts are even real? They must have been outlawed for a reason.'

'Of course they were outlawed for a reason; they were outlawed because they run contrary to every teaching of the Book of Unity. Contradictions in matters of fact as well as in the morality of all this new research.

'But that's just the point, isn't it? Science isn't meant to play God.'

'What is it meant to do then, Faerin? Toil away at petty, circular research and find more and more advanced ways for humanity to destroy itself? I don't know about you, but I'm sick of that; and I thought this new alliance would bring the opportunity to break from the old dogma, to give science the freedom it needs to find the truth and improve lives. Do you know that in some respects we're actually less advanced than Earth scientists over a thousand years ago? Before any colonisation had taken place? Does that make even a little bit of sense to you?'

'What did they know that we don't? It's hard to imagine a culture ignorant of space travel could be more advanced than us in any way. Besides, how could all that information just get lost like that?'

'It was "lost" because of the rise of the Church, don't you get it? The fields of genetics, evolutionary biology, cybernetics - all outlawed because of the threats they presented to the Church's theological dogma. Anything they claimed as "science playing God" was made anathema; funding was pulled, and research was legislated against. Before the Church gained dominance, science had made great leaps in understanding exactly what humans were made of, and of what they might one day be capable. The censorship imposed didn't just set us back by decades, it completely removed entire fields of research. Now that we're free of that dogma, I was hoping to to revive the outlawed sciences. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't - one that doesn't appeal to religious authority.'

'I can't, Hari. It just goes against the grain. It feels wrong.'

'Of course it does; that's the point. If we don't challenge these boundaries then our science will remain restricted in the way it has been for the last few centuries. It feels wrong because like the rest of us you were raised in a dogmatic, blindly unquestioning society. All I ask is that you read these texts and then tell me if you still feel the same way. Try to keep an open mind.'

- - - - -

Two days later, Hari Nakato sat at his workbench poring over a set of readings he had just taken. Everything from the texts were being confirmed; every test he ran resulted in the exact predicted outcomes. Just then, Faerin entered the lab. Her hair was unkempt and her eyes bloodshot. Her face bore a strange expression, that Nakato recognised only too well; a conflicted mixture of enlightenment, disbelief, and frenzied excitement. She'd read the texts.

'Hari, they knew how we came to be. There was no Almighty Hand, no mud sculptures, no miracles. They - they actually mapped a human genome, they proved a relation to other apes. The potential for genetic modification, for eradicating disease and deformity even prior to birth... You were right. The ancient Terrans were way ahead of us, they knew things we'd never imagined were even there to know. How could the Church even defend itself against that sort of advancement?'

'Nobody knows for sure; it's astounding that these texts even survived to be honest. The only other history we have left is what we're told by the Church, and as has become abundantly clear, they can't be trusted to tell the truth. I think we can probably assume that they managed to raise a furore over the implications of the research - the morality of modifying "God's Design", and once they'd got their foot in the door they were free to outlaw anything that contradicted their precious book.'

'But aren't we going to do a similar thing with these texts? Who's to say that these are more valid than the Book of Unity?'

'I see you took the message of the questioning mindset to heart; but you seem to have overlooked the most important one - the texts themselves tell us not to take them as unquestionable truths but test them, probe them - doubt them. That's what I've been doing while you were away missing two nights' sleep. Everything I was able to test of what they say is true, Faerin. Everything. We just rediscovered DNA and the origin of the species. Given a few more decades and sufficient funding and personnel, we might actually be back to where we were a millennium ago. Further, if you count the progress we've made in the fields of research that weren't outlawed.'

'God bless the Varangian Alliance.'

'I can think of more suitable ways to put it, but yes. Things are finally starting to look up.'

Nothing to add to that really, I'll let it speak for itself.

* Yeah, that's me.

A sign in the sky

2008-07-30T22:18:00.003+01:00

Apologies for the absence (once again). Work, holiday and a broken internet connection are to blame in this particular case - certainly not me.

Anyway, I was ~~wandering around~~ striding purposefully between one important engagement and another at my university the other day, when a strange sight made me stop in my tracks. Finally, I thought to myself; incontrovertible proof that there is a higher power. Validation of all those stories told as a child, all those bizarre rituals at bedtime.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a tooth fairy:

I always knew. Parents wouldn't lie about that sort of thing.

Clearly this dental daemon also operates a kind of "Bat-signal" style of alert system. That the signal disappeared soon after its sudden appearance only lends weight to this clear-cut fact.

Rejoice, humanity. The proof is given.

Real World Happenings #1: Chariots of the Gods

2008-07-21T22:08:00.002+01:00

OK, so welcome to my third semi-regular feature - Real World Happenings. This is a plan to occasionally document moments in my own personal life in which scepticism has played an important part. I can't promise this will happen often, but it's becoming more regular as time goes on and I gain confidence in this part of my identity.

My mother, much like myself, loves to read books. Recently she mentioned she was reading something called "Chariots of the Gods", as if I would immediately know what she was talking about. In my clearly undereducated ignorance, I did not. She described it as an interesting read, which propounds* an "alternative" viewpoint on the history of the human race; the key point of which is that the origin of life on earth may have had intelligent extraterrestrial origin.

Can't say that I was sold at that point. I leafed through it this afternoon, had a look at the pictures because I wanted the bitesize taster version. My immediate reaction was something like "Bunk; bunk; probably genuinely unexplained; bunk; interesting; interesting bunk; batshit-crazy bunk" and so forth. Not one to simply leave it at that (which would be cynicism rather than constructive scepticism), I delved with gay abandon into the internets. Within five minutes I was able to tell my dear mother that Erich von Däniken's theories had been thoroughly discredited, including an entire book which essentially constitutes a page-by-page refutation thereof.

It should be stressed that, despite the near-complete refutation of Däniken's theories - aided by his own admissions of the fabrication of "evidence" - the book remains a rich source of entertainment and even intellectual stimulation; even if he's wrong, it's an interesting possibility to consider. And as my mother so astutely pointed out, it makes about as much sense as some invisible "God" character.

* Yeah, she didn't use the word propound. You got me.

The importance of antidote

2008-07-19T21:30:00.003+01:00

There are many reasons I see such a strong link between philosophy and scepticism. One of these is probably bias on my part, being a great lover of both and prone to making connections. Another prominent reason, however, can be summed up in the word therapy.

While in other contexts this is a word which would set off some alarm bells - it's one which is used extensively by Supplementary, Complementary and Alternative Medicines (my favourite acronym) to give the illusion of competence where none exists - in this context, it is therapy of the most genuine and beneficial sort.

People suffer from misconceptions. It's just a fact of life that this is the case, and there's nothing we can do to completely prevent this on a global scale. What the philosopher or sceptic is able to do is analyse an argument or a stated position, and identify fallacies. They can then determine the appropriate way of dissuading the person from that misconception (though of course there must be a degree of willing on the part of the subject). This diagnosis-treatment approach is why this particular brand of philosophy is known as therapeutic - and the parallels with scepticism are striking.

This process in scepticism is aided substantially by the wonders of the interwebs and the ever-growing freedom of information. Someone insisting that acupuncture or homeopathy has a proven track record in clinical trials? Ask to see the published research - or better yet, show them the reams of research which contradicts their position.

Of course, an important part of any therapy is to treat primary causes rather than the symptoms alone; and the source of so much of the ignorance and misunderstanding in the world is the mainstream media. For the majority of people, who do not get their news from the internet, the main sources of information are television and the dead tree press - the worst of which are the tabloids. It seems impossible for a story to appear in The Scum that isn't in some way serving the editorial agenda, every story spun to promote the paper's pet worldview.

An example: for one reason or another, lately there has been a rise in awareness of knife crime in the UK; the government is pledging new measures to combat it, and the opposition are using it as further "evidence" that society is going down the pan. The latest crime survey figures were recently splashed across the headlines - crying out things like "crime wave" and "a stabbing every 4 minutes in Blade Britain".

Now, I've spoken before about the evil of statistics in the media, and this is another case of the media twisting the figures to suit their agenda. This is where we need our antidotes, and there are few as effective at bursting the hyperbolic bubble of social commentary as Obsolete, and in this case he certainly doesn't disappoint. His entry on the subject reveals the figures behind the hysteria: 6% of violent crime in England & Wales in the last year involved a knife.

Without going into too much detail (head over to Obsolete's article if you want the full load), the basic point here is that crime is down - and even knife crime in particular has seen a (albeit statistically insignificant) decrease in the last year. Where, then, does this apocalyptic vision of a Broken, Blade-wielding Britain come from? Speculatively, I would have to say that it's probably the media themselves; though the Why is a different matter.

But can you imagine how hard it would be to get the facts were it not for the internet? How much more widespread the influence of the media would be? I shudder at the thought, to be honest.

The internet is a wonderful resource, and one of the best uses to which it can be put is as part of the therapeutic process of scepticism, treating misconceptions and bringing the "antidote" of actual facts to a wider audience.

Fictional Sceptics #3: Stargate SG-1

2008-07-17T16:29:00.003+01:00

Being something of a sci-fi nerd, I have for many years had much love for the movie Stargate, and for its spin-off series SG-1. The latter is, for me at least, far superior - or was until some of the later series anyway. The premise had immense scope, and despite the obvious was far less fantastical than the film.

Rather than focusing on a specific character this time, I feel the scepticism inherent in the show is better seen on the level of concepts, outlook and methodology. There are reams of material suitable for examination here, but as I've been working my way through the DVDs of series 2 I expect most of my references will be from there.

Where to begin? Perhaps one of the series' main appeals is that it takes contemporary-minded people and presents them with revelations that turn their understanding of the universe on its head. It does a very good job of exploring how such people would react to these situations - which includes a good deal of scepticism. Evidence is gathered and taken into account, and above all questioned. Everything is subject to reason. It also does a great service not only to the scientific method but to the passion which goes alongside it; in the episode New Ground there is an exchange between Teal'c and a young man from another planet:

Nyan: "You are proof that my theories have been all wrong."
Teal'c: "Then perhaps you would be better off if I were no longer alive."
Nyan: "Teal'c, I am a scientist. When I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if they were correct. Scientific advance in either direction is still an advance."

And of course, you could hardly find a better avatar of the love and passion for science than Samantha Carter, SG-1's theoretical astrophysicist. It is a tribute to the actress that her eyes actually light up* when she's explaining an exciting new discovery.

What is perhaps the most striking about the general concepts of the show, especially in the earlier seasons, is the juxtaposition of the two main, warring societies: Earth and the Goa'uld. While the former needs little description here, the latter is epitomised by dogma, fanatical religion and unquestioning superstition. Wherever there is fear of their "godlike" powers, the SG-1 team are quick to dispel the myth and deny that there is any magic at work - only superior technology.

There are a few moments in the show which could not be more perfectly symbolic of the scepticism I'm describing. One of these is in the episode Thor's Chariot; a powerful race has protected a people who are approximately at the level of 10th-century Scandinavia, and made provisions for allowing contact when they reach a sufficient level of civilisation. The means of establishing when they have reached this point is a series of tests hidden in a place called the Hall of Thor's Might, which is reached by touching the red stone embedded in an obelisk. SG-1 are told that "it is forbidden to touch the stone".

Isn't that perfect? The first step on the road to civilisation advancement necessarily involves questioning received ideas and mythology. The very activity which is anathema to their parasitic enemies, who run a society based on ideological slavery. Oh, the symbolism!

Anyway, if you've not watched the show, I'd suggest giving it a look - though it can be a trifle silly in places, and stretched the premise to near-breaking point as it aged, there is a great deal of value in it, not least from a scientific, sceptical viewpoint.

* Not literally. That would mean something quite different in the context of the show.

Crackers

2008-07-09T06:13:00.003+01:00

My profound apologies for not updating more often over the last few weeks, I don't really have an excuse. There is another Fictional Sceptics entry in the making, but it may take a little while. In the meantime, I'll point you at a great post from PZ Myers, who is getting irate over a cracker:
I find this all utterly unbelievable. It's like Dark Age superstition and malice, all thriving with the endorsement of secular institutions here in 21st century America. It is a culture of deluded lunatics calling the shots and making human beings dance to their mythical bunkum.
He does get so wonderfully eloquent when he's mad. The comments are also, as always, worth reading; the first one makes a very strong point - basically, that you'd think passing the body of Christ through one's digestive system would constitute significant abuse.

A momentous occasion indeed...

2008-07-01T15:16:00.003+01:00

It is to Messers Darwin and Wallace that I dedicate this post, in honor of the event that is sadly no longer remembered, and in recognition of the impostors that aim to discredit and dismantle their great work. Tell me dear reader, do you know what day it is?*

150 years ago today, the idea of natural selection was presented for the first time to the public - beginning something so revolutionary that its impact can be neither estimated nor overestimated. Your task for today is to read this post from the Beagle Project, and tell someone about what you read therein. Just mention it in passing, if you like, that today marks 150 years since one of the most momentous events in the history of science. You don't need to bore your audience with the microscopic details if they're not interested - just get the word out. This is a day that should be marked with more than a mere ripple through the science blogging community.

* With apologies to the Wachowski brothers, and 18 Geek Points to anyone who got the reference

Sacred Sodding Cow

2008-06-29T01:11:00.002+01:00

You'll sometimes hear that even the die-hard sceptics have a so-called "sacred cow", something which is excepted from their otherwise critical inquiry. The form of this can sometimes be surprising, like the otherwise-perfect scientist who nevertheless believes that the idea of God is perfectly compatible with their rationality. It recently occurred to me that I too have one, which no matter how rational I try to be, still nags at my intuition.

So I give you my holy cow: Sod's Law. Also known as Murphy's Law in the colonies, it concerns the perception of the world as generally contrary in nature. If something can go wrong, it will.

Clearly, this runs counter to the rational model of reality which would state that in a given situation in which there is an even chance of either of two outcomes, repeated trials should result in approximately even results. Sod's Law, however, states that if one of the two outcomes is less desirable than the other, that is the more likely to happen.

This is probably the result of a particular world-view, call it pessimism or cynicism perhaps. It would make sense that someone under the influence of this outlook would be more likely to commit confirmation bias, noticing only those times at which something does go wrong, and of course not mentally registering everything that goes smoothly. Even if one's mindset is less skewed than this, it is understandable that things "progressing as normal" would be less easily remembered than setbacks and general awkwardness.

I think this will just be an ongoing battle for me, having to continually remind myself of the actual odds involved, and that my desires do not have a direct effect on outcomes. It's comforting to know that I'm far from being the only one suffering from this misconception, and that it's really not all that bizarre.

Total Eclipse of the Art

2008-06-24T09:31:00.004+01:00

I am a big fan of literature. I have a great many books, and have been known to go to the reading room in the British Museum to just bask in the glow of so many great works. It's an awesome sight.

I also love mythology, which is of course inseparable from my love of literature. A substantial part of my upbringing involved education in the Greek myths such as Theseus and the Minotaur, Icarus, and - of course - Homer's Odyssey. I also studied the latter in some great detail during my A-level in Classical Civilisation, so while I don't consider myself an expert on these matters, I'm far from uninformed.

No wonder, then, that this headline caught my eye: Celestial Clues Hint At Eclipse In Homer's Odyssey. It seems that a couple of scientists have been piecing together "evidence" from the text to work out a date for the fall of Troy, using the apparent solar eclipse near the end of the Odyssey as a reference - such eclipses being terribly rare, of course.

I don't really have a problem with the endeavour itself (though it's a little like someone in a thousand years' time trying to work out the exact dates of the events described in Arthurian legend). Presumably however, they would be familiar with another Greek myth: Procrustes. Procrustes was a bandit who would invite guests to lie on his iron bed, and then remove limbs if they were too tall for it, or stretch them on the rack if they were too short. The details of the myth are largely irrelevant here, and all we need take away from it is the derived word "procrustean", for it is a good word and a useful one. It refers to any endeavour which strives to fit the evidence to a pre-existing theory. The well-known logical fallacy of "cherry-picking" is a similar concept.

I can't help but think that there's some procrustean chicanery going on here - 1178BCE is the year they've identified as that of the nearest solar eclipse, which is fair enough. It's the sort of event you'd expect to be remembered, and if the story is true then yes it would be passed on. But the other celestial events are another matter: if the naming of planets after gods dates to around 1000BCE, then even if the poet or poets were familiar with the practice it's unlikely that they would be able to accurately associate the movement of the planets with events which were purported to have happened several centuries previously.

Even if one accepts that, however, there is one line in the article which just made me cringe:

"Not only is this corroborative evidence that this date might be something important," Magnasco says, "but if we take it as a given that the death of the suitors happened on this particular eclipse date, then everything else described in The Odyssey happens exactly as is described."

Oh, ok. So the Greek underworld exists as described, there was at least one real Cyclops, who was the son of - wait for it - Poseidon. A god.

Please, scientists, leave the literature alone. It's all very fascinating - and possibly historically valuable - but art is art. As if Troy didn't do a good enough job of pissing all over some of my favourite mythology.

Faith in Science

2008-06-23T14:44:00.004+01:00

This morning I was catching up on my podcasts when I heard something familiar said about the divide between religion and scepticism in society. The point wasn't laboured, but I felt the need to explore it myself - so here I am.

It regards the public campaign for critical thinking, and the criticism of this from the religious camp. Their argument is that atheist pots are simply calling the theist kettles black when they criticise them for preaching their dogma. Isn't scepticism just another dogma spread by its adherents in the same way as religion?

Well, no. While the public presentation and the processes of dissemination can seem similar, the point which is being missed by the theist side of this argument is that what sceptics and critical thinking proponents are advancing is basically the opposite of dogma. What we are advocating is not faith - it is the absence of faith, the end of reliance upon faith. It is simply a questioning mindset, a process of reasonable doubt rather than a set of unquestioning and unquestionable beliefs.

Science is not being held up as the source of all knowledge and wisdom in the same way that sacred texts are by their adherents. The most important difference, overlooked by the aforementioned critics, is that self-doubt is built in to the scientific outlook; this is forbidden - or at least frowned upon - in religion. At its most basic, to promote the sceptical cause is to promote the freedom of inquiry; to call this "just another faith" is to completely misunderstand and misrepresent that view.

Concussion versus Compression

2008-06-20T01:06:00.003+01:00

Something new and exciting today, dear reader. This is the first guest post on A Sceptical I, brought to you by my friend who goes by the name Asclepius. Asclepius authors a medical blog over at Hippocrates Got Lost, described as the account of "a Nursing student staggering through the mundane and the insane". He's here today to help dispel a medical myth which is, in my experience, very widespread. So without further ado, here are the words of Asclepius:

"He's taken a knock to the head. You've got to keep him awake, the concussion might kill him!"

This is a misconception held by almost everyone I have ever met, including a few healthcare professionals. Its not easy to challenge an idea that has been reinforced with every generation.

Concussion is by far the least dangerous of all brain trauma. The word says it all. The brain has been shaken, it doesnt like being shaken. The result may be felt throughout the body. Nausea, Dizziness, Slurring, Difficulty Concentrating. The brain will restabilise from a concussion. Assuming the trauma hasnt caused any other problems there is no reason their condition should deteriorate.

A much greater threat is commonly referred to as Compression. Anything from a major to a very minor blood vessel in the brain may have ruptured. It may be so minor the patient doesnt show any stroke symptoms. However when the blood that has leaked out of its conduits coagulates (usually against the lining of the meninges) it becomes harder and denser this pushes the brain away from the side of the skull and compresses it. This is a medical emergency and can only be treated with surgery.

You can have a concussion without having compression. This is the case for most people. However If you knocked your head hard enough to blow a vessel you will have experienced a concussion (assuming the patient isnt on thrombolytics such as warfarin or has just been treated with streptokinese. The idea of keeping a patient awake for as long as possible after a head trauma is to assess any deterioration in their state. They may descend into diminished awareness, they may demonstrate extreme behavioral changes. This deterioration is a good indicator of one of two things -

1. A compression.
2. Some fat bastard has kept you awake for 18 hours and all you want to do is sleep off your headache.

To conclude -
Concussion = Non-Life Threatening.
Compression = Brown Trousers Time.

I make no apologies for any technical precision lost in making this post ready for the general public. I also realise I may have misspelt a few of the words unique to my profession.

I would like to thank Darkwinter for giving me the opportunity to act as a guest author on his blog.

Fictional Sceptics #2: House, M.D.

2008-06-15T09:00:00.004+01:00

House is one of my favourite shows of all time, one of those rare instances of greatness on the otherwise-wearying Box of Blight. I won't bother giving you a thorough synopsis of the general idea behind the show - I'm sure you're skilled enough at the intertubes to track down the information if you require it. Suffice it to say that my entry today regards the eponymous character, Doctor Gregory House - flawlessly played by fellow sceptic Hugh Laurie.

It's hard to know where to begin with House; there is so much about him that simply screams "sceptic". He is a champion of deductive reasoning and the scientific method, a great critic of religion and anything remotely false or non-evidence based. Perhaps, as with my examination of Lisa Simpson, it would be best to take a look at a typically illustrative episode as an example.

Season 2, Episode 19: House vs. God. A young preacher is brought in after collapsing during a faith healing session (itself a great scene, he asks for a doctor after praising the healing power of Jesus). God apparently talks to this particular teenager, prompting House to consider psychosis as a possible symptom. "If you talk to God, you're religious; God talks to you and you're psychotic."

The kid's first trick is claiming that God had spoken to him of a female physician harbouring vengeful thoughts about a co-worker. This is true of Doctor Cameron, and both she and Doctor Foreman (the co-worker in question) are somewhat impressed by this. House is not, as he could see for himself the body language the boy had picked up on. It's a classic trick of psychics and the like, and though a useful thing to bring attention to it's hardly difficult to debunk.

Slightly more impressive at first glance is when Boyd, the patient, tells House that God wants him to invite Doctor Wilson to his poker game. House's first reaction is to tell Wilson to stop talking to his patient, but Wilson denies having done so. It remains a mystery until it is revealed that Boyd has been talking to Grace, Wilson's liver cancer patient; Wilson has been seeing her socially for a short while and has kept it a secret. Nevertheless, it is she who has passed on the information about House's poker game.

The big mystery, however, is the "miracle" that takes place in this episode. Boyd was wandering the halls in a daze after a complex partial seizure, and came across Grace. He told her not to worry, and asked God to make her whole again. Nothing much is thought of this, until Wilson scans her liver and finds that the tumour is shrinking. The team gets to work trying to diagnose some medical reason for this, but get nowhere.

Until, that is, House reaches one of his trademark epiphanies. All Boyd's symptoms are explained by the virus herpes encephalitis, which he transmitted to Grace when he "healed" her. The virus attacked her tumour first, shrinking it temporarily. Rare, yes, but not unheard of. This is the traditional medical fare of the show. As House asserts, "There is nothing in the universe that can't be explained - eventually."

This is not to say that House is the perfect sceptic, of course - a man with so many problems is hardly a candidate for being the perfect anything. While he always makes diagnoses based on the evidence available, he is reckless and will often skip over further testing and move straight onto treatment - or trust his instincts rather more than a doctor probably should. He will also make assumptions based on his less-than-generous view of human nature; while this often works in his favour, it does sometimes obstruct the diagnosis process.

He is, after all, and like us real sceptics, a flawed human being. But he remains a great example of rational thought and critical thinking on television.

Genies

2008-06-12T22:50:00.002+01:00

A nice whimsical post today, as I'm feeling rather jolly due to travelling to the Midlands for the weekend. A few days of seeing old friends - and spending some much-needed time with my other half - await.

I've scheduled a pre-written entry to go up while I'm away, so that'll keep the blog ticking over nicely. Today, however, I bring you a joke (that's mildly NSFW) about one particular danger of superstitious, uncritical thinking.

A Husband takes his wife to play her first game of golf. Of course, the wife promptly hacked her first shot right through the window of the biggest house adjacent to the course. The husband cringed, "I warned you to be careful! Now we'll have to go up there, find the owner, apologise, and see how much your lousy drive is going to cost us."

So the couple walked up to the house and knocked on the door. A warm voice said, "Come on in." When they opened the door, they saw the damage that was done: glass was all over the place, and a broken antique bottle was lying on its side near the broken window. A large black man was sitting on the couch and asked, "Are you the people that broke my window?"

"Uh..yeah, sir. We're sure sorry about that," the husband replied.
"Oh, no apology is necessary. Actually I want to thank you. You see, I'm a genie, and I've been trapped in that bottle for a thousand years. Now that you've released me, I'm allowed to grant three wishes. I'll give you each one wish, but if you don't mind, I will keep the last one for myself."
"Wow, that's great" the husband said. He pondered a moment and blurted out, "I'd like a million dollars a year for the rest of my life."
"No problem," said the genie. "You've got it, it's the least I can do. And I'll guarantee you a long, healthy life and now you young lady what do you want?" the genie asked.
"I'd like to own a gorgeous home complete with servants in every country in the world," she said.
"Consider it done," the genie said. "And your homes will always be safe from fire, burglary and natural disasters!"
"And now," the couple asked in unison, "what's your wish, genie?"
"Well since I've been trapped in that bottle and haven't been with a woman in more than a thousand years, my wish is to have sex with your wife."

The husband looked at his wife and said, "Gee, honey, you know we both now have a fortune, and all those houses. What do you think?"
She mulled it over for a few moments and said, "You know, you're right. Considering our good fortune, I guess I wouldn't mind, but what about you honey?"
"You know I love you sweetheart," said the husband. "I'd do the same for you!"

So the genie and the woman went upstairs where they spent the rest of the afternoon enjoying each other. The genie was insatiable.

After about three hours of non-stop sex, the genie rolled over and looked directly into her eyes and asked, "How old are you and your husband?"
"Why, we're both 35," she responded breathlessly.
"No kidding." He said, "Thirty-five years old and both of you still believe in genies?"

Compulsory religion

2008-06-11T20:41:00.003+01:00

I'll not dispute that religion is one of the central aspects of our modern society; that much is sadly a given. But what I want to discuss today is the question of whether children should be subjected to compulsory religious studies in school. This is the case here in England to the best of my knowledge - up to the age of 14 a child has no option but to study religion alongside science, English, maths, and history. Then, even if they don't choose it as an option at GCSE level, they still have to take one compulsory (non-assessed) class a week alongside their choices.

What is the value of this?

I can understand and agree with almost every argument in favour of the subject - excepting the evangelical "convert the heathens" viewpoint of course - but still fail to see why it should be a) religious studies in particular, and b) why it should be compulsory. I can see the value in studying other cultures (naturally including religions), and yes that could be seen to be a good thing to have as compulsory. But please, let's have "cultural studies" or something; I can't help but feel that an emphasis on religion is doing nothing to shake the grip which superstitious nonsense has upon society.

The other aspect people might want to involve as a positive in favour of religious studies is the fact that it allows children to think about "the important questions in life" - the classic being of course is there a God? But religious education doesn't allow this in my experience. It either takes a purely cultural/historical viewpoint, teaching what it is that various faiths believe, or it takes belief in God (usually Judeo-Christian) for granted. Then it basically turns into big questions like "what does God mean to me", and examining the nature of omnipotence etc.

While the latter form of enquiry can lead to worthwhile places, it is rarely given the chance because of the religious bias. In order to free up the endeavour for these "big important questions", one must remove as much bias as possible. The neutral standpoint in this abstract area is epitomised by philosophy. This love of wisdom is the most pure form of inquiry - no question is off-limits, and the more abstract or the more challenging the better. Should philosophy replace religious education as compulsory in schools then? I believe so, but there is one subject that I think should trump it.

Critical thinking. I took a short pilot course in critical thinking in college - it was worth half an A-level as far as qualifications were concerned, but it was worth far more in terms of the skills it provided. If it is well-taught, it can give the students the ability to think clearly and perceptively about virtually anything. Brian Dunning of Skeptoid fame has just released a free 40-minute introductory video for the subject, and I would like nothing more than for this to be played in schools all over the world at least once. It's called Here Be Dragons.

In closing, I'd very much like to see all compulsory aspects to religious education removed from the curriculum. I have nothing against educating our children in cultural and philosophical concepts, or even against making a certain degree of that education compulsory; but why must it center around nonsense? Why can it not be centered around an open, enquiring mind - no matter what conclusions that mind reaches?

Blink 7: The Moon Effect

2008-06-05T23:59:00.004+01:00

A classic anecdote, particularly among such people as police and paramedics, is that (for example) the real nutters come out when there's a full moon. They don't usually go so far as to say that with every full moon comes a night with nothing but nutters, but do seem to suggest that there is a significant trend. If you want a good selection of anecdotes on this score, head over to the Yahoo! Answers page, "Full moon - does it bother you?" (be prepared for some industrial-strength ignorance).

The full moon has also been popularly associated with all sorts of things, like rises in suicide rates, crime rates, accident & emergency admission rates, alcoholism, natural disasters and many many more. Here's the important factoid for you to remember: there is no evidence to support these hypotheses. And yes, studies have been done.

What this is is a classic example of confirmation bias - one only notices the events which confirm the hypothesis that one has (consciously or otherwise) adopted. I won't spend a lot of time debunking all of this - it's a "Blink" post after all - so I'll just point you at a very useful SkepDic entry: "Full moon and lunar effects". There's a substantial reading list at the foot of that article if you want to look further into this subject.

Anarchy!

2008-06-01T18:14:00.006+01:00

I've decided I need to blog more about political matters, if for no other reason than to keep my interest in that area alive. I mean, it was half of my undergraduate degree - I don't want to have wasted all that time. There's plenty of scope for it from a sceptical viewpoint, too: commentary on current legislation, criticism (or indeed praise) of particular politicians or parties for the quality of critical thinking they display; for this particular entry, I want to dispel a myth that has grown in the public consciousness. As you may have guessed from the title, my topic today is anarchism.

I don't think I need to go into an awful lot of detail as to the nature of the myth I'm attempting to dispel - it's a fairly familiar one after all. It is the view that anarchy is synonymous with chaos and disorder, and most usually associates it with civil disobedience and a refusal to recognise any form of authority whatsoever. There are many reasons for this portrayal, not least among them being the agenda of the ruling and elite classes. Obviously anarchism is a clear threat to their privileged position.

The other main reason behind the public misunderstanding of anarchism is its glamourisation in pop culture, such as the punk rock movement exemplified by the Sex Pistols. This really solidified the perception of anarchism as an extremist, disruptive and anti-progressive view; it also added touches of anti-intellectualism. All of this, ironically enough, has served only to marginalise and anathematise the idea, which was very much the purpose of the elitist agenda.

So how should it be perceived? Well if you know me at all by now, you'll know where I'm going to start: the word itself. The Greek word "Arkhos" means chief or ruler, and of course the "an-" prefix denotes a negative. It is simply the view of a society with no leader, no chieftain - no head (hence the term "acephalous"). This is not to say that there is no organisation or law in such a society - nor indeed that it would be primitivist and anti-progressive. In academic circles, the term "anarchism" is usually taken to refer to an anti-statist position, and "anarchist" to one who wishes to see the apparatus of state-governed society dissolved.

All very well, you might say - but what do they seek to put in its place? This is where the most surprises lie for those whose grasp of anarchy is simply an acceptance of the popular, chaotic image: they don't expect the anarchist to propose anything beyond the destruction of the state machinery. As a matter of fact, there are a great number of differing views within anarchism over exactly what form society should take.

Much of this disagreement stems from the level of authority of which the anarchist wishes to rid society - if it is simply centralised national government, then there are many options for organising people on a local level. If, however, they wish to enshrine the individual as the sole source of authority of every kind, then the result is inevitably the kind of chaos generally associated with the word. Clearly the more productive views are toward the former end of the spectrum, and there are many reasons why the latter would not work - or even be true anarchism.

There is much to be said in favour of an anarchist society; greater liberty being the most obvious and enticing. It is quite easy to conceive of a world in which people are able to function as a cohesive society governed not by elevated officials but by general consent. There is no reason why such a society would be amoral, as the popular depiction would have us believe - any more than would be true of an atheistic society. Indeed, there is an understandable trend toward atheism in anarchist thought.

The biggest problem for anarchism as a political ideal, however, is that it really is an ideal. It relies far too heavily upon goodwill and co-operation if it is to function at all well, and it is clear to anyone with even the most basic understanding of human nature that it simply would not work - the strong and unprincipled would rise to the top and exploit their natural position of power. I once wrote an essay on anarchism, and the quote I used to summarise at the end was this, from Andrew Vincent's Modern Political Ideologies:

Apart from some of the more rigid and strange absurdities of individualist anarchists, the communist, collectivist and mutualist anarchists express a millennial vision of what we would really like to be in our better moments, but which we know is relatively hopeless.

Just bear this in mind when you next hear the term "anarchist". In the true sense of the word, an anarchist is not a terrorist or someone bent on sowing chaos, but rather an idealist with a Utopian vision for society that will never be realised.

Did you know...?

2008-05-31T21:54:00.007+01:00

I love trivia; those little "did you know?" boxes always draw my attention in an article, book or website. Maybe it's because the facts in them are often so quirky and interesting - and sometimes amusing as well. There are some of which one must be careful, however - for residing in these normally-trustworthy, friendly little boxes lurks something awful. Something twisted.

Lies!

That's right, dear reader: what you read under the heading of "Did you know?" may not be as sacred as we would like - particularly on the intertubes. I came across a list of "useless facts" recently, and while some I know to be true, and others I can believe, there were some in there that set off my scepticism alarm. These are the sort of things that are never questioned simply because they are trivia - who in the name of Hel cares? Well, I do. I just don't like the idea of ignorance being spread through trivia quizzes etc., masquerading as fact. Maybe that's just me. Here's a couple of examples for you.

Mel Blanc (the voice of Bugs Bunny) was allergic to carrots.

This is exactly the sort of "Did you know" I normally enjoy - completely pointless and yet amusing due to the irony. The irony is a little too perfect, though - and a quick search on the Mighty Wiki page for Mel Blanc reveals the story behind this pseudo-fact:

One oft-repeated story is that he was allergic to carrots and had to spit them out to minimize any allergic reaction; but his autobiography makes no such claim; in fact, in a 1984 interview with Tim Lawson, Blanc emphatically denied being allergic to carrots.

Well, without actually following this through into the actual transcripts of the interview, I would have to say that that about wraps it up for me as far as that little urban legend is concerned. Shall we move onto one which is a little less clear-cut and more, well, strange?

Studies show that if a cat falls off the seventh floor of a building it has about thirty percent less chance of surviving than a cat that falls off the twentieth floor. It supposedly takes about eight floors for the cat to realize what is occurring, relax and correct itself.

Firstly, I'm not even a little bit fooled by that catchphrase of credulity "studies show"... Did they really start dropping cats out of windows of varying height? I feel quite confident in saying probably not. Secondly, I've seen cats fall before - from slightly lower altitudes; they right themselves within a split second - and it's an instinctive reaction, not something that they have to take the time to relax and mentally work their way through. I think if your cat takes eight floors of descent to "realise what's occurring", it becomes a natural selection issue anyway.

Ah, "Did you know?" boxes. If you're not careful, they can make even the more sceptically-inclined drop their guard for a moment, because we read those boxes expecting to see something a little on the edge of credibility. If it sounds unbelievable, then do everyone a favour and read up on it before spreading it around to your family and friends.

Snopes is Dead Handy in this regard, as is the Mighty Wiki.

Blink 6: Beaten to it.

2008-05-28T19:58:00.003+01:00

I was planning a nice short entry in my "In the Blink of a Sceptical I" series to start me back after being MIA in Essayland - this one about the preposterous claim that vaccines cause autism. They don't. The "rise" in autism is a statistical anomaly caused by broadening definitions, greater vigilance and improving detection methods.

However, while reading through my week's worth of RSS updates, I found that I had been beaten to it on this score. Rebbecca Watson of Skepchick.org - a woman with whom, it seems, I am more deeply enamoured every time she blogs - explains it all on her parody Crap-Based Medicine blog:

Do Vaccines Cause Autism?

She has such a way with words.

Substantial post to follow sometime in the next few days.

The anti-progressive sceptic

2008-05-21T11:15:00.002+01:00

It is a sad and oft-times tediously annoying fact that the word "sceptic" has many differing connotations. I've mentioned this before, but it's something I continue to come back to mentally so I thought I'd subject you all to it as well. Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, recently defined "skeptic" simply as "someone who insists on seeing the evidence" - I'm probably paraphrasing but that was the jist of it.

And here's the etymology. The Greek word "skepsis" has an ambiguous meaning also - which has somehow either found its way through to the present day, or is simply coincidentally re-asserting itself now. It could mean "doubt" or "inquiry"; I would say that Phil's definition falls under the latter of those, and sadly the general definition in the public mentality falls under the former.

This is certainly not helped by those who term themselves sceptics in relation to a particular controversy, such as climate change sceptics, moon landing sceptics, or AI sceptics. Unsurprisingly for those who know me, it's the latter on whom I wish to focus today - though much of what I say can be generalised. Use your discretion in this regard.

I don't know if John Searle has ever been explicitly termed an AI-sceptic, but he certainly is one. I'm currently writing an essay on his arguments against the Turing Test, and while they're very intelligent, eloquent and influential, one can't help but get the impression that he is simply against the idea of an intelligent machine or computer program from a very ideological perspective.

It has been suggested that Searle's objections to the possibility of machine intelligence will one day simply be made obsolete by the progress made in the scientific and technological fields; that he and his supporters will have to give up their position when faced with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Eventually, proponents of AI claim, there will be a program which is capable of passing the unrestricted Turing Test. I find this a hard assertion to disagree with, as it's a little like denying that there could be intelligent life somewhere in the galaxy - it makes no sense to rule it out simply on the grounds of what we can observe today.

However, I don't think that any evidence will persuade "Searleans" away from their anti-AI prejudice, and Searle's Chinese Room Argument gives them the perfect excuse. It is based on a program that is capable of passing the unrestricted Turing Test, and as such, means that even if a machine did everything it could to fool you into thinking it was a human, the "AI-sceptics" are still able to deny that it thinks for itself, or understands in any way what it's saying and doing. The only reply one can give to this is to say that there is exactly the same amount of empirical evidence for the program's understanding as there is for a human's understanding.

This is the fundamental difference between sceptical doubt and sceptical inquiry - the former can lead to dogmatism and an arrogant refusal to face evidence and adapt one's ideas to suit. The latter is true open-mindedness, in the most beneficial sense. But I'll admit bias in that regard.

Fictional Sceptics #1: Lisa Simpson

2008-05-20T20:31:00.005+01:00

She may be perpetually eight years old, but Lisa is the voice of reason in Matt Groening's The Simpsons.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a few examples of Lisa's scepticism in action - the most obvious of which is the episode The Springfield Files (starring the voices of The X-Files stars David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson, as well as Leonard Nimoy). I'll share with you the wonderful opening line delivered by Mr Nimoy:

"Hello, I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies - but they're entertaining lies; and in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer, is no.

That really sets the scene for the whole episode. The basic storyline is that Homer gets tanked up at Moe's Tavern and has to walk home - through the woods. He gets spooked by various things along the way, and finally comes across a glowing, willowy figure who approaches him and tells him not to be afraid.

Everyone is sceptical of his story at first, especially Lisa who quotes odds from "Junior Skeptic Magazine" of alien life visiting Earth. Finally however, they manage to capture shaky, hazy video footage of the "alien" which, despite the poor quality, snares the attention of the entire town. Meanwhile, little Lisa insists "There must be a more logical explanation."

And indeed there is. As all the town stare aghast at the glowing figure (and threaten to break its legs), Lisa steps forward with a flashlight and cuts through the glow to reveal a certain Montgomery Burns. He's high on painkillers and had a vocal chord scraping; the glow comes from a lifetime of working in the nuclear power plant. Occam's Razor in action.

This is only one example of many, of course; mysteries abound in The Simpsons, and with few (if any) exceptions, Lisa is the voice of logic and reason. A true skepchick.

Vatican't

2008-05-14T15:55:00.003+01:00

Today, the news rang out that the Vatican officially recognises the possibility of extraterrestrial life. I caught this news from the BBC, wongaBlog and Unscrewing the Inscrutable. As I search for the topic in my RSS feed, I find that Way of the Woo and Pharyngula now also carry commentary on the matter.

Now, one of the arguments you sometimes hear from the frothing lips of creationists is that dinosaurs never existed (fossils are there to test our faith), because it's nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Where, pray tell, does it mention extraterrestrial life? Nowhere that I've heard about. You'd think, if the Bible were the word of God, he might have mentioned somewhere that we weren't his only creation - his only world-building project.

I'd like to present you with an analogy which occurred to me, in thinking about the Vatican's latest madness. It's a desperate act taken to appear relevant to an increasingly outward-looking society; it's an aging dad trying to convince his kids he's still cool. "Look," he cries, as he gets to his feet to the dismay of his offspring. "I've still got it - the old moves are still sharp!" He proceeds to strut some abysmal approximation halfway between the rock & roll two-step of his youth and the moves he's seen his kids watch on MTV. Accordingly, his children react in the only way they can:

"Please, dad, you're embarrassing everyone."

Blink 5: I ain't no damn dirty ape!

2008-05-11T22:30:00.008+01:00

Oh, but you are.

It's another favourite misconception of the anti-evolution crowd that so-called "Darwinism" (a term I strongly object to) claims that we are descended from monkeys. Ironically, their denial of this is accurate but misguided.

We are not descended from monkeys - we share a common ancestor.

The real confusion comes with the terminology, when the uninformed start using the terms "primate", "ape", and "monkey" interchangeably - and also get mixed up over which categories apply to humans.

Humans are not monkeys; we are, however, apes - and indeed primates. So if you were to say "humans are descended from apes", it's a tautology really - like saying John Smith is descended from Smiths. It's necessarily true simply by virtue of his belonging to that family. The same goes for "humans are descended from primates" - except that, in this case, so are monkeys. If the above image (click to enlarge) doesn't explain the difference as clearly as you'd like*, do please check out the very useful Wikipedia entries for monkeys, apes and primates for explicit definitions of each group.

Rebecca Watson put it in beautifully simple terms (SGU #146) with an analogy:

"Basically, we're all a bunch of cousins, grandpa's dead."

Can't top that myself.

* I do actually have an issue with the image - group #6 is captioned "apes and humans", whereas I would have made it "apes (including humans)", because the former implies separation where none exists.

"Deep Esteem"

2008-05-09T08:53:00.002+01:00

Oh those crazy Catholics and their inability to feel the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance. It takes a special kind of mind to continue spouting this kind of nonsense.

Yes, this is about the "news" that Britain's top Catholic, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, has called on religious believers to be more tolerant of atheists and other non-believers. Here's the BBC article. I agree with him on a couple of points - that "proper talk about God is always difficult", and that "God is not a 'fact in the world'". It's an issue of faith, not of reason.

This, to me, is the desperate act of someone who realises that reason is winning. The only way religion can survive is by retreating to its last stronghold where nobody can touch them - faith. It denies any kind of logic, proof, or sense - in fact, anything we routinely use to gather information about the world in which we live.

The real cognitive dissonance, however, comes when you come back from examining the implications of what he said to the words themselves. The first phrase of the BBC article:

The Archbishop of Westminster has urged Christians to treat atheists and agnostics with "deep esteem".

Right.

Anyone else recalling the special places in their crazy Catholic afterlife reserved for unbelievers, particularly those who are outspoken as such? Lakes of fire wasn't it? Something like that anyway. Not exactly places in which one might comfortably feel accepted and treated with anything remotely resembling "deep esteem".

The Daily Mash says it better than I.

Worst. Gift-Giver. Ever.

2008-05-08T10:43:00.004+01:00

[Inspired by this comment from SKIRRID5 on the UK-Skeptics forum.]

God created Man in his own image, and He did give unto him the greatest gifts of all, given not even to his angels: free will, and rationality. For he prized Man above all his creations.

Then He said unto Man, "I have given unto thee the most valuable gifts of all. Now whatever you do, don't use them or you'll go to Hell."

And God did walk from that place, chortling to himself.

Git.

Television Liberation

2008-05-07T17:28:00.002+01:00

This afternoon, I ventured to the cinema to catch the Iron Man film (awesome, by the way). Among the trailers was an advert for Virgin Media, touting their latest innovations - presented by Samuel L. Jackson. Two quotes which stood out in my mind were along the lines of "Now there's never 'nothing on'", and "This is television liberation".

I hope I'm not the only one for whom these words conjured up not a brightly-lit, happy and carefree future of on-demand entertainment, but rather a dystopian vision of unthinking, couch-ridden zombies hypnotised by the room's only source of light and information.

There are few things that have happened to me which liberated me more than moving into a hall of residence in which my TV signal was virtually non-existent. I ceased to be spoon-fed my information by patronising and oversimplified documentaries; I got my news from a variety of sources and was able to weed out the sensationalism which so litters television and the dead tree press.

My apologies for the rant, but if anyone mentions "television liberation" to me again, I'll define it for them in a single word:

Off.

Quaint beliefs...

2008-05-05T22:24:00.003+01:00

Periodically in the news, you'll hear about a backwards society somewhere in the world who have stoned, burned or otherwise persecuted someone on some charge of sorcery, wizardry or witchcraft. There's not a lot you can do except shake your head in dismay and consider yourself lucky you don't live there. Oh, those poor deluded [blank]ians, you say. Maybe one day they'll live in a modern civilised society where we habitually scoff at such things.

One such story surfaced today, about a teacher who performed a magic trick and lost his job as a result - on a charge of wizardry. I felt the usual dismay, shook my head, and counted myself lucky I don't live there.

"Oh, those poor deluded Floridians", I said. Maybe one day they'll live in a modern civilised society where we habitually scoff at such things.

This is why PZ Myers can't believe in Florida any more.

Fictional sceptics in pop culture

2008-05-04T21:37:00.008+01:00

Scepticism needs promoting. If you want me to argue my case on that score, then you'll have to wait for another entry because for this one I'm simply taking it as my major premise. Ready for the minor one?

Pop culture is a major source of potential exposure, particularly given the Western obsession with television. Now all join in as we sing out the conclusion of our little syllogism:

Scepticism needs to tap into popular culture. There. That wasn't too painful was it? Now before we go any further, I'd like to qualify everything that follows with the admission that I don't watch much TV myself and will thus probably be getting things wrong.

I believe it all began in a major way with Scully. She was the sceptic of the X-Files, offsetting Mulder's desperate desire to believe in the paranormal. I need to watch a lot more X-Files before I can legitimately comment further, but all I really wanted to note was the creation of this "historic" character. If there were any major ones before this, please do point it out to me. There was something culturally undeveloped about the Scully character, however (and that's not a criticism) - she was a sceptic as part of her job, in fact it was probably the greatest defining part of the character. It was wonderful to have such views made widely known, and the sceptical outlook thrown into the public consciousness; but the problem was that the strong links between her profession and her scepticism would not have allowed viewers to realise that anyone can be a sceptic.

Cue the next generation of fictional sceptics. Most of these are situated in sitcoms, which is really the perfect medium; the most important reason for this is simply that their scepticism is not their defining feature. They are regular, everyday people (for the most part), who happen to have an outlook on life which is rational and evidence-based. The three that are standing out in my mind at the moment (by no means an exhaustive list) begin with Robin Scherbatsky from CBS's How I Met Your Mother, who was only "outed" as a sceptic in a throwaway comment a few episodes ago. It was a pretty great moment, in which one character was pretending to have seen a ghost and asked Robin to go along with his story. The one being lied to said "Robin you're a sceptic so if you say you saw a ghost I'll believe you." It was a good moment, and I hope they develop that side of her character a bit more in the future.

Next up is Charlie Harper, from another CBS show, Two and a Half men. The great thing about this character is that he's not a "career" sceptic in any way - he's just the guy who shouts "crap!" every time someone mentions chiropractic. He gets plenty of opportunity, too, what with his brother Alan being a chiropractor. So many jokes about his not being a real doctor, and yet somehow it never gets old. But maybe that's just me. The only real problem I see with Charlie is that he's more of a cynic than a sceptic - there's no hint that he's looked into any kind of research on the efficacy of chiropractic, or that he'd even think to bother. The danger here is that, while being a potential vessel for scepticism in popular media, he may be seen more as a naysayer - people who knock "alternative treatments" without thinking about it. There are important differences between scepticism and cynicism which I may well address at some point in the future.

Finally for this post, someone who I consider to be one of the greatest (if not best-known) examples of a sceptical character in popular culture: Doctor John Becker from (yes, CBS again) Becker. He was a bit of an anti-hero character; flawed (horribly, horribly flawed at times) but human - and a great doctor. He routinely spoke against religion, political correctness taken too far, and other such things; he also (like many sceptics) had a bit of a sacred cow in his irrational belief that little people bring him bad luck. Some of the best moments in the whole show were those in which he would praise the glories of science: his normally miserable, gloomy and dour demeanour would immediately brighten with enthusiasm as he talked about the "miracle" of birth and the immense complexity of the human body. It was a brilliantly conceived scene, and me being equally brilliant, I have tracked it down. The only thing you really need to know before watching is that Boyd is a character who "hears God", and who was told by God that his real name, God's real secret name, was Larry. Watch and enjoy.

Speak to me people - any more sceptics in popular culture? Maybe some really obvious ones I've missed?

EDIT: Yes, I missed a couple of biggies. This suggests to me a possible recurring theme on future entries - the first of which may well follow soon.

Chickens and Eggs

2008-04-29T10:37:00.003+01:00

For one reason or another, there's a theme recurring in my thoughts today. It began on the bus ride to university, when I was contemplating the philosophy of language (as I am wont to do of a morning); one of the most interesting questions I've come across is where it meets the philosophy of mind. The question in its basic form is this:

Did our language evolve to reflect our concept of mind, or did our concept of mind grow out of the inaccuracies in our language?

The idea here is the possibility that phrases like "I have a body" mislead people into separating their identity from their physical presence - seeing one's body as a possession rather than as the root of the "self". The question here is asking whether this subtle nuance of the language grew out of our natural perception that we inhabit (rather than are) our bodies, or whether this perception itself came out of our habit of speaking this way. I'm inclined to say the former, but it's still a very interesting and thought-provoking question.

The second part of this continuing "Chicken and Egg" theme came when overhearing a conversation in the library about religion and morality. Someone was reporting someone else as saying that most contemporary morality originally comes from religion. They weren't drawing conclusions from this - just stating a fairly widely-held and generally uncontroversial view.

But it got me thinking: why would we assume this to be true, just because many of the laws of today's society (against murder, as a classic example) are also present in religion, which predates modern law? Do we not even think to consider what predates religion? This relates to Euthyphro's Dilemma, which asks:

Is something right because the God(s) approve of it, or do the God(s) approve of it because it is right?

I love Socrates. I think it's fairly clear to anyone who thinks objectively about these things that religious morality grew out of social morality - rules for living together harmoniously. Modern law then grew out of the influence of religious morality. It's generally a harmless mistake to fail to look beyond the initial cause to the root which gave rise to it, but in some ~~insane~~ rare cases, people are actually arguing that (for instance) atheists should be exempt from human rights, because morality comes from God. I'm not going to go into it here, but it may well come up in the future.

And on a final, frivolous note - the egg came first. Dinosaur eggs, anyone? Fish eggs? If you were to ask which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg, then the question might be a bit more interesting. But I'm just a pedant like that.

UPDATE: As regards the first question of language and the perception of the mind, there's been some research on it done recently. It would appear that there is evidence to support the idea that our language does in fact influence our understanding of things such as what it is to be alive. Via ScienceDaily.

Blink 4: Scientific Theories

2008-04-25T22:35:00.007+01:00

Just a quick post for a large topic here, because it's covered well in other places. Critics of evolution (almost entirely made up of religious, anti-rational crazies) have certain mantras they like to repeat often; one of the most common of these is "evolution is just a theory!" ... Apparently this is supposed to discredit it, and portray it as somehow being in serious doubt.

If only they knew what an idea has to go through in order to become a scientific theory. They are actually confusing "theory" with "hypothesis", the latter being a far weaker position prior to testing. There is very little you can say to people who put forward this view - because it is itself ample demonstration that they don't think for themselves in a critical, rational way and are thus unlikely to be swayed by any argument.

You could try showing them some pretty convincing (and very cool) evidence.

But at the end of the day, elegance lies in simplicity - and I normally end up replying "so is gravity".

Two Quickies

2008-04-23T23:35:00.004+01:00

The news spat out a couple of interesting items today (well, a few actually, but at least one deserves a bit more thought and planning before making it into a blog entry).

Firstly, this article at BBC News holds the important facts for all those who insist on an anthropocentric approach to life: if we keep killing off those other species which share this planet, we will be losing out on a lot of potential medical advances. I'd rather this wasn't the only reason people were out to reverse the worrying trend in species extinction, but if that's what it takes I'll make do.

Second, my heart sank in expectation of ridiculous levels of credulity when I read the heading to this article: "Satan" driver cleared over crash. A woman took two lives with reckless driving, and blamed Satan. She was cleared of the charges. Thankfully for my sanity, hers was found to be lacking - which was the reason she was cleared.

On motivations

2008-04-22T21:43:00.004+01:00

Last night, I attended a Skeptics In The Pub meet-up in London chaired by the great Dr. Phil Plait, who gave a presentation on the "Moon Hoax Hoax" which systematically debunked some of the major claims of the conspiracy theorists. In the question and answer session that followed, the matter of motivation was raised - why do the conspiracy theorists adhere to these clearly irrational beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence? While the discussion touched on interesting ideas, I felt it missed something quite fundamental in our modern Western society.

Ever since the Vietnam "War" (for those who don't know, the quotes are there because war was never declared), there has been a rise in popular anti-establishment sentiment. The wide media coverage of the violence brought home to America and the rest of the world just how horrific these conflicts could be, and that they were being carried out by our elected representatives. Watergate deepened this trend, and from that point on, conspiracies suddenly emerged everywhere you looked.

It is hardly surprising that the single greatest human achievement of the twentieth century became a target for this obsession. While it is certainly not universally the case for every "believer" (some, I strongly suspect, are in it for the lucrative book deals etc.), I think it applies at least partially to the majority. These are the guys who stand to gain nothing from these beliefs, except the satisfaction and sense of superiority that comes with knowing a "suppressed truth". It's a good feeling, and one of which these (often socially isolated) people are understandably loath to let go.

This isn't intended to be an exhaustive answer to the initial question. I don't want to paint all believers with the same motivational brush - far from it. This is just something I think plays a significant role in these matters, and the origins of which I happen to find interesting.

Cectic

2008-04-18T09:35:00.003+01:00

If you don't already read the sceptical comic Cectic regularly, you should. If you need more convincing than my say-so, then take a look at this, latest, comic:

So one question remains - did the author read my mind, or my blog? I'm thinking the former is actually more likely.

Faith, scientists and the legitimate appeal to authority

2008-04-16T19:44:00.003+01:00

It's almost enough to make you believe in synchronicity. You know, until you actually think about it.

It started with the discussion on the most recent episode of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe of the so-called Monty Hall Problem. I won't bore you with the details here, because either you know about it or you can read up from a source far better at explaining the phenomenon than I. Basically, it's a statistical problem that seems completely counter-intuitive, and the main point I want to take out of it is that until you've wrapped your head around it, you really have to take the word of the mathematicians that they are right on this score. I think I've finally understood it myself now, thanks in the main to this interactive feature from the New York Times.

It really got me thinking about received ideas and our necessary reliance on authorities such as mathematicians and scientists. I idly toyed with the notion of blogging about it, but other things took precedence and eventually I just forgot. Then came this post over at Skepchick, which discusses much the same idea.

As I've mentioned before, with the aid of a Fry & Laurie sketch, we can't be expected to research everything ourselves. Dark matter, the particular instance pointed to by Vera's Skepchick post, is a great example. There's no way I'm going to have the time or inclination to delve elbow-deep into the stodgy mass of dark matter/energy research for myself, so - at least for the time being - I'm going to have to rely on the word of scientists to tell me what it's all about.

Does this amount to faith? The philosopher in me wants to go to town on that question, demanding delineation of exactly what faith should mean in this particular context. I think that might be a discussion to keep separate for another day - it has the potential to run on for some time, I think. To keep it brief, then, let's just say yes, it does amount to faith. The important difference here is, as you might imagine, that faith in scientists is justified and conditional. It is not the blind unquestioning faith of religion, but a rational faith in those who have proven the trustworthiness of their claims and methods time and time again.

The Problem of Agnosticism

2008-04-12T18:34:00.004+01:00

It's one of my rant-button topics. If someone equates agnosticism with "sitting on the fence" or generally with being indecisive, there's around an 80% chance they'll be receiving one of my carefully-restrained rants.

Etymology's always a fun place to start, so let's look at the word itself: "a-" is a negation (as in atheist), and "gnostic" pertains to knowledge. In its usual context, it's a belief that there can be no true knowledge of the supernatural. Agnosticism stands distinct from atheism and theism, not as a compromise between the two. Its adherents (for the most part anyway) have just as strong beliefs as the other two camps, but their PR is sadly lacking.

I do, however, think it's a mistake to paint them as three distinct viewpoints on the one subject - I consider myself both an agnostic and an atheist. How do I pull off this amazing feat? Well, I started as an agnostic, certain in my belief that regardless of if there was a god or gods of any sort, there could never be any convincing proof one way or the other. Then I became an atheist, swayed in the main part by the argument of necessity - it is not necessary to posit the existence of a supernatural, omni-everything being - Occam's Razor and all that jazz.

That didn't erase my agnosticism, however - I didn't hop from one camp to the other, because these things are rarely that clear-cut. As an agnostic, I still believe there could never be any convincing proof one way or the other; and yet I think that the atheist position is the far far more likely of the main two.

Do we need an "out" campaign for agnostics now? Probably not. Just a bit more education about what it means would be nice.

Addendum...

2008-04-11T20:17:00.004+01:00

Further to my last post on awareness campaigns, I have a couple of things to add.

Firstly, I forgot to mention one of the other major issues that is doing well with a new awareness campaign - the "Anonymous" campaign against the Church of ~~nucking futs~~ $cientology. Ever since the Tom Cruise video was released, suppressed and re-released, we've seen a competent campaign against the Co$ by an organisation that doesn't technically exist. As this has made the national news, it's been brought into the public consciousness and made people ask "what is scientology? I thought it was just another harmless religion." I'm watching the campaign with much interest, and vastly enjoying the free spread of information and education about this dangerous cult.

Secondly, I'd like to follow up my comments on the campaign to get atheists to "out" themselves, à la 1980s homosexuals. There's a whole website dedicated to this campaign, and here's my big neon virtua-finger pointing at it:

Take a look, out yourself, spread the word.

Awareness campaigns

2008-04-06T23:32:00.003+01:00

In an effort to kick-start my brain out of holiday mode and back into activity, I present a few of my thoughts on awareness campaigns - something that's been brewing in my mind for a while now.

I think it started during Breast Cancer Awareness Month last year, when I noticed an application on FaceBook which allowed users to display pink ribbons on their profiles (which is, of course, the symbol of breast cancer awareness). There were no donations going on that I could see - it was simply a picture of a pink ribbon, to "raise awareness". I'm all for raising awareness, particularly about important health issues such as breast cancer. But my problem with this particular campaign is twofold.

Firstly, the very fact that all you need is a pink ribbon to show support for this cause (and when was the last time someone asked what it meant to wear one?) surely demonstrates that awareness is pretty damned high. Second, it's not an information campaign any more; it's lost whatever substance it had, and is now more of a fashion statement than a part of a serious educational campaign. This is related to my first point because I think this is what will inevitably happen when an awareness campaign succeeds in its goal.

For the record, when I have the money to spare (which isn't often, being a poor penniless student), I'll donate to these causes. I'll also attempt to educate myself about them. But I won't simply display their symbol to "raise awareness" about something that no longer needs it.

So I'd like to take this opportunity to mention a couple of things awareness of which I feel needs to be raised. Firstly, female genital mutilation, or female circumcision. This WHO fact sheet covers most of what you need to know about this issue, and it's quite amazing that it's only now filtering into the public consciousness. I myself only became aware of this horrific practice in the last couple of months, and I can confidently describe myself as better-informed than the vast majority of the public. If anything could do with an awareness campaign, it's this - though I am fairly certain it would never take off, as it predominantly affects African and Middle-Eastern countries.

Also, and closer to home, I'd like to see an atheism awareness campaign - which is actually seemingly close to becoming a reality. As has been pointed out in various blogs, podcasts, articles and interviews, there are certain parallels between atheism now and homosexuality in the 1980s. There are a lot of atheists out there who either don't know that they are, or are reluctant to admit it due to the social repercussions. I'm very pleased to be able to consider myself a part of the burgeoning "out-of-the-closet" atheist community, to which the internet has been a huge help. We need people to feel comfortable admitting their atheism, and an educational campaign about what exactly atheism (or secularism, humanism, whatever) means.

So please, let's have some awareness campaigns for things that need awareness. Don't ignore old issues like cancer, of course, but don't get caught up in the fashion of simply promoting awareness of issues that no longer need it.

The Pagan Atheist

2008-03-24T10:02:00.003Z

I mentioned early-on in this blog that I might one day address my own personal beliefs, and this is where I'll be doing so. It's only after reading this post at Skepchick that I really feel like I've got it straight in my own head; in it, Judaism is discussed as being both a religion and a culture. It seems clear that people are able to be part of the latter without accepting even the most core tenets of the former, thus making it possible to have a secular Jew, or Jewish atheist, without contradiction. It's all about heritage.

So it is with me. I define myself as pagan (or sometimes heathen because I like the word), but don't believe there are supreme supernatural entities interfering with life on earth. I don't believe in an afterlife, or reincarnation, or precognition. I don't attend any sort of temple, and don't recognise the authority of any high priests or priestesses. I don't indulge in arcane rites, dance around a fire skyclad, or trust a deity to cure my ills.

So what is paganism to me? Well, as I alluded to above, I immerse myself in the culture of paganism - the history of the pagan people, the mythology, the values. In particular, those of the Scandinavian cultures; something that goes sadly unnoticed by most of my fellow Britons is just how much of a role the "North-men" have played in our island's history. Most will not, for instance, know that the Norman invasion of 1066 (as in the battle of Hastings) was carried out not by the French but by Scandinavian people who had settled in what is now northern France.

I wear a Mjollnir (Thor's Hammer) pendant at all times, I read the ancient Icelandic sagas (e.g. Njalssaga, Volsungasaga), and I'm educating myself wherever possible about all aspects of the culture. I find their values to be the closest to my own, and one of the most important things in the world to me is a sense of honour - something largely seen as an anachronism in today's society. It's one of those subjects on which I'm liable to talk for hours.

I became pagan as an anti-conformist teenager thing, I'll admit. I was educated to the age of 11 in what was (though not explicitly advertised as such) a Church of England primary school, with hymns in assemblies and subtle indoctrination. I never believed a word of it, probably because the questioning and sceptical mindset of my parents informed my own; it's hardly surprising that I went looking for alternatives as soon as I was able. I ate up every scrap of information I could on Britain's and Europe's pre-Christian culture, and even today I never miss an opportunity to remind people what our Christian holidays are based on and why. It probably annoys those closest to me, but they put up with it bless them.

So this is me. The pagan atheist, the atheistic pagan, the secular pagan, the pagan humanist - whatever you want to call it. It's a cultural thing.

A Call To Arms?

2008-03-19T10:51:00.003Z

Upon reading through my RSS feed as I am wont to do of a morning, I happened across a post at The Frame Problem. It concerns the apparent silence on the part of other atheist bloggers regarding the Church of ~~Industrial-Strength Crazy~~ Scientology. Some of the big names in atheist blogging are accused of "letting the bully win", sort of an "evil triumphs when good men do nothing" deal.

While I concede the point to some degree (you don't often hear about the Co$ on many mainstream atheist blogs), I wouldn't call it a silence - in fact, the only reason I myself don't blog more often on the matter is because it gets so much coverage elsewhere. Doing a quick search in my news aggregator, I'm presented with a few examples of blogs which regularly mention the Co$: The Rogues' Gallery, the blog of The Skeptic's Guide To The Universe, has 2 posts in the last 4 days; Skepchick and The Angry Skeptics are two others that deal with the subject.

Maybe the campaign of Anonymous, and the misdeeds of $cientology in general, should be getting more attention in the more visible atheist blogs. But I'd hardly say there was a silence on the subject.

What's in a name?

2008-03-16T11:27:00.002Z

As someone to whom etymology is endlessly fascinating, I've often wondered at the misnomers inherent in the distinction between "astronomy" and "astrology". I understand it's a leftover from the times when astrology really was the "authority" on the stars, but I think it's doing a great disservice to the hugely successful science that studies the cosmos. What these people do is so far beyond "naming the stars" it's untrue.

If such things were possible, I'd suggest swapping the names around - the study of the stars should be known as such, and the nature of the pursuit which is hardly more than naming them likewise should be reflected in its title. I can't help but think it's giving them undeserved legitimacy to refer to their delusions as an "-ology", a study. Not that astrology is alone in this, of course.

Is it just me, or does this hint at the possibility of a wider "reclamation" campaign in scepticism and science? Already we have Professor Ken Miller arguing for science to reclaim the "design" terminology so widely used by proponents of creationism. One might be forgiven for thinking these to be relatively trivial matters; certainly a scientific mind would not usually consider the terminology to be a defining characteristic of whatever pursuit might be in question, but rather the methods, aims and results. However, this overlooks the increasingly important question of public perception.

One of the greatest challenges for science and scepticism is essentially public relations. Richard Dawkins is a very well-known proponent of atheism and science (and rightly so, he doesn't hold the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science for nothing); but despite his great successes like the bestselling The God Delusion, he is sometimes - perhaps typically - seen as a negative force, only denying what others believe and attacking sources of comfort. As legitimate as this endeavour may be, it doesn't help the general public's perception of science and scepticism.

Of course, we're up against some pretty stiff competition in this area - religions and other delusions like astrology have been practicing manipulation on an enormous scale for thousands of years. Reason is still a bit of a newcomer in this field. I think one of the first steps we need to take in this pursuit is to counter some of the tactics of the opposition - particularly their clever use of misleading language. This is why I'm in favour of Ken Miller's stance, and also why I cringe every time I consider the meaning of the word "astrology", and the use to which it is put.

Progress

2008-03-11T10:15:00.005Z

Today's 8-bit Theatre amused me, as it often does. This one's about one of the best characters, Mad King Steve, and what happens when an explosion in the sky is not predicted by his royal astrologer.

Let that be a lesson to you. You can't dispute evidence given by both tea leaves and birds' wings.

Appeal to Common Practice

2008-03-10T15:30:00.003Z

It is strange that in the world's first secular republic, it is as necessary to be christian in order to become president as it is for a British royal to be Anglican in order to become our monarch.

While this thought has been on my mind for many years, and more so recently due to the ongoing presidential primaries, what sparked this blog post was a report of an interview that Senator Clinton gave in June of 2007 (full transcript here). The quote that was taken for the article was:

Reporter: Can I ask you theologically, do you believe that the resurrection of Jesus actually happened, that it actually historically did happen?

Clinton: Yes, I do.

Oh dear. Why is it that candidates for high-level political office in the United States of America are expected to answer these questions in this way? It makes as much sense to say "I believe in zombies", but of course someone saying that would do tremendous political damage to themselves and any campaign they might be promoting at the time. Why? Because it's what everyone else believes. This is the only thing separating the stories of the Bible from the stories of a Flying Spaghetti Monster - that millions of people believe in one, whereas only a few thousand (probably) believe in the other. I don't count the argument from history (that the Bible has been around for thousands of years) because this would not make the claims of Pastafarianism valid after the same amount of time. It is simply that it is a popular superstition.

Why do we need people with imaginary friends running our superpowers, just because a lot of other people have the same imaginary friend?

An Atheist's Creed

2008-03-07T16:47:00.003Z

Courtesy of PZ Myers, here's a nice little piece which seeks to state all that's positive about atheism, in the face of blatant ignorance of those who believe it's an empty nihilistic view:

An atheist's creed

I believe in time,
matter, and energy,
which make up the whole of the world.

I believe in reason, evidence and the human mind,
the only tools we have;
they are the product of natural forces
in a majestic but impersonal universe,
grander and richer than we can imagine,
a source of endless opportunities for discovery.

I believe in the power of doubt;
I do not seek out reassurances,
but embrace the question,
and strive to challenge my own beliefs.

I accept human mortality.

We have but one life,
brief and full of struggle,
leavened with love and community,
learning and exploration,
beauty and the creation of
new life, new art, and new ideas.

I rejoice in this life that I have,
and in the grandeur of a world that preceded me,
and an earth that will abide without me.

Hopefully I'll write some content for my blog sometime soon, when the Master's degree isn't hogging all my free time.

An Oversight, I feel

2008-03-03T10:58:00.015Z

The wonderful website "What's The Harm?" has been getting widespread acclaim from sceptical blogs for the last month or two, and rightly so. As I mentioned briefly in a previous post, it's an ongoing catalogue of the actual harm done by pseudoscience, bogus medical claims, religion and other delusions.

While I realise that that site is still in its infancy, it does seem to me to have a major flaw in being overly anthropocentric. Nowhere does it take into account the terrible toll that certain deluded practices have on the wildlife in the world - a toll which is still terribly heavy, particularly on tiger and rhinoceros.

The worst offender in this regard would almost certainly have to be the voodoo that is traditional Chinese medicine, which creates great demand for tiger and rhino carcasses to treat ailments which are just as treatable (in fact more so) with so-called "Western medicine". While information campaigns and the increasing cosmopolitanism of China has meant that these practices are on the decline, it's getting close to being too late for the tiger and rhino.

For some pretty shocking facts on man's effect on the world's animals, head over to this page from the always-superb David Shepherd Wildlife Foundation. The most relevant to oriental medicine is this one:

Tiger products are still widely and legally on sale in 6 out of 10 pharmacies and 'virility product' shops in Japan and the going rate for a tiger penis in Hong Kong is £110.

A complete tiger carcass is worth around $30,000. Granted I can understand people valuing an animal life slightly lower than they value the life of a human (though I don't share this view myself); but the life of an entire species? Do we really value the life of a species over the "financial cost" of pseudoscience (et al) to the gullible fools it dupes?

Of course, crazy beliefs about the powers of tiger parts is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to man's damage to the creatures with whom we share this Pale Blue Dot, but it's the area with the most relevance to scepticism. When we argue about the real cost of pseudoscience, we should at least include a nod in the direction of the destruction of some of the world's most precious resources.

Lies, drinking, damn lies, crime and statistics

2008-02-24T13:03:00.004Z

Britain recently passed a licensing act which essentially allowed drinking establishments to remain open as long as they liked. While this is an oversimplification, it serves the purpose; essentially this has meant that all pubs no longer have to close at 23:00, nor all clubs at 02:00. There was great controversy in the media at the time, and fear that this would lead to a rise in binge-drinking and alcohol-related violence and other crime.

Little surprise, then, that there has been much talk in the last week of all their fears being proven true. Both the Telegraph and the Daily Mail have carried stories to the effect that the new 24-hour drinking laws have fuelled a rise in crime in the UK. This is one of the first things I was taught about in my politics undergraduate course: statistics in the media.

What the new drinking laws have actually led to is a rise in crime figures. This is because the police no longer have to deal with a flood of drunken people on the streets when every pub or club in the area kicks them out; they are no longer overwhelmed, and can actually catch and report a greater number of crimes. This "rise in crime" is in the statistics only, and was entirely predicted and intended by those who designed the law. A quote from a police officer (on Daily Mail Watch) supports this:

"The licensing act (24 hour) has also helped a great deal. Instead of kicking-out time for everywhere at 11pm, we’ve got slow dispersement into the night, so the police haven’t got a great mass of people all at once. Crime has ’shot up’ after the licensing Act because we CAN detect, arrest and deal with more people, rather than be swamped and therefore unable to arrest/detect any crime at all! This ‘crime-spike’ was intended by the Home Office and the police as a result of the above reason, but you won’t read that in the Daily Mail!"

Always be wary of statistics, particularly ones concerning crime.

[Raise of the tankard to Obsolete]

As if more were needed...

2008-02-22T23:06:00.010Z

It seems that there is yet more support for the value of the "Socratic method". Not that any more is needed, of course - but it's always gratifying nonetheless.

A new study has been done which suggests that "people who engaged in social interaction displayed higher levels of cognitive performance" [via ScienceDaily]. So not only does the Socratic method allow for the clear and logical exchange and development of ideas, but it also reflects (and takes advantage of) the value inherent in social intercourse.

The paper itself argues something which struck me as possibly misleading. It does not regard the main result of the research, which was fully supported, but rather an observation that "our society appears to be in a state of social decline". This is certainly true in many respects - a reduction in membership of social and other organisations, for instance - and in some cases could prove worrisome, such as the research which indicates that people have fewer "close others" they can talk to about their innermost thoughts and feelings. However, I felt that there was a very important oversight in this passage - though perfectly forgivable as it was not within the ambit of the paper.

Basically, the definition of "social interaction" was a little narrow for my liking. It seemed to define it solely in terms of "face-to-face" interactions, even though part of the reason for the decline in these interactions is the now-widespread ability to interact socially while not in the same room. I would imagine that visiting friends and family began a shallow decline with the advent of the telephone; a decline which only steepened with the coming of the internet. However, especially in the last ten years, there has been an explosion in what might be called virtual interactions. Millions of people subscribe to social networking sites, fora, blogs, and recommendation networks such as Digg and del.icio.us. In some ways if not in others, we are a more socially connected global society than were just a few decades ago.

There is nothing (at least that I can think of) that would be missing in a long-distance interaction which would negate the apparent cognitively beneficial aspects of social discourse. Unless you want to propose the benefits of proximity to brainwaves from others, of course; but until I see respectable research on that, I'm going to assume it's baloney.

While consideration of this new level of social interaction is unlikely to impact upon the outcome of the research done in this paper, it adds another dimension to the issue. Of course, it's a complex enough issue as it is - needless to say, not all social interactions benefit cognition (it would be hard to believe if that were the case - people exchanging mindless dogmatic racial slurs are thinking more sharply because it's a social activity?); and yet I still embrace this news as reinforcement of the value of Socrates' most important contribution to the world.

[Ybarra, O., Burnstein, E., Winkielman, P., Keller, M.C., Manis, M., Chan, E., Rodriguez, J. (2007). Mental Exercising Through Simple Socializing: Social Interaction Promotes General Cognitive Functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2), 248-259. DOI: 10.1177/0146167207310454]

A Cautionary Tale...

2008-02-18T14:28:00.002Z

Aren't we all surrounded by people like Mr Pepperdyne? And isn't there a little Mr Pepperdyne in all of us?

Of course, if we all individually researched everything we'd never make any progress; the key is to strike the right balance of belief and doubt.

But by all means don't take my word for it.

Singularity in 2029?

2008-02-16T22:54:00.004Z

Unsurprisingly, given my vast interest in all things artificial intelligence, this news story leaped out at me from the BBC News Technology page:

Machines 'to match man by 2029'

The point at which machines reach the same level of intelligence of man is known as "singularity", and is something I've been hearing a lot of lately. It was mentioned in last week's Skeptic's Guide podcast, in the context of the crazy "Mayan Apocalypse 2012" topic; apparently one of the ways in which the world might end is through reaching this singularity. Which actually links to the second way it came to my attention - through the Terminator spin-off series The Sarah Connor Chronicles. In both of these incarnations, the singularity is a Very Bad Thing. See also the original Matrix premise regarding the apocalypse brought about by the war between humanity and A.I.

But of course it need not be. The article regarding the possible singularity in 2029 is, it should be stressed, just a prediction - albeit a prediction from a leading expert in the field. I see no reason why his prediction might be wide of the mark; the technology in this area is advancing at a tremendous rate of knots. Reverse-engineering the brain (presumably the human brain) has been identified as one of the 14 major technological challenges facing humanity in this still-young century.

Even if singularity is not reached by 2029, two things are clear to me: firstly, it is itself inevitable for as long as research is done and progress is made; secondly, there's going to be an awful lot of very cool stuff going on by that point - much of which is discussed in that BBC article. Nanobots in particular, helping with the improvement of our own intelligence, fighting disease, and enhancing virtual reality.

As far as I'm concerned, singularity is coming. I'm personally hoping that it arrives sooner rather than later, because that will be a truly interesting time to be alive.