I don't usually have enough time to invest a few hours in solving the Monday Math Madness puzzles on Wild About Math and Blinkdagger, but twice so far (out of the five puzzles posted) I was able to see how to do the puzzle essentially as soon as I read it, and so sent in an entry.
As with the first time, my entry was again correct, but still no banana, unfortunately. (It was essentially to prove that 1 and 9 were the only squares with no even digits.)
I'm there in the list of people giving correct answers, under the longer version of my nom-de-blog.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Saturday, May 3, 2008
How to be worse than useless
"I'll pray for you."
It's the ultimate cop out.
"I'm going to do nothing to help you, but saying it outright would make me feel like crap. So you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to pretend to talk to an invisible magic sky-daddy so I can feel like I'm doing something. And after you deal with your problems all on your own, I get to claim credit! Isn't life grand?"
This is stupid even by twisted theo-logic - if the invisible magic sky-daddy really knows everything, and has the power to change things, he left things the way they are for a reason. What are you praying for? Are you smarter than him or not? If his amazing and mysterious plans are so amazing and mysterious, you better stop fucking with the grand plan right now, bozo.
Or are you appealing to his compassion? If he so lacks compassion that he won't lift a finger to help until you pray, he's a protection-racketeer. "An offer you can't refuse". Godfather indeed.
Atheists don't have the luxury of the cop-out. Atheists either help someone or they have to deal with the fact that they didn't help. Guess what - a lot of atheists do help people. To be sure, some of us don't, but we don't go around pretending we did, and we don't go around claiming credit if things turned out okay anyway.
Prayer is a great de-motivator. "I've prayed, it's in God's hand's now."
Now there's a call for inaction!
Prayer, in some circumstances, causes harm. Prayer can make people feel miserable and inadequate - if it fails, it must be your fault, and if you are brave and strong in the face of terrible odds - well you don't get to claim credit, sorry.
Atheists know there's nobody but us, and if we want things to be better, we have to do something.
National day of prayer? What a fucked-in-the-head idea.
It's the ultimate cop out.
"I'm going to do nothing to help you, but saying it outright would make me feel like crap. So you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to pretend to talk to an invisible magic sky-daddy so I can feel like I'm doing something. And after you deal with your problems all on your own, I get to claim credit! Isn't life grand?"
This is stupid even by twisted theo-logic - if the invisible magic sky-daddy really knows everything, and has the power to change things, he left things the way they are for a reason. What are you praying for? Are you smarter than him or not? If his amazing and mysterious plans are so amazing and mysterious, you better stop fucking with the grand plan right now, bozo.
Or are you appealing to his compassion? If he so lacks compassion that he won't lift a finger to help until you pray, he's a protection-racketeer. "An offer you can't refuse". Godfather indeed.
Atheists don't have the luxury of the cop-out. Atheists either help someone or they have to deal with the fact that they didn't help. Guess what - a lot of atheists do help people. To be sure, some of us don't, but we don't go around pretending we did, and we don't go around claiming credit if things turned out okay anyway.
Prayer is a great de-motivator. "I've prayed, it's in God's hand's now."
Now there's a call for inaction!
Prayer, in some circumstances, causes harm. Prayer can make people feel miserable and inadequate - if it fails, it must be your fault, and if you are brave and strong in the face of terrible odds - well you don't get to claim credit, sorry.
Atheists know there's nobody but us, and if we want things to be better, we have to do something.
National day of prayer? What a fucked-in-the-head idea.
Friday, May 2, 2008
the symbolic and the practical
Well, the new Australian government seems to be step-by-step and piece-by-piece dealing with almost everything about the previous government that made me ashamed.
The latest is the removal of discrimination against gay&lesbian couples in legislation, by giving them the same entitlements as hetero couples (the pieces of legislation in question already don't discriminate on marital status, so this part is relatively straightforward). They're not going to legalize same-sex marriage, sadly, but at least the enshrined financial discrimination by government is coming to an end.
In a way, I can accept that for the moment - I'd rather see this partial improvement get through than a more completely equitable move fail. It may be that, like the call for a republic, it's a fight for a later time, possibly even a later government. I'm still sad for the gay and lesbian couples that want to get married now.
Apparently the government is also about to deliver a $21B (AUD) budget surplus, nearly 1.75% of GDP. That's huge, more than a thousand dollars per capita. Assuming they're still funding the election promises, I worry about what's being cut, but at least it should help then deal with our current schizo economy which can't decide between the internal inflationary effects of full employment and heavy consumer spending or the market downturn brought on by the US financial crisis, since it gives them the breathing space to fairly rapidly move from the anti-inflation measure it's designed to be, to spending more to help out the economy should the economy turn extremely sour later.
They're doing better economically than the arch-conservative government they replaced, but recent Labor governments have been bigger economic reformers than the supposed conservatives anyway, while still advancing a more equitable social agenda, a less gung-ho foreign policy and more responsible environmental policies. So far, so good.
But I'm still worried about where the $21B surplus came from. I guess I'll find out soon, when the budget is released.
The latest is the removal of discrimination against gay&lesbian couples in legislation, by giving them the same entitlements as hetero couples (the pieces of legislation in question already don't discriminate on marital status, so this part is relatively straightforward). They're not going to legalize same-sex marriage, sadly, but at least the enshrined financial discrimination by government is coming to an end.
In a way, I can accept that for the moment - I'd rather see this partial improvement get through than a more completely equitable move fail. It may be that, like the call for a republic, it's a fight for a later time, possibly even a later government. I'm still sad for the gay and lesbian couples that want to get married now.
Apparently the government is also about to deliver a $21B (AUD) budget surplus, nearly 1.75% of GDP. That's huge, more than a thousand dollars per capita. Assuming they're still funding the election promises, I worry about what's being cut, but at least it should help then deal with our current schizo economy which can't decide between the internal inflationary effects of full employment and heavy consumer spending or the market downturn brought on by the US financial crisis, since it gives them the breathing space to fairly rapidly move from the anti-inflation measure it's designed to be, to spending more to help out the economy should the economy turn extremely sour later.
They're doing better economically than the arch-conservative government they replaced, but recent Labor governments have been bigger economic reformers than the supposed conservatives anyway, while still advancing a more equitable social agenda, a less gung-ho foreign policy and more responsible environmental policies. So far, so good.
But I'm still worried about where the $21B surplus came from. I guess I'll find out soon, when the budget is released.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
That old gut feeling
I often hear people say stuff like "I just know. I feel it in my gut."
I have come to the conclusion that this is code for something like "I have no idea, but I really want this to be true."
Sometimes the feeling is in another organ not traditionally associated with thought, like the heart, or the liver. Or sometimes, it's the mysterious "I feel it in my waters," wherever the hell they are.
Hearing this is an indication that the speaker is not in the possession of any facts.
I find myself unimpressed by how strongly someone can believe something with no evidence. Stronger belief ("I really feel it to be true") in the absence of evidence is, if anything, an indication of stronger willingness to fool yourself. That's hardly compelling. I am not sure we should be convinced by how deeply gullible someone is willing to admit to being.
I recommend thinking with the organ that is best fitted to the task. Use your brain. Give it some data. Examine the evidence and think about it. With your brain. You might even find out something about a little thing I like to call "reality".
The "gut feeling"/"I just know" shtick tends to come at the end of an argument (generally an argument the "I just know"-person started, what's more), right about the point they realize that everything that they initially stated as if it were unquestionably true has been shown to be wrong, or at best irrelevant to whatever they were trying to argue for.
It comes at this point because it's the ultimate safe argument, since you can hardly argue with "feelings", but it's also the ultimate contentless argument - it's an admission that they have no actual grounds for their position at all. How do we know? Because if they did, then we'd be discussing the grounds, not their mysterious "feelings".
On Certainty: People that claim to be certain are nonetheless frequently wrong - it happens all the time. Indeed, I've argued before that other things being equal (like strength of evidence in favour), you're more likely to be wrong when you're certain you can't be mistaken, because it means you're no longer considering disconfirmatory evidence.
Consequently, "I know, I feel it in my gut" is a double whammy - not only is there no supporting evidence for the feeling, you're also not allowing for the possibility that disconfirming evidence even exists (otherwise, you couldn't claim to know). This is the ultimate in self delusion. It's open, in your face, deliberate self-delusion.
I find it ludicrous that anyone could say this kind of thing without expecting to be called a moron. Yet I hear it a lot. They seem to think it's somehow a clincher. In a way it is, but all it clinches is that they're willing fools.
Sure as crap rolls downhill,
it will come to pass -
if you think with your gut,
you'll talk out your ass.
I have come to the conclusion that this is code for something like "I have no idea, but I really want this to be true."
Sometimes the feeling is in another organ not traditionally associated with thought, like the heart, or the liver. Or sometimes, it's the mysterious "I feel it in my waters," wherever the hell they are.
Hearing this is an indication that the speaker is not in the possession of any facts.
I find myself unimpressed by how strongly someone can believe something with no evidence. Stronger belief ("I really feel it to be true") in the absence of evidence is, if anything, an indication of stronger willingness to fool yourself. That's hardly compelling. I am not sure we should be convinced by how deeply gullible someone is willing to admit to being.
I recommend thinking with the organ that is best fitted to the task. Use your brain. Give it some data. Examine the evidence and think about it. With your brain. You might even find out something about a little thing I like to call "reality".
The "gut feeling"/"I just know" shtick tends to come at the end of an argument (generally an argument the "I just know"-person started, what's more), right about the point they realize that everything that they initially stated as if it were unquestionably true has been shown to be wrong, or at best irrelevant to whatever they were trying to argue for.
It comes at this point because it's the ultimate safe argument, since you can hardly argue with "feelings", but it's also the ultimate contentless argument - it's an admission that they have no actual grounds for their position at all. How do we know? Because if they did, then we'd be discussing the grounds, not their mysterious "feelings".
On Certainty: People that claim to be certain are nonetheless frequently wrong - it happens all the time. Indeed, I've argued before that other things being equal (like strength of evidence in favour), you're more likely to be wrong when you're certain you can't be mistaken, because it means you're no longer considering disconfirmatory evidence.
Consequently, "I know, I feel it in my gut" is a double whammy - not only is there no supporting evidence for the feeling, you're also not allowing for the possibility that disconfirming evidence even exists (otherwise, you couldn't claim to know). This is the ultimate in self delusion. It's open, in your face, deliberate self-delusion.
I find it ludicrous that anyone could say this kind of thing without expecting to be called a moron. Yet I hear it a lot. They seem to think it's somehow a clincher. In a way it is, but all it clinches is that they're willing fools.
Sure as crap rolls downhill,
it will come to pass -
if you think with your gut,
you'll talk out your ass.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Teaching the controversy
Teach this controversy, cryptotheists:
Percentage of biologists who don't reject evolution: 99.99926%
(assuming I correctly understood the intent of the triple negative(!)... )
Percentage of biologists who don't reject evolution: 99.99926%
(assuming I correctly understood the intent of the triple negative(!)... )
Monday, April 14, 2008
Book Review: Unintelligent Design
Unintelligent Design (amazon link), by esteemed Australian science broadcaster Robyn Williams is a slim book (around 160 pages) devoted to discussing and debunking the Intelligent Design (ID) movement.
This book broadly succeeds in describing the ID movement, some of its characters and some of the major events, such as the Dover trial. Many of these people and events will be familiar to followers of the ID shenannigans, and Williams doesn't always add terribly much to available online discussions, but I found it useful to have much of it together in one place. If you don't know much about ID, this book is a good place to start. It also describes some of the arguments against ID - and here I think it could have presented some of the arguments in more detail, because not all of the conclusions are as well backed by argument as they should have been.
The book also describes the impact (both current and potential) in Australia, and here I think its contribution is clearest; much of this discussion would generalize to other contexts, and it may have been better to attempt do so.
On radio, and in public appearances, Williams conversational style is warm, humorous and intelligent - he is a good interviewer and presenter. He comes over quite well in the book, but a good editor could have let Williams shine through better. The book is written in a chatty conversational style that is quite readable, and works well, apart from a few places where it clunks about a bit and could have used a more careful going over with a stricter eye. The author seems overly attached to a couple of similes; for example the Dodgy brothers (transparently shady denizens of the 1980s Australian television comedy show Australia, You're Standing In It and later, Fast Forward) might have been suited to at most a single mention in a book whose readership is unlikely to be familiar with the reference (unless you're simultaneously middle aged or getting toward it, Australian, and given to watching character-based sketch comedy) - but it gets multiple cameos. If Williams is writing for me, he hits his mark here, but I could not help wondering if the allusion would be lost on many readers.
A knowledgable editor's pencil could also have been used when J. Craig Venter's surname is repeatedly rendered "Ventor"; though I suspect this is not Williams' fault - search-and-replace mistakes by a clueless or inattentive person at the publisher after the text has left the author's hands have dogged many works before this one.
Part II of the book (the final two chapters) reads particularly well - the author gets more personal, even autobiographical (but still relates back to the ID discussion) and makes fewer attempts at levity, and as a result, speaks to the reader better.
ID needs to be skewered at every opportunity, and this book certainly does so, but in places I found it a little frustrating - it needed to "show" more - the effort to maintain the light tone sometimes interfered with the aims of the book, which were not always clear. That said, I definitely liked it - I found the book both entertaining and useful; if you want a light, easy-to-read introduction to ID, the arguments against it, and some of the potential effects of it, you will probably find this a worthwhile book.
This book broadly succeeds in describing the ID movement, some of its characters and some of the major events, such as the Dover trial. Many of these people and events will be familiar to followers of the ID shenannigans, and Williams doesn't always add terribly much to available online discussions, but I found it useful to have much of it together in one place. If you don't know much about ID, this book is a good place to start. It also describes some of the arguments against ID - and here I think it could have presented some of the arguments in more detail, because not all of the conclusions are as well backed by argument as they should have been.
The book also describes the impact (both current and potential) in Australia, and here I think its contribution is clearest; much of this discussion would generalize to other contexts, and it may have been better to attempt do so.
On radio, and in public appearances, Williams conversational style is warm, humorous and intelligent - he is a good interviewer and presenter. He comes over quite well in the book, but a good editor could have let Williams shine through better. The book is written in a chatty conversational style that is quite readable, and works well, apart from a few places where it clunks about a bit and could have used a more careful going over with a stricter eye. The author seems overly attached to a couple of similes; for example the Dodgy brothers (transparently shady denizens of the 1980s Australian television comedy show Australia, You're Standing In It and later, Fast Forward) might have been suited to at most a single mention in a book whose readership is unlikely to be familiar with the reference (unless you're simultaneously middle aged or getting toward it, Australian, and given to watching character-based sketch comedy) - but it gets multiple cameos. If Williams is writing for me, he hits his mark here, but I could not help wondering if the allusion would be lost on many readers.
A knowledgable editor's pencil could also have been used when J. Craig Venter's surname is repeatedly rendered "Ventor"; though I suspect this is not Williams' fault - search-and-replace mistakes by a clueless or inattentive person at the publisher after the text has left the author's hands have dogged many works before this one.
Part II of the book (the final two chapters) reads particularly well - the author gets more personal, even autobiographical (but still relates back to the ID discussion) and makes fewer attempts at levity, and as a result, speaks to the reader better.
ID needs to be skewered at every opportunity, and this book certainly does so, but in places I found it a little frustrating - it needed to "show" more - the effort to maintain the light tone sometimes interfered with the aims of the book, which were not always clear. That said, I definitely liked it - I found the book both entertaining and useful; if you want a light, easy-to-read introduction to ID, the arguments against it, and some of the potential effects of it, you will probably find this a worthwhile book.
Friday, April 11, 2008
How many commandments are sacred, again?
The cryptotheist ID-brigade seem to find no tactic beneath them in their quest to bring down science and replace it with creationist nonsense. No lie is too egregious. Lie upon lie upon lie; it's all grist for the mill.
The makers of Expelled have taken lying to the form of art, or at least artifice. They lied to obtain their interviews - lied about the film's title and purpose, lied in the film, lied in marketing it. The whole "not bearing false witness" thing is apparently only a suggestion. Certainly it doesn't carry the force of the cryptotheist's only commandment - "Promoting creationism's lies shalt be the whole of the law."
But it doesn't end there. Apparently a few other biblical commandments are also mere suggestions, not, well, commandments.
Like the one about not stealing. Like the XVIVO video, which Dembski stole (and lied and lied about), and which has now been oh-so-slightly altered in Expelled. So that's two.
But wait, maybe there's more.
"Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."
(Yipe. Owning slaves is right there in the commandments. God really likes slavery. You think God could have said "Hey, that slavery thing is not on. Cut it out already." somewhere in amongst all the stuff about honoring parents and six days shall you labor and coveting asses... nope. Apparently slavery is just dandy by God.)
Okay, now, science class belongs to, well science -- hence the name. That's what it's for. Putting cryptotheist preaching about demonstrably non-science creationism in there by dressing it in pseudo-scientific clothing doesn't make Jacob into Esau. That's coveting what belongs to science.
Go argue about whether creationism is literally true in bible class - many churches have one. A few of them even read bits of it. Pity none of the good bits seem to sink into the cryptotheist creatard ID-crowd.
So I reckon that's three. Seven left*. Come on, IDists, you're not trying hard enough! Murdering good taste or Darwin's reputation, or just basic logic... that's not what Yahweh was on about (probably) - it's just incredibly shitty behaviour.
*(well, 11 or 12 or so, actually - it depends on whether you're looking at Exodus or Deuteronomy, and how many separate things you really force together ... anyway, within the limits of the very confused structure, I can count that there's about 14 or 15, not ten, which makes me an evil non-believer, because a true believer would agree that 14 or 15 is exactly the same as 10 and pi is three and I wouldn't notice that Mary's husband Joseph has two different fathers and I would overlook the fact that Jehoachin is both 8 and 18 and there's way, way too many types of creatures in the world to stick them all on a modest wooden boat with all their food and with just a single extended family to look after them all for more than ten months... or was it seven? With that as an example, maybe it's no wonder the IDists can never keep their stories straight for five minutes at a time.)
Now the thing is, even if it's just three commandments, they're forgetting something sorta important about Yahweh's little carved-in-stone suggestions... he's kind of pissy about people not keeping them. Right there in the text of the commandments. Okay, not quite evil ol' New Testament-style "eternal torture in hell" passive-aggressive pissy. Good ol' OT blood and thunder: "I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments". That's plenty pissy, harming innocent children. He's sure nifty, ain't he?
So creatards, you really want to risk your grandchildren (and theirs, it seems, if god is counting okay this week, and feeling kinda smitey) in your evil little games? Are you sure? Or maybe you don't actually believe it? In which case, what's all the lying and stealing and shit for, anyway? Either you're motivated by belief, in which case, you're fucking with God's laws, or you're not, in which case, what, you're just lying and stealing and so on because you want to put creationism in science class for the hell of it?
Morons.
The makers of Expelled have taken lying to the form of art, or at least artifice. They lied to obtain their interviews - lied about the film's title and purpose, lied in the film, lied in marketing it. The whole "not bearing false witness" thing is apparently only a suggestion. Certainly it doesn't carry the force of the cryptotheist's only commandment - "Promoting creationism's lies shalt be the whole of the law."
But it doesn't end there. Apparently a few other biblical commandments are also mere suggestions, not, well, commandments.
Like the one about not stealing. Like the XVIVO video, which Dembski stole (and lied and lied about), and which has now been oh-so-slightly altered in Expelled. So that's two.
But wait, maybe there's more.
"Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."
(Yipe. Owning slaves is right there in the commandments. God really likes slavery. You think God could have said "Hey, that slavery thing is not on. Cut it out already." somewhere in amongst all the stuff about honoring parents and six days shall you labor and coveting asses... nope. Apparently slavery is just dandy by God.)
Okay, now, science class belongs to, well science -- hence the name. That's what it's for. Putting cryptotheist preaching about demonstrably non-science creationism in there by dressing it in pseudo-scientific clothing doesn't make Jacob into Esau. That's coveting what belongs to science.
Go argue about whether creationism is literally true in bible class - many churches have one. A few of them even read bits of it. Pity none of the good bits seem to sink into the cryptotheist creatard ID-crowd.
So I reckon that's three. Seven left*. Come on, IDists, you're not trying hard enough! Murdering good taste or Darwin's reputation, or just basic logic... that's not what Yahweh was on about (probably) - it's just incredibly shitty behaviour.
*(well, 11 or 12 or so, actually - it depends on whether you're looking at Exodus or Deuteronomy, and how many separate things you really force together ... anyway, within the limits of the very confused structure, I can count that there's about 14 or 15, not ten, which makes me an evil non-believer, because a true believer would agree that 14 or 15 is exactly the same as 10 and pi is three and I wouldn't notice that Mary's husband Joseph has two different fathers and I would overlook the fact that Jehoachin is both 8 and 18 and there's way, way too many types of creatures in the world to stick them all on a modest wooden boat with all their food and with just a single extended family to look after them all for more than ten months... or was it seven? With that as an example, maybe it's no wonder the IDists can never keep their stories straight for five minutes at a time.)
Now the thing is, even if it's just three commandments, they're forgetting something sorta important about Yahweh's little carved-in-stone suggestions... he's kind of pissy about people not keeping them. Right there in the text of the commandments. Okay, not quite evil ol' New Testament-style "eternal torture in hell" passive-aggressive pissy. Good ol' OT blood and thunder: "I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments". That's plenty pissy, harming innocent children. He's sure nifty, ain't he?
So creatards, you really want to risk your grandchildren (and theirs, it seems, if god is counting okay this week, and feeling kinda smitey) in your evil little games? Are you sure? Or maybe you don't actually believe it? In which case, what's all the lying and stealing and shit for, anyway? Either you're motivated by belief, in which case, you're fucking with God's laws, or you're not, in which case, what, you're just lying and stealing and so on because you want to put creationism in science class for the hell of it?
Morons.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Science, FTW
Evolution on the tabletop
Students will soon be able to watch evolution occuring. Except the deluded cryptotheists, who will, as usual, be poking their fingers in their ears and shouting "la-la-la-la".
Update: lungless frog, 92 mya snake with legs.
Oh noez! now there are four more gaps!!!
Students will soon be able to watch evolution occuring. Except the deluded cryptotheists, who will, as usual, be poking their fingers in their ears and shouting "la-la-la-la".
Update: lungless frog, 92 mya snake with legs.
Oh noez! now there are four more gaps!!!
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Fear the truth
This post is based on a comment I made at Pharyngula, which relates to the "all religions are fairy tales" billboard story I first saw described at Friendly Atheist.
The apparent objection to even the existence of the sentiment that religion is false strike me as particularly damning for the fundies.
- If their particular god really existed and really was a powerful being, what reaction would we expect such a sentiment as the one on the billboard to create?
Surely it would not be particularly troublesome. Mere background noise.
- If, on the other hand, the emperor has no clothes, but the religious billboard reader has a strong vested interest in maintaining their illusion that the emperor is clothed in gowns of the finest silk, what reaction would we expect to see?
Why, exactly the reaction we do see. Theists who can't stand the sight of a billboard like that give out the distinct impression that they don't actually, truly think God is real. They just want him to be true.
Look at it this way. If Santa is real, it doesn't matter if the rotten kid on the corner tells you he doesn't exist. It doesn't impact Santa at all, nor you - any more than him telling you he doesn't believe you live in a house can change your address (you can just shake your head and go about your business, secure in the knowledge that he's wrong). Maybe the kid on the corner's getting coal next Santamas, but there's no harm to you at all. The claim of his nonexistence would be mostly amusing, not offensive. Not a particularly emotive issue.
However, if Santa doesn't exist, then being told that he doesn't exist breaks the precious but fragile illusion that he does. That can be upsetting, because hearing the message means you're at least peripherally aware that the illusion is just that. If you're determined not to deal with the fact that Santa doesn't exist, then you can cover your ears and go "La-la-la" while running away... but it's clear to all around you that you in fact aren't at all sure he does exist. You just want him to exist, which is a whole other thing - the desirability of the existence of Santa Claus has no impact on the fact of his existence.
By now, you have probably read Ricky Gervais' deconversion story. (If you haven't had the pleasure, go take a look. I'll wait.)
What was it that convinced him God was made up? Was it his brother's simple, mildly skeptical question "Why do you believe in God?"
No.
It was his mother's reaction to the question that proved to him that she didn't really believe in God - that his brother's very mild expression of disbelief had to be silenced because it was right.
Why seek to silence a merely mistaken opinion? People make mistaken claims all the time, and I don't see the fundies getting all in a tizzy over other simple mistakes. Where's the tizzy over the "mistakes" (which is far too generous a term, but anyway) that led to the War in Iraq? That cost many tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars (how much has it cost the people of Iraq? Who knows, but it's a lot). Where's the tizzy over mistakes that are actually real, and with demonstrably real consequences?
Mistaken opinions are not inherently offensive.
If the billboard was simply a garish mistake, they would not care so much.
The theistic panic-reaction to the billboard is in the same vein as Gervais' mother's reaction - they want discussion of the nonexistence of their magical sky-pixie silenced - not because the possibility of "non-existence" is obviously false, but because they worry, deep down somewhere they don't want to examine too closely ... maybe it's actually true.
The apparent objection to even the existence of the sentiment that religion is false strike me as particularly damning for the fundies.
- If their particular god really existed and really was a powerful being, what reaction would we expect such a sentiment as the one on the billboard to create?
Surely it would not be particularly troublesome. Mere background noise.
- If, on the other hand, the emperor has no clothes, but the religious billboard reader has a strong vested interest in maintaining their illusion that the emperor is clothed in gowns of the finest silk, what reaction would we expect to see?
Why, exactly the reaction we do see. Theists who can't stand the sight of a billboard like that give out the distinct impression that they don't actually, truly think God is real. They just want him to be true.
Look at it this way. If Santa is real, it doesn't matter if the rotten kid on the corner tells you he doesn't exist. It doesn't impact Santa at all, nor you - any more than him telling you he doesn't believe you live in a house can change your address (you can just shake your head and go about your business, secure in the knowledge that he's wrong). Maybe the kid on the corner's getting coal next Santamas, but there's no harm to you at all. The claim of his nonexistence would be mostly amusing, not offensive. Not a particularly emotive issue.
However, if Santa doesn't exist, then being told that he doesn't exist breaks the precious but fragile illusion that he does. That can be upsetting, because hearing the message means you're at least peripherally aware that the illusion is just that. If you're determined not to deal with the fact that Santa doesn't exist, then you can cover your ears and go "La-la-la" while running away... but it's clear to all around you that you in fact aren't at all sure he does exist. You just want him to exist, which is a whole other thing - the desirability of the existence of Santa Claus has no impact on the fact of his existence.
By now, you have probably read Ricky Gervais' deconversion story. (If you haven't had the pleasure, go take a look. I'll wait.)
What was it that convinced him God was made up? Was it his brother's simple, mildly skeptical question "Why do you believe in God?"
No.
It was his mother's reaction to the question that proved to him that she didn't really believe in God - that his brother's very mild expression of disbelief had to be silenced because it was right.
Why seek to silence a merely mistaken opinion? People make mistaken claims all the time, and I don't see the fundies getting all in a tizzy over other simple mistakes. Where's the tizzy over the "mistakes" (which is far too generous a term, but anyway) that led to the War in Iraq? That cost many tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of lives, and trillions of dollars (how much has it cost the people of Iraq? Who knows, but it's a lot). Where's the tizzy over mistakes that are actually real, and with demonstrably real consequences?
Mistaken opinions are not inherently offensive.
If the billboard was simply a garish mistake, they would not care so much.
The theistic panic-reaction to the billboard is in the same vein as Gervais' mother's reaction - they want discussion of the nonexistence of their magical sky-pixie silenced - not because the possibility of "non-existence" is obviously false, but because they worry, deep down somewhere they don't want to examine too closely ... maybe it's actually true.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The value of pseudo-scientific douche-bags
It is common for skeptics to rail against the ridiculous nonsense of credulous pseudo-scientific crackpottery. I've done it myself.
But in this article I'm going to take a different position. I'm going to do something I thought I'd never do. I'm going to talk about a positive benefit of such nonsense.
I'm restricting myself to medical flim-flammery - for example homeopathy and some of the other -pathy's and their related delusions.
Scientific medicine, and in particular so called "evidence-based" medicine, in spite of its tremendous and growing success, has a problem.
The problem is that in order to be regarded as effective, a treatment must be demonstrably better than a placebo. In some cases - with certain illnesses, or with certain patients, there are no more effective treatments than placebo. And don't let us short-sell it - sometimes well-done placebo treatments can be surprisingly effective. The problem is, an evidence-based medical practitioner cannot really use a placebo to full effectiveness.
Firstly, there's an ethical issue with prescribing a treatment that you know contains no active ingredient, but let's allow that we happily step around that. Our medical practitioner still knows they're prescribing a placebo. This - almost necessarily - reduces its effectiveness. At least in double blind clinical trials, the patient might be getting an effective treatment. But if you know it's just water (or sugar-pills, or whatever), that will impact the way that you treat the patient, and consciously or not, that is likely to impede the effectiveness of the treatment. One possible solution would be to get all our medical practitioners to spend years practicing the art of deceit - they can be trained by the best actors, politicians, used car salespersons and prosperity-Gospel TV-preachers into being able to convincingly appear like they fully believe their treatment will work. Even then, we'd have to hope that's enough.
But there's another way. We can get people who are naturally more convincing - because they actually do believe in the effectiveness of the treatment. And if that helps the patient believe, we may be able to take more complete advantage of the placebo effect.
That is, I'd like to consider the possibility of the established medical fraternity co-opting the alternative medicine crowd (at least where the treatements are clearly harmless, like homeopathy) in order to take the fullest possible advantage of the placebo effect when it's the most effective treatment available.
So I think it's at least possible that the homeopathological liars and their kooky friends actually have some potential value after all. All we need now is a study to see whether alternative medicine's ernest belief in their placebos is more effective than mainstream medicine's skeptical placebo. Frankly, I would actually be somewhat surprised if it wasn't at least slightly better.
If it proves to be so, it might then be possible to begin studying the characteristics of the most effective placebos for various ailments, in order to scientifically design much better placebo treatments (and, if they help, recruit some true believers to administer them).
But in the meantime, maybe we should keep around a few of the less harmful alternative medicine types, because they might just have the best placebos available to us, and we would be churlish to ignore a good placebo.
But in this article I'm going to take a different position. I'm going to do something I thought I'd never do. I'm going to talk about a positive benefit of such nonsense.
I'm restricting myself to medical flim-flammery - for example homeopathy and some of the other -pathy's and their related delusions.
Scientific medicine, and in particular so called "evidence-based" medicine, in spite of its tremendous and growing success, has a problem.
The problem is that in order to be regarded as effective, a treatment must be demonstrably better than a placebo. In some cases - with certain illnesses, or with certain patients, there are no more effective treatments than placebo. And don't let us short-sell it - sometimes well-done placebo treatments can be surprisingly effective. The problem is, an evidence-based medical practitioner cannot really use a placebo to full effectiveness.
Firstly, there's an ethical issue with prescribing a treatment that you know contains no active ingredient, but let's allow that we happily step around that. Our medical practitioner still knows they're prescribing a placebo. This - almost necessarily - reduces its effectiveness. At least in double blind clinical trials, the patient might be getting an effective treatment. But if you know it's just water (or sugar-pills, or whatever), that will impact the way that you treat the patient, and consciously or not, that is likely to impede the effectiveness of the treatment. One possible solution would be to get all our medical practitioners to spend years practicing the art of deceit - they can be trained by the best actors, politicians, used car salespersons and prosperity-Gospel TV-preachers into being able to convincingly appear like they fully believe their treatment will work. Even then, we'd have to hope that's enough.
But there's another way. We can get people who are naturally more convincing - because they actually do believe in the effectiveness of the treatment. And if that helps the patient believe, we may be able to take more complete advantage of the placebo effect.
That is, I'd like to consider the possibility of the established medical fraternity co-opting the alternative medicine crowd (at least where the treatements are clearly harmless, like homeopathy) in order to take the fullest possible advantage of the placebo effect when it's the most effective treatment available.
So I think it's at least possible that the homeopathological liars and their kooky friends actually have some potential value after all. All we need now is a study to see whether alternative medicine's ernest belief in their placebos is more effective than mainstream medicine's skeptical placebo. Frankly, I would actually be somewhat surprised if it wasn't at least slightly better.
If it proves to be so, it might then be possible to begin studying the characteristics of the most effective placebos for various ailments, in order to scientifically design much better placebo treatments (and, if they help, recruit some true believers to administer them).
But in the meantime, maybe we should keep around a few of the less harmful alternative medicine types, because they might just have the best placebos available to us, and we would be churlish to ignore a good placebo.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
Another problem with Prayer
Pedro, over at Way Of the Mind made an insightful post about the efficacy of prayer.
He points out (among other things) that if God cured/healed the sick who pray for it, then atheists would be noticeably sicker, and for longer, than the theistic population.
I hadn't really thought of it exactly that way before, so it was a useful insight (I pointed out in comments that atheists would never get a good parking spot, either, because they'd all be reserved for those people who pray for a parking spot).
[musing on... If prayer works, and you pray for a parking spot while children die of starvation ... what does that say about you? Then again, if God grants your request, while children die of starvation, what does that say about God?]
He points out (among other things) that if God cured/healed the sick who pray for it, then atheists would be noticeably sicker, and for longer, than the theistic population.
I hadn't really thought of it exactly that way before, so it was a useful insight (I pointed out in comments that atheists would never get a good parking spot, either, because they'd all be reserved for those people who pray for a parking spot).
[musing on... If prayer works, and you pray for a parking spot while children die of starvation ... what does that say about you? Then again, if God grants your request, while children die of starvation, what does that say about God?]
Friday, February 8, 2008
Efrique's commandments
Well, not so much commandments as a list of important suggestions.
It's not like there's eternal torture if you don't follow these or anything.
1. Don't make shit up.
2. Don't believe stuff just because someone says so - people just make shit up.
3. If you do believe shit someone made up, and it affects how you treat other people, then
you better have some evidence for it, or be ready for ridicule.
4. Don't be too certain you're right - that's when you stop looking at the evidence,
which means you're very likely to be wrong.
5. Treat people decently. If possible, treat them how they'd like to be treated.
6. People are different from you. Deal with it.
7. When you die, you die. Deal with it.
8. Reality does not respect your preferences or your wishes. Deal with it.
9. The universe is freaky, and way too big for you to comprehend. Deal. It's way cooler than
anything you could plausibly make up, so don't bother. You're an amateur, and it'll show.
10. Really, don't make shit up.
It's not like there's eternal torture if you don't follow these or anything.
1. Don't make shit up.
2. Don't believe stuff just because someone says so - people just make shit up.
3. If you do believe shit someone made up, and it affects how you treat other people, then
you better have some evidence for it, or be ready for ridicule.
4. Don't be too certain you're right - that's when you stop looking at the evidence,
which means you're very likely to be wrong.
5. Treat people decently. If possible, treat them how they'd like to be treated.
6. People are different from you. Deal with it.
7. When you die, you die. Deal with it.
8. Reality does not respect your preferences or your wishes. Deal with it.
9. The universe is freaky, and way too big for you to comprehend. Deal. It's way cooler than
anything you could plausibly make up, so don't bother. You're an amateur, and it'll show.
10. Really, don't make shit up.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Rudd
Kevin Rudd's performance (or that of his government) so far as prime minister of Australia has been reasonable.
He ratified Kyoto, and broadly seems to be undoing the Pacific Solution.
He's saying sorry to the stolen generation.
In and of themselves, these are mostly symbolic acts. However, they are important symbolic acts.
A few quite worrying things happened, such as CSIRO being told that they couldn't talk to the press without running it by the government. That little bit of nasty was reversed, thank goodness.
He appears to be keeping campaign promises, but unfortunately, some of them should never have been made in the first place. The level of spending is utterly irresponsible (and yes, the previous government was throwing around even more money, but that's not sufficient excuse). For some utterly unfathomable reason his government is throwing even more money at first home buyers than was promised in the campaign. This is nuts. They're talking fiscal responsibility, but sometimes their choices seem crazy. The market is overpriced - throwing more money into the pot makes it worse for first home buyers. They get a temporary boost, but with more buyers in the market, homes continue to look like a good investment, and the boom of the last 5 years or so - bigger than the one in the US - goes another round. The money thrown at first home buyers will be swallowed by higher prices faster than they can take advantage of it.
An intelligent action would be to try to slowly cool that market off a bit, not heat it up.
There's a lot I want to see them do. They should be moving to make the ABC independent again, and put mechanisms in place to make it hard for future governments to stack the board with lackeys and interfere with program content.
They should be taking a more balanced view on education. They're throwing enormous amounts of money at technical education (about which I have no great objection, apart from the facts that they're solving the wrong problem that way). The reason we have a skills shortage in technical areas is not primarily due to lack of funds there (though it may be a factor). The fact is the market moved on three decades ago, and few students that consider further education are looking for a non-university degree. I think more money is technical education is a good thing, but I think it's a knee-jerk action, not a smart one.
I am cynical about some of the recent initiatives from the last few days, like getting a thousand "experts" and "smart people" to get together and find non-partisan solutions to outstanding problems, which sound great, but simply provides him with a very neat way to sidestep the solutions they come up with - which will be great, but in many cases controversial (which is exactly why these problems are outstanding). So he will, as other governments have done in the past when independent reports recommend actions that are politically brave, simply disassociate his government from the recommendations. That is, the really hard ones - the most crucial ones - are never going to be implemented.
Still, his government have done better than I expected they would in their first few months.
And when you're talking about government, that's not a bad start.
He ratified Kyoto, and broadly seems to be undoing the Pacific Solution.
He's saying sorry to the stolen generation.
In and of themselves, these are mostly symbolic acts. However, they are important symbolic acts.
A few quite worrying things happened, such as CSIRO being told that they couldn't talk to the press without running it by the government. That little bit of nasty was reversed, thank goodness.
He appears to be keeping campaign promises, but unfortunately, some of them should never have been made in the first place. The level of spending is utterly irresponsible (and yes, the previous government was throwing around even more money, but that's not sufficient excuse). For some utterly unfathomable reason his government is throwing even more money at first home buyers than was promised in the campaign. This is nuts. They're talking fiscal responsibility, but sometimes their choices seem crazy. The market is overpriced - throwing more money into the pot makes it worse for first home buyers. They get a temporary boost, but with more buyers in the market, homes continue to look like a good investment, and the boom of the last 5 years or so - bigger than the one in the US - goes another round. The money thrown at first home buyers will be swallowed by higher prices faster than they can take advantage of it.
An intelligent action would be to try to slowly cool that market off a bit, not heat it up.
There's a lot I want to see them do. They should be moving to make the ABC independent again, and put mechanisms in place to make it hard for future governments to stack the board with lackeys and interfere with program content.
They should be taking a more balanced view on education. They're throwing enormous amounts of money at technical education (about which I have no great objection, apart from the facts that they're solving the wrong problem that way). The reason we have a skills shortage in technical areas is not primarily due to lack of funds there (though it may be a factor). The fact is the market moved on three decades ago, and few students that consider further education are looking for a non-university degree. I think more money is technical education is a good thing, but I think it's a knee-jerk action, not a smart one.
I am cynical about some of the recent initiatives from the last few days, like getting a thousand "experts" and "smart people" to get together and find non-partisan solutions to outstanding problems, which sound great, but simply provides him with a very neat way to sidestep the solutions they come up with - which will be great, but in many cases controversial (which is exactly why these problems are outstanding). So he will, as other governments have done in the past when independent reports recommend actions that are politically brave, simply disassociate his government from the recommendations. That is, the really hard ones - the most crucial ones - are never going to be implemented.
Still, his government have done better than I expected they would in their first few months.
And when you're talking about government, that's not a bad start.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A creationist looks at Janie's photo album
Flip. Flip.
"Nice baby shot there."
Flip. Flip.
"First steps. Kinda cute."
Flip. Flip.
"Hey, I had a train cake for my 4th birthday too."
Flip. Flip. Flip-flip-flip.
"Ooh, that graduation photo is out of focus!"
Flip. Flip-flip.
"Hang on, there's no shots of her sixth birthday! What are you trying to pull?"
"None of these photos show her in the process of aging! Where are the transitional forms?"
"I see no shots where she's half ten-years-old and half twenty-five. Come on, there's no evidence she aged at all!"
Hmm.... maybe I should call that a comic script and draw it up.
"Nice baby shot there."
Flip. Flip.
"First steps. Kinda cute."
Flip. Flip.
"Hey, I had a train cake for my 4th birthday too."
Flip. Flip. Flip-flip-flip.
"Ooh, that graduation photo is out of focus!"
Flip. Flip-flip.
"Hang on, there's no shots of her sixth birthday! What are you trying to pull?"
"None of these photos show her in the process of aging! Where are the transitional forms?"
"I see no shots where she's half ten-years-old and half twenty-five. Come on, there's no evidence she aged at all!"
Hmm.... maybe I should call that a comic script and draw it up.
The Data So Far
xkcd's latest comic is t-shirt material. (As always, mouse over the comic for the hidden comment. Works on some of mine as well!)
What really prompts me to post, though is the stupidity of so many responses on the livejournal feed.
They so completely do not understand this aspect of what xkcd is about (skepticism and science), it makes me wonder why they read the feed at all.
edit: Damn. I should have realized Pharyngula would point to this one. I don't mind being so unoriginal as to just point to a webcomic, but I do mind being so unoriginal as to point to one already being pointed to by a hugely more popular blog. (And Shalini at Scientia Natura has followed suit. Now I feel like a sheeple. Retrospectively. Wait, I mean "great minds think alike". Yeah, that's the ticket.)
What really prompts me to post, though is the stupidity of so many responses on the livejournal feed.
They so completely do not understand this aspect of what xkcd is about (skepticism and science), it makes me wonder why they read the feed at all.
edit: Damn. I should have realized Pharyngula would point to this one. I don't mind being so unoriginal as to just point to a webcomic, but I do mind being so unoriginal as to point to one already being pointed to by a hugely more popular blog. (And Shalini at Scientia Natura has followed suit. Now I feel like a sheeple. Retrospectively. Wait, I mean "great minds think alike". Yeah, that's the ticket.)
Monday, January 21, 2008
Offensive words
Kelly, at RRS said:
Instead of harping continually on the use of the word "fuck", why don't we examine the truly offensive words like "should" and "ought"?
She said a number of other important things in her post, but I wanted to highlight that line in particular. I think it speaks volumes.
Instead of harping continually on the use of the word "fuck", why don't we examine the truly offensive words like "should" and "ought"?
She said a number of other important things in her post, but I wanted to highlight that line in particular. I think it speaks volumes.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Fucking with people's lives for $3.50
Something I have seen advertised a lot on late night TV (and the sheer number of ads indicates how profitable it must be - after all they can keep affording more ads) - text your name and your "potential love match", to the number in the ad, and it tells you whether you are destined to be together or whether your relationship is doomed to fail.
Now maybe some of the people using this are just doing it for a bit of harmless fun, but I kind of doubt it. Even if you don't take it all that seriously, are you sure it's not going to colour your opinion?
And, unfortunately, I expect the overwhelming majority of customers will take it seriously. How many budding relationships will be terminated by this nonsense? How many longer term relationships experiencing a minor bad patch will be ended by this ludicrousness? And how many relationships that really are beyond hope will get another round of misery because they're "destined to be together"?
How can people be so stupid as to hand over money on the basis of some algorithm that can't be using anything better than the characters in your names? People will, as I have found over and over, believe almost anything. And there are people who will happily take money from suckers.
Now maybe some of the people using this are just doing it for a bit of harmless fun, but I kind of doubt it. Even if you don't take it all that seriously, are you sure it's not going to colour your opinion?
And, unfortunately, I expect the overwhelming majority of customers will take it seriously. How many budding relationships will be terminated by this nonsense? How many longer term relationships experiencing a minor bad patch will be ended by this ludicrousness? And how many relationships that really are beyond hope will get another round of misery because they're "destined to be together"?
How can people be so stupid as to hand over money on the basis of some algorithm that can't be using anything better than the characters in your names? People will, as I have found over and over, believe almost anything. And there are people who will happily take money from suckers.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Some minor linkage
Better post something.
I enjoy The Birds.
This one came up today. The main page has that comic now, but it doesn't seem to have a permanent URL, unfortunately. So to keep pointing at the comic I'm referring to even after the next comic posts, I'm forced to link the png image.
Greg Laden points to some nifty technology. This kind of research is the sort of thing that's going to end up saving what's left of our sorry arses. I hope.
US ranks last of 19 industrialized nations on preventable deaths. Around a hundred thousand extra people die in the US each year from such preventable causes - assuming the US could manage to have healthcare like any of the top three on the list, which would seem to be impossible.
[I've been ridiculously busy for the last several weeks (which is why no posts). Sleep is something I am snatching when I can fit it in. I have plenty of material cued up for when I have time to write it, whenever that is. Probably not for a few more weeks, the way things are going. I'm supposedly on vacation, but I've been working like crazy. Yes, I'm a lazy, evil, selfish atheist.]
I enjoy The Birds.
This one came up today. The main page has that comic now, but it doesn't seem to have a permanent URL, unfortunately. So to keep pointing at the comic I'm referring to even after the next comic posts, I'm forced to link the png image.
Greg Laden points to some nifty technology. This kind of research is the sort of thing that's going to end up saving what's left of our sorry arses. I hope.
US ranks last of 19 industrialized nations on preventable deaths. Around a hundred thousand extra people die in the US each year from such preventable causes - assuming the US could manage to have healthcare like any of the top three on the list, which would seem to be impossible.
[I've been ridiculously busy for the last several weeks (which is why no posts). Sleep is something I am snatching when I can fit it in. I have plenty of material cued up for when I have time to write it, whenever that is. Probably not for a few more weeks, the way things are going. I'm supposedly on vacation, but I've been working like crazy. Yes, I'm a lazy, evil, selfish atheist.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
