skepticism

Unsinkable skepducks

Innocuous bath toys or intro to critical thinking?

I was inspired by Neil de Grasse Tyson to look at my daughter’s bath toys with new eyes. In one of his essays in Death By Black Hole – “On Density”, I believe – he writes eloquently about how a cupful of the planet Saturn would actually float in a tub of bathwater. That’s because it’s less dense than water. Since you can’t go out and get a cupful of Saturn, Tyson playfully suggested we introduce rubber Saturn toys in place of yellow duckies in our children’s baths. It would be a good way to promote science early on. I loved the idea.

But where to find such a toy? I was thinking such thoughts when my wife came home with a bag full of little yellow rubber duckies for the bath. “We needed some bath toys,” she said. Well, I thought, why not transform the omnipresent yellow duckie into an educational bath toy (keep in mind our daughter is eight months old)? And since it’s already the symbol par excellence of quackery, why not riff on that? Presto! The skepducks were hatched.

I never forget James Randi’s phrase for the resilience of credulity and pseudoscience, “unsinkable rubber ducks.” I’m making a commitment to my daughter to raise her to think for herself and question received ideas. There’s no better time to start.

Which of these novels have you read?

I love the fact that the Bible is included on this list, where it belongs. Now, what about the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon and Dianetics? I suppose they didn’t want to risk it. (My answers are in red.)

Today I embraced the Lord Jesus Christ

APRIL FOOLS’! Well, you knew that was coming, right? Now I’m going to enrich that predictably adolescent gag with a tidbit of extra trivia. “April Fools'” is called “Pesce d’aprile” in Italy – “April Fish.” I can only imagine it has something to do with this:

 

Fooled ya!

There’s a sucker born every minute. Save yourself; be skeptical.

Before you take homeopathy, watch this video. You can’t even oversdose on this stuff!

via Butterflies and Wheels. Mwah!

The curious case of Shermer vs. Armstrong

Searching for skeptical responses to astrology, I came across this video entitled Vedic Astrology: Michael Shermer vs. Jeffrey Armstrong. The video is a clip (not a whole episode) from Exploring the Unknown. In the clip Armstrong, a “Vedic astrologer” – after assuring us that Vedic astrology is the only “scientific” astrology out there – appears to “read” a group of people with nothing other than the date, time and place of their birth, and their gender.

Armstrong got a 77% overall result. So does this validate Vedic astrology?

There is a long thread on James Randi’s website dedicated to Armstrong vs. Shermer. Most of the commenters are skeptical of the clip, mainly because Shermer doesn’t get his two minutes to explain the seemingly overwhelming success of Armstrong’s powers. Mostly people seem interested in Shermer’s silence. Why didn’t he promptly and clearly debunk his astrological debunker? Was Shermer a defeated skeptic after all?

Shermer pops up midway through the thread, in an email response attributed to him. We can probably assume these are Shermer’s words, because Randi’s site would have probably taken them down had they been exposed as a fabrication.

Here is meta-Shermer:

“The short story is this: we ran out of time at the end of the filming day to conduct any more experiments with Armstrong. I protested that it was going to make it look like he was successful, but to no avail as I did not have final authority over what was produced for the show, Exploring the Unknown, and so I just hoped that in the editing process it would be cut in a way that dealt with that problem, but it wasn’t and I couldn’t do anything about it, so it aired and no one noticed back then (in 2000), but someone posted the clip you reference and now we’re dealing with the fallout from it. It is an unfortunate reality of the series that I didn’t have enough control over the production and filming process. You can post this explanation if you like.

***

“My memory on what we were trying to do that day of filming is a little vague, but if I recall correctly there was to be another stage of the experiment where Armstrong had to match his astrological readings with the profiles of a group of new subjects, and then have them do the same, picking out their reading from a batch he produced, and then compare them. But we ran out of time. Here’s how it works in the film/television industry: camera crews are unionized and have strict rules about working only so many hours in a day, after which they get paid double time and even triple time, need a certain number of breaks in the day, etc. Our budget for that show required that we were done by 5pm, and we simply ran out of time and the producer called the shoot over, and there was nothing I could do about it. Very frustrating.”

If you’re interested, watch the video and judge for yourself. But keep in mind that if Vedic astrology really is all Jeffrey Armstrong and his commenter trolls crack it up to be, then why hasn’t it been more widely embraced by the scientific community? Or, why hasn’t it been embraced at all? Is he a lone rogue scientist, a modern-day Copernicus, a Galileo who will be vindicated long after those who ridicule him are forgotten, their memory scattered by the winds of time?

I doubt it. Armstrong and his visionary cronies are on the outer rings of science, the fringe. To penetrate the inner core of accepted scientific knowledge, Vedic astrology would have to amass mountainous proof of its validity and its ability to stand up to ceaseless testing and prove itself compatible with the existing body of scientific knowledge. Anything less than this, no matter how many lucky hits he brings home (who couldn’t get a few hits just by taking a stab in the dark?) means that astrology – Vedic or otherwise – is destined to remain on the outer limits along with mind-reading, tarot cards, Bible codes and legion other curios of the human intellect.

Or is Vedic astrology, like Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, a game-changer?

All my friends are Deists

Recently every conversation I have had has devolved into, “I can’t believe you call yourself an atheist!” Then follow accusations of bandwagoning, shallow reasoning and appeals to the Courtier’s Reply or the mystery card. My favorite is the accusation that I, as a non-believer, am somehow limited in my ability to appreciate fine art. Ha, ha Houdini!

The odd thing is that this is all coming not from religious folks, ministers, rabbis or what have you. These have almost exclusively been conversations with secular, avowedly non-religious people like myself who – for whatever reason – don’t like my calling myself an atheist.

“Just don’t proselytize and we’ll be alright.” Somehow we atheists have been confused with religious fanatics, with a church and a creed and a militant lobby of non-believers out to atheize America and the world.

But what arguments have they offered in favor of belief? None, I’m disappointed to say. I kind of look forward to a good, respectful debate, but all I’ve been offered has been the claim that I am presumptuous, materialistic (contrast with “spiritual”) or a preacher in disguise. “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist,” I am rebuked. What does that statement even mean?

What I’ve learned about my “opponents” is this: they are all Deists. They all believe in some higher power which is ethereal, non-material, invisible, all-encompassing and completely devoid of any of the qualities most people mean when they speak of God. “Oh,” they say, “I don’t believe in that pedestrian, biblical God, or miracles, or any of that stuff. Ha! You atheists are so dumb you’re the only ones left who believe that crap. If that’s your straw man God, I’ll stick with the believers.”

So what do they believe in? “Spirituality,” “love,” and any number of heightened, pseudo-religious states of appreciation are the usual answers. The divine spark that separates us humans from baser forms of life. Intimate conversations with the deity. They believe in the God of Fine Art. A wireless iGod with infinite loving memory.

They can have their Terry Eagleton, though. Because none of these are remotely persuasive arguments for the existence of a god or God Himself. People seem almost embarrassed to have their intimate, personal deity confused with the huffy-puffy swordsman of biblical lore. Don’t they realize that religious folks probably lump them in with the atheists?

So let’s clear something up: atheists are not proposing any counter-cult to the thousands of existing cults out there. We remain unconvinced by them all. We are just like you, only we believe in one less god than you do (if you are Hindu or polytheist of another stripe, rest assured we don’t believe in any of your gods either). End of story. If this is so bothersome, most atheists welcome lively debate or exchange of ideas. We promote discussion and differing points of view. But if all you can muster against us is, “You’ll never understand the spiritual dimension of Mark Rothko’s later paintings unless you admit there is an immaterial plane where altered truths reveal themselves…” then I’ll remind you that that’s exactly the way cults of all types work. The truth can’t be revealed to you unless you give yourself over to faith.

So, if anyone reading this has any novel, powerful arguments for the existence of God (or the god of your choice), I’m listening. Until then, I’m happily godless and enjoying every minute of it.

Don’t Get Scammed

I spent most of the last week reading Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst’s Trick or Treatment: Alternative Medicine on Trial. Besides being written in clear, understandable English – always a plus – the book is full of information that might save you from getting scammed. Because this – the issue of whether placebos count as valid treatment aside – is what’s at stake with most alternative medicine.

In fact, the term “alternative medicine” is an oxymoron. It’s like saying “right” is “alternative left,” or that there is “science” and “alternative science.” There is science and pseudoscience. When a new remedy or treatment is proven to work, it stops being alternative and becomes medicine. Alternative medicine is akin to quackery. As Robert Todd Carroll of Skepdic puts it:

What quackery lacks in scientific study it sometimes makes up for by prescribing generous portions of caring—sometime sincere but often counterfeit—and overdoses of false hope.

Worst of all, most have us have probably been scammed at least once by such practioners as chiropractors, herbalists, acupuncturists, reflexologists, not to mention the really wacky stuff like threapeautic touch, Reiki and crystal therapy. Punch any of these into Skepdic and read up on them before shelling out.

Of course, you may not want to know what skeptics have to say about a treatment you’ve been using. Let’s say you’ve been having acupuncture regularly for years. You’re convinced it works. Why are you going to listen to some shmo like Robert Todd Carroll or Simon Singh tell you that you’re just buying extravagant placebos? Well, that’s what the trials tell us. None of your favorite alternative treatments – underline none – have proven to be anything more than placebos after having undergone rigorous testing. When you reflect on the voodoo-like nature of most of them, involving catchy concept-words like “energy”, “mind-body”and “spirit,” this should come as no surprise.

Some, however, will argue that quackery is an acceptable method of healing the sick. Why take away hope? The counter-argument is that lying to patients undermines the trust on which the doctor-patient relationship is based. And it opens the door to charlatans of every stripe. Like Kevin Trudeau. Allowing for “ethical quackery” would erase whatever distinction we make between concepts such as “truth” and “falsehood”, rendering them meaningless. After all, why bother developing and testing real medicine when all we need are sugar pills with fancy names? Why bother getting a medical degree when we could all become faith healers or homeopaths simply by hanging a sign over our door or on our website? Unless we are able to admit that there is a real and worthwhile difference between selling a product known to work and a simple placebo, we might as well send our children to witchdoctors and our elderly parents to the bloodletter.

Here are a few websites to help you out: Quackwatch, Bad Science and, of course, Skepdic. There’s a lot of information out there, but it would be prudent to find out what actual scientists and doctors have to say before paying for a treatment based on some mythical Oriental tradition which probably never even existed.

Be a Skeptic!

I’m not trying to convert anyone. What, I wonder, would that be? There is no skeptic’s religion. Being skeptical is a stance, a way of thinking critically about the world, a method of engaging with information. After all, you can’t believe everything. It is not a religion. Skeptics may be Jews, Christians, atheists or agnostics. Skeptics have no commandments, no sacred texts, no sectarian law. They don’t discriminate on the basis of sex, ethnicity or sexual preference. Most importantly, they have no idols – so even monotheists can feel comfortable as skeptics. After all, skeptics aren’t pagans (rural folk, as it were) venerating little carved figurines by an open fire.

Anyone can be a skeptic, and all of us are already skeptics in a certain sense. For example, it has been pointed out that as far as Greek mythology goes most of us are skeptics. Not many people alive today believe in the gods of Olympus or the Delphic oracle. Ditto a whole slew of ancient gods and divinities which we group together as myths, or rather stuff other peple believed in long ago. It goes without saying that, for an atheist, יהוה is a mythical god. So is Jesus, for that matter. This is not to disparage them, however. Many skeptics are devoted readers of the bible. They just don’t believe in it.

Though even skeptics recognize that many people do indeed beleive in Jesus, יהוה, and many other gods (“all of us worship the same god” is a politically expedient myth ; we don’t) and goddesses, angels, devils and heavenly intermediaries of all types: the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, Gabriel, Metatron etc… the list is long and tedious. Jews are necessarily skeptical of Christian claims, as are Christians of Muslim claims. I mean, either Jesus will return or he won’t. Either moshiah will come or he won’t. So far, so bad. They can’t all be right.

A skeptic makes no such claims about the nature of the universe, but limits himself (or herself) to interpreting facts and making educated guesses. A skeptic has no trouble saying, “I don’t know (right now).” The religious mind, on the other hand, often seeks utter certainty on one hand and fathomless mystery on the other. Needless to say, this is incompatible with a skeptical worldview.