Skeptico

No Way RFK

Several of my fellow skeptical bloggers have been getting worked up about the possibility – rumors really – that Robert F. Kennedy Junior might be chosen by Obama as the next head of the EPA. It’s encouraging to note that most science bloggers who have commented, realize it would be a really bad move to appoint such an anti-vaccine crank with so little understanding of science, to this position. Read what Orac has to say about Robert F. Kennedy Junior if you don’t know the details. In summary, RFK somehow got it into his head that autism is caused by Thimerosal in vaccines. To help confirm this idea, he read the transcripts of a medical conference that was set up to discuss any possible link, to see if he could find evidence of a cover up. Unsurprisingly, he found the confirmation and the evidence of a conspiracy he was looking for. But only by torturing the minutes of the meeting so the attendees appeared to be saying the exact opposite of what they did, actually, say. I read the detailed minutes myself and wrote two posts on RFK’s conspiracy mongering and RFK’s quote mining. You can see from all this that Kennedy first made up his mind about vaccines and then forced the evidence to match his previously made up position. And haven’t we had enough of that over the previous eight years? Yes, RFK would be a terrible choice.

I have to say though, I’m a lot more relaxed about this than most of the other skeptical bloggers. Not because I don’t think RFK would be a terrible choice, but because I don’t actually see Obama picking RFK for this. The reason is that Obama’s decision making seems to be characterized by careful thought and especially by comprehensive vetting of appointees. I just don’t see him making such a mistake. And that is especially so when you read Obama’s Statement in Support of World Autism Awareness Day and Awareness Month, where he states among other things, “while the causes of autism remain a mystery…”. Not to Kennedy. He knows it’s the vaccines.

And with RFK it’s not just anti-vaccine crankery. See this video where RFK talks favorably of Hugo Chavez and the nationalization of oil companies in Venezuela. While I don’t want to get into the argument about whether that is good or bad, you have to admit the nationalization of oil companies is actually socialism, unlike the lame “socialist” things Obama was charged with during the campaign. Just the thought of playing that tape and having to justify those comments at the congressional hearings ought to be enough for Obama’s team to rule out RFK. He really doesn’t want to start all that again.

And the rumors of an RFK appointment don’t even seem that credible. For example see this article that doesn’t even mention the word “Kennedy”. Reports hyping up RFK’s chances are from the likes of The Huffington Post. And we know how reliable they are when the subject has anything to do with vaccines.

So while it’s good to get the word out, again, about RFK’s total unsuitability for such a post, I actually doubt that he’s even on Obama’s shortlist. If I’m wrong, then clearly my opinion of Obama would take a very early nosedive, but I don’t think I’m ready to pre-criticize one of his future decisions just yet.

Skeptics' Circle

Regular Skeptico commenter King of Ferrets is currently hosting the 99th Skeptics' Circle.  Nip on over there to read the best from the skeptical blogs from the last two weeks.

Hindu Buddha Allah, bigger than God

God's own reputation was at stake in yesterday’s presidential election. That’s not my opinion, obviously. It was the opinion of Arnold Conrad, the former pastor of Grace Evangelical Free Church in Davenport, who took it upon himself at a McCain rally a few weeks ago, to warn God of the implications of an Obama win:

There are millions of people around this world praying to their god—whether it’s Hindu, Buddha, Allah—that [John McCain’s] opponent wins, for a variety of reasons. And Lord, I pray that you will guard your own reputation, because they’re going to think that their God is bigger than you, if that happens,

OK, well ignoring for now that Allah is just another name for the God that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship, and that Hindu and Buddha are not gods anyway, what can we conclude from last night’s Obama victory? Presumably that the Christian god is smaller than that of the other religions. According to pastor Conrad, anyway. And he should know, being a pastor and all.

Alternatively, prayer has no effect on anything. Perhaps any Christians reading this can tell us which.

I guess we should all be grateful Conrad didn’t call on any really powerful gods. For example Thor, who would have beaten them all with his big Smashum hammer!  Phew - close call!

Stop Sylvia Browne Stopped

The Stop Sylvia Browne website appears to have been taken over by someone selling psychic services. For now, no one is sure exactly how this happened, except that it is possible the domain registration expired (expiry date was August 21), and so the registrar (Go Daddy) put the domain up for auction. For example, see the stopsylviabrowne.com auction page, and Go Daddy’s policy for handling domains that are not renewed:

On the 25th day following your domain registration's expiration date, we place your domain for auction on the Domain Name Aftermarket (TDNAM).

That would make the auction start date September 15^th. The close date would therefore appear to be ten days later.  Admittedly though, things are a little unclear. Anyway, it seems likely someone took advantage of Rob Lancaster’s current serious illness to take over his site. 

This is a great shame. Some skeptics are working with Go Daddy to try to get the domain back (read the discussion over on JREF), but it doesn’t look good. Clearly, Robert would be able to restart the site with another domain name, when he gets well (the website data will not have been lost). But until then I’m removing the link to the site. More importantly, I think we all would wish Robert a speedy recovery from his illness.

November 1, 2008 - Edited to add:

The real Stop Sylvia site has been reborn at a new location - click Sylvia Browne to see the new site with all the old good stuff.  All skeptical bloggers and owners of skeptical websites are being asked to change their links to the new url. If you're not familiar with search engine optimization, please read Tim's post, Skeptics! Load your google bombs!.  Short version - link the new url to the words "Sylvia Browne" and not "Stop Sylvia Browne".  For example:

Preferred: Sylvia Browne

OK, but not as good: Stop Sylvia Browne

Sarah Palin Proudly Ignorant

Yesterday, Sarah Palin gave a speech on the McCain/Palin plans for special needs children. And in it she demonstrated her ignorance more clearly that in anything she had said before. Which, considering the other things she has said, is quite an achievement. Get a load of this:

This is a matter of how we prioritize the money that we spend. […] And where does a lot of that earmark money end up? It goes to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good -- things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

Research into fruit flies. In France. France I tell you! The horror. (The “I kid you not” was not part of the official transcript, but she said it. I kid you not.)

Palin's proud ignorance shines through loud and clear. The actual research she was mocking was into the olive fruit fly – a major pest that threatens California’s olive farmers. (I guess she doesn't care about Joe the farmer.  How elitist.) But fruit fly research is much more than this. The fruit fly is a standard organism that is used to study numerous genetic traits, precisely because it shares so many genetic similarities with humans. Including possibly genetic causes of some of the very “special needs” traits of children Palin was supposed to be supporting in her speech. Just a ten second Google of fruit fly research would reveal 1,390,000 articles explaining the many benefits of research using fruit flies. Avenues of research and benefits achieved already that are too numerous for me to list, although a molecular biologist writing in the Daily Kos yesterday managed to list quite a few.

Of course, such research only makes sense if you accept that evolution happened - that humans and fruit flies have a common ancestor. Palin doesn’t believe this, because it conflicts with what she read in her bible, and so she sees no value to it. And right there you have, eloquently expressed, the reason that creationist nonsense should not be taught as science, and why creationist idiots (some redundancy there) like Palin should not get anywhere near having any real power.  And I kid you not.

October 27 - Edited to add:

Bora has much more on this, including links to this response from UNC researchers: In defense of fruit flies and basic medical research, as well as videos from some actual fruit fly research scientists, and these additional links:

Mike the Mad Biologist
Evolgen
Napa Valley Register
Island Of Doubt
Pharyngula
Pandagon
The Tree of Life
Washington Post
Myrmecos Blog
KSJ Tracker
Hyllaballoo
Radula
Uncontrolled Experiment
Greta Christina's Blog
Bjoern Brembs
Salon.com
Life v. 3.0
Flags and Lollipops - Network Edition

I'm smarter than Palin

Skeptics' Circle

The latest Skeptics' Circle has just been published at The Uncredible Hallq. 

Click the link to be Unwooed.

Psychics Make Firm Predictions

Psychics working for the TruTV (“Not Reality. Actuality.”) network claim to have some very specific information about the abductor of little Madeleine McCann, the four year old English girl who disappeared in Portugal in May 2007. The “Haunting Reality” program apparently features “psychic profiler Carla Baron, medium John J. Oliver and paranormal investigator Patrick Burns” who, I imagine, make the usual guesses about the nature of various unsolved crimes. But here they have gone further than the usual vague guesses. Get a load of what they claim to know:

• What the abductor looks like – and they have released a drawing of him
• The abductor’s first name,
• The actual address of an apartment where the abductor was supposed to have stopped
• The location of Madeleine’s body.

From the British Sunday Express newspaper, you can read the usual vague guesses that are either trivial or impossible to verify (“He took her to his car. There were people walking who saw him but he just looked as if he was a father carrying a sleeping child and they didn’t take any notice.”) But some of the more specific information was also published. Sensibly, the actual addresses given to police were not reported. The supposed abductor’s drawing was published though (which is irresponsible in my view. I refuse to do so, although I have saved the drawing for such time as the actual abductor is caught.) But there were some more specific pieces of information that I want to put on record:

…the man has a pronounced accent and looks and sounds Middle Eastern, possibly Egyptian, and drives a mid-sized dark silver car with a parking permit or some other identifying sticker inside the windscreen on the driver’s side.

[…]

…the man is known as Steve or Stav and took the child to a summer rental apartment in the nearby village of Lagos.

[…]

[The abductor had a] dark silver car, which may have had even darker or black trim.

Mr Oliver said he believes that the abductor may have stopped briefly at a deserted farmhouse east of the town before driving to his eventual destination – a ­furnished room rented out during the summer in nearby Lagos.

(“May have”? How can they say “may have” if they have given police the actual address?)

OK, here we have a fairly clear cut case with some fairly specific information given by the psychics. A name, a picture, even supposedly two addresses. Let’s see how useful this psychic information turns out to be. Let’s see if “Steve or Stav”, looking like the drawing, is actually found. Let’s see if Madeleine’s body is found where the psychics say it is. Shouldn’t take long. This is a high profile case where this lead will be investigated pretty quickly.

Hope these predictions don't come back to haunt us.

Stop Jenny McCarthy

A new website has just been created to counter to the anti-vaccine nonsense perpetrated by Jenny McCarthy - Stop Jenny McCarthy.  As they say on their website:

Jenny has no educational background and no license to give any type of medical advice on any medically related topic. Becoming a parent of an autistic child is a huge job, but that does not make Jenny's google research and interpretation of the experiences more valid than others who have had the same experiences and come to different conclusions.

We ask that Jenny re-evaluate her assertions, and ask all parents to learn about the issue in depth.

A nice idea but somehow I don't think she will "re-evaluate her assertions," because they are just that - assertions.  Jenny's views on vaccines were not arrived at following a rational review of the evidence.  And that which is not arrived at through reason is unlikely to be reasoned away.  Still, I think the idea of the Stop Jenny McCarthy site is a good one - not to "stop" her per se, but at least to provide a site that will counter Jenny's ridiculous claims for anyone who is actually researching the topic.  (You know Oprah won't do it.)  In future, anyone Googling Jenny McCarthy will now find at least one site presenting facts and rationality.

Religulous

So I saw Religulous yesterday. This is a brief review – I didn’t take notes, and in any case telling you details would spoil the actual film. But I will say that it’s very funny. And worth seeing.

Maher gets his laughs by just asking various religious people to explain and justify their beliefs. All he needs in addition are a few snarky words and comedic glances to camera combined with some subtitled comments and sharp editing. It’s hard to name my favorite piece, but one that does stick out is the interview with creationist US Senator Mark Pryor, who actually said that humans didn’t know it was wrong to kill people before we got the ten commandments. But to his credit, Pryor did go on to point out that you don’t need to pass an IQ test before you can be a US Senator. Thanks for clearing that up.

Although most of the movie was comedic, the end contained the serious message Maher obviously intended the movie to make. With scenes showing nuclear explosions and the like captioned with quotes from the Book of Revelation, Maher laments that we developed the tools to annihilate life on Earth while some of the people with their fingers on the trigger still believe in the biblical End Times. He calls on the anti-religionists to come out of the closet and assert themselves. He also has a message for those who consider themselves moderately religious – examine your faith to determine if it's really worth the cost. Or to put it another way, the moderates provide cover for the religious nut cases who could really do some damage. The serious end was at odds with the rest of the film, but at least the message was clear.

Criticisms

Some have criticized the film for just going for the soft targets – the less sophisticated religious rather than religious scholars. For example, American Thinker suggested that Rick Warren would have been a better opponent for Maher. Well, considering this example of Rick Warren’s piss poor logic, I have to disagree. Warren would have been no better than most of the people Maher used in his film, but he would certainly have been less funny. The fact is, religion makes no sense when you examine it critically, no matter how much you’ve studied its nuances. This criticism is little more than a courtier’s reply – if you’re not interviewing experts in the design and manufacture of invisible garments, you’re not entitled to point out that the emperor has no clothes. I think Maher was perhaps a little mean with the blue collar workers at the truck stop church, but most of his interviewees were fair game. Remember, he did try to get interviews at the Vatican and with representatives of the Mormon Church but was thrown out of both locations.

Others have criticized Maher for not being honest in describing the film’s intent when booking the interviews. For example, Maher’s name was never mentioned in advance, nor was the true name of the film. It has been suggested that this is similar to the way the producers of Expelled hid the true meaning of their film from Dawkins and others. But those interviewed in Expelled were never told the true intent of the film even during the interviews. No one being interviewed by Maher could have been in doubt of his true intent for very long.

So overall, a good film. Some religious people are predictably complaining that Maher was unfair, and that he won’t convert anyone with this film, but that wasn’t his intention. The film is aimed (in my opinion) at weak believers and non-believers, and for them it will hit the mark.

Now, if Maher could only learn to apply some of this kind of critical thinking to his wacky beliefs about “western” medicine, vaccines and germ theory, I might start watching Real Time again.

Subjective Idealism

Reading through Wednesday’s You Get Mail post, it struck me that Coburn's position was closer to Subjective Idealism, rather than Solipsism as a couple of people had suggested. Although Subjective Idealism and Solipsism share at least one weakness.

Subjective Idealism, popularized by Bishop Berkeley, is the philosophical view that there is no such thing as physical matter. Only the mind or spirit, and not physical matter, constitutes reality. From PhiloSophos.com:

Idealism, in terms of metaphysics, is the philosophical view that the mind or spirit constitutes the fundamental reality. It has taken several distinct but related forms. Among them are Objective and Subjective idealism. Objective idealism accepts common sense Realism (the view that material objects exist) but rejects Naturalism (according to which the mind and spiritual values have emerged from material things), whereas subjective idealism denies that material objects exist independently of human perception and thus stands opposed to both realism and naturalism.

You might recognize some of Coburn's arguments there (although mercifully not his verbosity or pomposity).  OK, but why would we care? Well, it provides cover for a whole host of woo beliefs, for starters. For example, it’s perfect for believers in The Secret.  If everything really is just the mind, then it’s a small step to believe that really really wanting something badly enough can actually make it happen.

So could it be true? Could it be that everything that we think of as physical, is actually just thought? Well, Samuel Johnson famously refuted Berkeley by kicking a rock and stating "I refute it thus." His point being that his toe hurt, so it must be real. (Or maybe the rock didn’t move because it was too big – take your pick.)  Jimmy Blue has his own refutation: "Find a busy road, step in front of a speeding bus. If you live, tell us how 'real' it felt."

The thing is, strictly speaking, those arguments don’t refute Idealism. Your toe hurts when you kick the rock, but that could be because your mind imagines your non-material toe hurting.  What these arguments do show is that there really is no difference between the Subjective Idealistic and the Materialistic worlds: your toe hurts (or you are killed when you jump in front of that bus), regardless. Or to put it another way, Subjective Idealism is unfalsifiable - if it were false, there is no test we could perform that it would fail.  So the argument is essentially a waste of time.

Gravity again

Here’s another example that shows why it makes no difference. The Secret proponents such as Joe Vitale like to say that the law of attraction (LOA) is a law just like gravity. OK, let’s think about that. NASA uses the law of gravitation and Newton’s equations to calculate velocity and trajectories to get its rockets to go where it wants them to go. Let’s say they want to send a probe to Mars, to send back pictures of the Mars surface and other scientific data. Perhaps they’ll get the calculations correct. Or perhaps they’ll get them wrong (for example by confusing imperial with metric units).  Of course, getting the calculations right or wrong means different results:

1. If they get the calculations correct, then the probe will land safely and they’ll get back the nice pictures and other scientific data they want. And that’s true whether there really is a physical planet Mars all those millions of miles away, or whether Mars is really just a product of our minds. We either get actual pictures of an actual physical planet, or we get what our minds construct as physical pictures of a physical planet. To us, there appears no difference.  Either way we learn the same things about the planet Mars.
2. If they get the calculations wrong then the spacecraft will crash on the planet’s surface (or miss it altogether), and they’ll get nothing back. And that is true whether there really is a physical planet Mars all those millions of miles away, or whether Mars is really just a product of our minds. Either our physical selves don’t get the pictures of the physical Mars and so we learn nothing, or our non-physical minds don’t get back any images of what looks like a planet. Either way we learn nothing.

So with real scientific laws, like gravity, it makes no difference whether what we see is real matter or whether it is all a product of a minds. The results are the same and repeatable both ways. Likewise with non laws, like The Secret's LOA, it makes no difference either. Wishing for that bike won’t make it magically appear. And that is true whether it is a real physical bike or a construct of our minds that we just think is a physical bike. We won’t be getting the experience of riding that bike either way.

The Harm In Astrology

When linking to the Skeptics’ Circle last week I forgot to point to a couple of posts on astrology from new blogger, The Perky Skeptic. These posts were A Personal View Of The Harm In Astrology, Part 1 and (surprisingly) Part 2. Both of these posts are based on The Perky Skeptic’s experiences with her own father, who was heavily into astrology. Part 1 expands on a view I have written about before, namely that most people use astrology as an excuse for bad behavior rather than an opportunity to change it. Part 2 shows how believers can easily be abused by an astrologer. Interesting reads both.

You Get Mail

I get maybe a couple of emails a day on average from readers of this blog.  Many are in the "thanks for being a voice of reason" type, but many are also of the "you're an arrogant idiot" type - many more of the first than the second though.  But some of the second type are entertaining, in a perverse sort of way. 

For example, I just received an email from one Stef Coburn, who really doesn't like this blog.  I mean really.  To the extent of 1800 words.  Except that I find he wasn't really complaining about me, but about you gentle reader.  Specifically, the regular commenters on this blog (you know who you are).  It's a bit long and rambley, but it will become clear eventually.  This was his original email:

Just came across your site and read through some of your postings growing steadily more appalled as I went.  Finished up with your (and your various contributors) mind-bogglingly boorish, seemingly wilfully ever more progressively stupid treatment of a clearly well motivated if metaphysically confused single mother who after first making the mistake of describing her personally positive experience of 'The Secret', compounded this initial error in judgement with the naively mistaken impression that she was debating the subject with reasonable people.  (as opposed to the pack of smugly self-satisfied pseudo-intellectual science-mullahs she had in fact fallen amongst)  In maintaining and attempting to qualify her position, however ineffectually, in the face of the concerted and steadily more hysterically OTT attack you and your competitively-pissing pack-mates gratuitously subjected her to, this lady demonstrated a degree of 'grace' under fire as far beyond the capabilities of you and people like you as M31 galactic central is from whatever rock you live under.

    For all your protestations of faux outrage at the (alleged) transgressions and emotional violations of Allison Dubois and her various ilk, it is my very strong impression that everything you people know about human decency and dignified restraint could be written on a post-it and posted in the Planck space.  What could this lady have possibly said or done to deserve the treatment you all so joyfully meted out to her?  Scientific knowledge and technological expertise, whilst, in themselves both the products and facilitators of human civilisation and intellectual progress clearly guarantee the presence of  neither virtue in either their practitioners or their hangers-on.  On the basis of your own ghastly expositions, I frankly don't think you or your cohorts would recognise a proportionate response, for instance, if it jumped up and spat in your eye.

   Intellectual bullies like you have turned up (and continue with tedious regularity to turn up) throughout history, trumpeting their prejudices and inchoate or partial theories as fact or (paying lip service to reason) probable fact, in the name of science. (and 'natural philosophy' before there was any such thing as 'science')  Often times these people have spent their entire professional or vocational lives putting the boot into others (as often as not as well 'qualified' as themselves) who, for whatever reason, have disagreed with them on this or that point of principle or order.

  Far from any spirit of rational discourse and debate, the attacks you and people like you habitually and reflexively level at those who (whether logically or illogically) espouse theories, philosophies or, dare I say, 'beliefs' different in almost any significant regard from your (their) own, are frequently marked by a level of gratuitous (and, for the most part) entirely unnecessary and unrestrained viciousness levelled willy-nilly at their fellow beings, that, occurring in just about any other arena, than that sanctified by your supposed quest for 'truth' and, even then, more likely than not, safely insulated by physical distance, would likely quickly result in the reciprocal and entirely deserved visiting upon your physical person of what (to use a widely employed and understood oxymoron) is commonly referred to as 'a good kicking'.

    So ******* what if you can, (as your fellow thug Tom Foss suggests he can) normalized a wave-function, describe the three-dimensional Time-Dependent Schrödinger Equation, or give the basic expression for momentum using the complex conjugate of the wave-function.  As far as human consciousness is concerned (without which you could do none of these things) you simply don't know which way is 'up'.  What (except in the most rarefied of circles) does it matter if you know what an eigenstate is or have any idea what value is represented by < a | a > if you can't comprehend the simple (anthropic) fact that without consciousness (which, despite the pretensions of intellectual nazis like you, you are no closer to understanding, let alone explaining than any rainforest native or Kalahari 'bushman') literally nothing would or could subjectively exist.  As we only have, furthermore, our necessarily subjective human consciousness upon which to base and from which to derive whatever indicators we believe we have discovered, to the existence of a supposedly 'objective' universe 'external' in any meaningful sense to ourselves, in the absence of an explanation for this precursor 'ground' of our being, the jury, whether over-protesting dressed-up talking chimpanzees like you (or me for that matter) like it or not, can only be said to be stubbornly 'out' where the nature of 'reality' is concerned.

   When you dream about a tree, I'll bet you waste not a moment doubting its existence, but only appreciate it as the source of equally unquestioned dream-fruit, or thankfully shin-up it to escape the equally substantial dream-tiger that is chasing you.  When you 'wake-up' where is the tree?  Who is to say that the World you perceive (and measure) in your alleged 'waking' state has any more 'objective' substance than the objects (and people) you experienced in your dream.  Ever had a 'false awakening' where you thought you had awoken from one dream, only to find that you were still caught up in another?  How do you know, as a matter of irrefutable fact that any such state as 'awake' even exists?  To save you the bother, I'll answer for you here.  Whatever comforting intellectual protestations and sophistry you may employ to argue otherwise, you simply don't.

   Even assuming (for the sake of argument) the existence of the physical, you ultimately have to take it on 'faith' that the picture of the World (even you must acknowledge) you are constructing in your brain from the mish-mash (a technical term) of diverse electro-chemical impulses arriving there via your nerve fibres, corresponds to a commonly imagined but ultimately unprovable objective environment.  For all you know, the 'laws' of physics only remain 'lawful' for as long as you continue to imagine them so.  For all you know, you either have no physical 'reality' at all, or if you in fact do, are nothing more than a disembodied brain in a bucket, being fed (Matrix-like) a stream of data from which you elaborately derive the perceived entirety of your world.  In either case, as with so called 'lucid' dreaming, who is to say that the 'rules' of the game are anything like as fixed as people like you commonly assume?  Who is to say that merely by 'believing' otherwise, the world, or to make a critical distinction, an individual's subjective experience of the world (the only kind of experience we can prove - cogito ergo sum) cannot be altered to suit whatever belief system or cloud-cuckoo land fantasy we can dream up?  Who is to say that each of us does not constitute the perceptual centre of our own separate idiosyncratically constructed 'parallel' universe, in which all imagined facts and figures are uniquely formed by and channelled through our own biased (this way or that) perceptual moulds and filters?

   Please note carefully here, that I am not insisting that any of this is so, merely that, as things currently stand, neither you nor anyone else can prove that it is not so.  Your broadly demonstrated arrogance therefore is simply that; you abrogate to yourself, an absolute knowledge that you (in common with all the other 'pro-simians' with whom you share (or appear to share) existence, simply do not, possibly even cannot, have.  This being irrefutably the case, (though you're certainly welcome to try and prove otherwise - knock yourself out) it therefore behoves all of us to behave with at least a modicum of humility, particularly in regard to our fellow beings.

   Put simply, as no-one can state with any certainty that they know (as opposed to merely believe or think they know) how the World works, but everyone knows when they're being unjustly 'dissed' or dismissed, it is, at least 99.999 percent of the time, more important (certainly more consequential) therefore to be nice than right.  No matter how infuriating the widely demonstrated human aversion to logic and applied reason can seem, in the face of this or that 'beautiful' body of theoretical or experimental so-called 'knowledge', except in the most extreme cases where others, acting out of degradation, prejudice or malice, have set themselves against us, laws of courtesy and common decency must take clear and constant priority over whatever body of abstraction we might philosophically adhere to.  To do otherwise is to act as the catholic and muslim (to name but two) so-called, self-appointed, religious 'authorities' have historically acted toward those who have not enthusiastically echoed (if not necessarily shared) their own imperialising brand of unproven and unprovable superstition.  When you castigate and condemn people as 'pro-simians' or 'dipshits' merely for disagreeing with you, regardless of their education or lack of it, how is that different in substance from advocating the excommunication or even (metaphorically at least) the burning or stoning of those you consider to be either 'heretics' against, or infidel unbelievers in 'holy' science?  When you apply glib contemptuously dismissive labels like 'woo woo' to your fellow humans, how is that different in any substantial regard to the application of other terms of prejudicial abuse like 'untermenschen' 'split-tail' or 'nigger'?  You use 'woo' in the exactly the same way, after all, to set yourself apart from a perceived underclass to whom you flatter (and likely delude) yourself, you are in some way superior.  When I refer to you and people like you as intellectual 'bullies', 'thugs' or 'nazis' on the other hand I am merely applying the widely understood appropriately descriptive terms for the kind of (unkind) person who, instead of engaging in properly civil rational discourse to settle differences or convey information, prefers instead to resort to fundamentally anti-intellectual intentionally destructive, prejudicial put-downs against people who, regardless of (perceived) educational shortcomings or philosophical differences, are as deserving of courtesy and consideration as any of your (perceived or imagined) peers.

Explain to anyone who cares by all means, wherever possible, in words of one syllable if you have to, (or even can) the difference between the 'scientific method' and other less disciplined forms of thought, but the aggressively hostile hysterical emotionalism with which you leap to attack those not manifestly privileged with your (here assumed - after all I don't know you from mythical Adam) education, constitutes behaviour which the so-called 'enlightenment' of science is supposed to steer us (as a species) away from rather than simply instantiating new barbarism and division in the place of the old.

Oh yes and for ***** sake learn to spell!

P..S. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.  My money's on the LHC won't find 'superpartners'  black-holes or the 'Higgs particle; the 'standard model' and the 'big-bang' are wishful figments of human imagining; and all those frightfully clever chaps and chappesses at CERN are going to be scratching their primate heads and revising their exorbitant budgets for a long long time to come.

(Note - I ****ed out the f-words.  Not that I'm especially prudish, but I have managed to avoid them so far in my actual posts, if not the comments, for over three years, and I'm not letting this jackass be the one to change that.)

Anyway - a confused person and a confusing email.  "Learn to spell"?  I know I'm not a great speller, which is why I put everything through a spell checker.  Typos, yes.  Spelling?  Really?  But apart from that, this was nothing more than the usual badly reasoned rants we have some to expect.

Fallacies displayed:

• Falsely conflating science and religion
• Ad hominem
• False analogy - confusing difference of opinion with pointing out lack of evidence
• Implied threat of violence
• Science doesn't know everything
• Comparisons to the nazis (because pointing out that something is contradicted by the evidence is exactly the same as killing 6 million Jews)
• Appeal to be open minded

Probably some others - he tends to repeat himself.  But in all that, I didn't see anything that he could point to that I actually got wrong in any of my posts.  So I replied:

So what, exactly, do you think I got wrong in any of my posts.  Apart from spelling.

Just wondering.  Because you don't seem to have come up with anything.

Fairly simple question.  But apparently, despite his anger at all he dislikes about this blog, one that he was unprepared to answer.  He replied:

This just a quick first response, my blow by blow analysis of the correspondence that ticked me off will follow in due course.

I have not so far suggested (though this will likely change) that you have inappropriately alleged or ignored any specific known or published and peer-reviewed scientific theory or established 'fact'.  I know nothing of your personal history, cultural or ethnic derivation, professional qualification (or lack thereof), or gender specificity.  For all I know you could be a fully paid up scientific professional with degrees up the wazoo and a 'cream of the crop' intellectual ego to match, or you could be a student tyro with unfulfilled aspirations jacking up their lack of self-eteem by getting together with other bullies to beat-up people you think lesser than yourself.

My contention, Sir or Madam, is that whilst you may or may not consider yourself an officer, you are neither gentleman nor lady.

As for what I think you got wrong, try switching on the other hemisphere of your brain and reading my mail again.

Wooooooooo

Note he hasn't suggested I have ignored studies, but he knows that (once he works on it) he will be able to show that I have.  So decision made before evidence examined - how closed minded of him.  Typical woo, of course.  Anyway, I replied:

So you've got nothing.  Didn't think you did.

He replied with the barely comprehensible:

Told (you fatuous twat) full critique of your correspondence with Mora on the way (including all the 'straw men' arguments you and your idiot pals set-up and attributed to her then shot-down to make yourselves seem relevant in front of Randi and your fellow co-religionists)  will take time to assemble (so as not to miss anything) Currently has low priority though as I have much much better things (though not necessarily more enjoyable things) to do.  Gist of it is you're a pretentious jumped-up arsehole which I'll have no trouble demonstating [sic] as and when I can get round to giving the irksome crap you belaboured that poor lady with the benefit of a properly forensic analysis..

Aah, how gallant - coming to the defense of a "poor lady".  Rather condescending to her though in my view.  Also the gallantry was sort-of spoiled by the vulgar language.  And the spelling!

But he also gave the first clue about what it was he was so angry about.  "Mora".  Presumably this Mora who commented on my The Secret post.  The Mora who I never replied to myself - several others did, but I didn't.  (I only have so much time, and I don't see that I have to reply to all comments - especially if someone else is dealing with it.)  I guess he never noticed that at the bottom of each comment, just after the words "Posted by:", there is the name of the person who wrote and posted the comment.  And it wasn't me who replied to her.  (Not that I necessarily disagreed with what anyone wrote, but everyone has their own style, and I'm not responsible for what anyone else writes.)  Yes, this clown read comment after comment, thousands of words, and apparently couldn't figure out that there are people other than me commenting here.  I guess he's not familiar with this new-fangled "blogging" idea.  What a jackass.

Anyway, I thought I'd post his criticisms here so that the commenters he's critical of can read what he is accusing them of and reply if they want.  I expect he'll comment here eventually too.  Assuming he figures out what the "Comments" link below is for.

Oh and Stef - watch your language please.  I don't mind a few F-words but don't go overboard.  (And read the Comment Guidelines.)

Skeptics' Circle

The latest Skeptics' Circle has just been posted at EndCycle.

It looks like I need to post more.

Skeptics' Circle

The Skeptics' Circle has just been posted at the Skeptic's Dictionary.  Some thing about a couple of guys named Quantum Beam Radium and Harvard Veritas Schwartz - hum, those names sound familiar.

Ancient Code

I just received an email publicizing an upcoming movie Ancient Code:

The Ancient Code team are currently filming throughout Europe for their project tipped to be bigger than 'The Secret', 'What The Bleep' and 'The Da Vinci Code' combined

Wow, really? Bigger than The Secret? A load of made-up nonsense about a law that isn’t a law.

Bigger than “What The Bleep?”? A film full of pseudoscience and huge distortions and misinterpretations of real science.  Plus more made up stuff.

Bigger than “The Da Vinci Code”? Really? A fictional novel, which was loosely based on the pseudo-historical book Holy Blood Holy Grail that has been roundly debunked as based on a hoax.

The film’s provenance is not encouraging. But what is it about? The email and website provides an answer – sort of:

At the moment the content as well as the two directors names are being kept secret, but it has been leaked that warfare, end times and natural disasters are going to be examined in relation to the history of civilisation itself, apparently presenting new answers that will affect everyone.

Just like 'The Secret' but with a twist, the key to this film appears to lie in our distant past and have been carried, through conspiracies and secret societies, into the present, coded into sacred symbols and the landscape itself.

Our ancestors knew all about this and gave us an answer – a master key to unlock the mysteries of existence and our own mind – a code to bliss for real, not imagined.

This film will challenge everything we thought we knew, whether it is God, Aliens, Ghosts or Politics.

Ah yes, another film about an ancient secret and/or code that was lost and is now found and will change your life.  Didn't we just have another one of these?  Oh yes, The Moses Code.  That was supposedly “The Most Powerful Manifestation Tool in the History of the World”.  So is The Ancient Code more "ancient" that The Moses Code, and if so would that make it more powerful?  How would we tell - which of these "codes" should we give more credence to, and why?  Quite a puzzle.

Anyway, I signed up at their website for "a guaranteed FREE copy of the film in DVD format".  Hey - it's a FREE master key to unlock the mysteries of existence!  Take that, The Secret.  Must keep an open mind, etc etc. 

Bet you can't wait for my review.