Keywords: link

It just came to my attention, as I was looking at my referral links, that my good buddy Ben Radford has quoted me on his website in support of his book.  He's also included a link to dumbassguide.info.

I just love the absurdity of the situation.  The list of quoted reviews are otherwise nothing but skeptical heavyweights - James Randi, D. J. Grothe, Richard Wiseman, Martin Gardner, Michael Shermer.... and then me.

And what's more, the way I'm quoted makes me sound as though I think I belong in that group!  How awesomely absurd is that?

That just made my morning.   

Keywords: environment

I've been considering exactly how I want to write this article.  What I want to talk about is a perceived message/theme/impression that I've picked up from the environmental movement.  And I don't want to give the impression that I'm painting every environmental activist with the same brush, nor do I want to give the impression that the concerns of environmentalism aren't warranted.  I believe that there is reason for concern, and I don't believe that environmentalism is one big entity where everybody agrees on everything.

And I'm marking this as a "musing" because I'm only talking about my impressions.  One thing that bugs me is when people start talking about their impressions and the messages they perceive as though they were foregone conclusions.  I want to make it clear upfront that I'm just laying out my concerns here, using my blog to express my dumbass thoughts about an issue that has been turning over in my mind.

Hopefully that's enough of a disclaimer.  Let me explain what I'm talking about:

Keywords: health, statistics, study

I've talked before in this blog about how alternative style thinking about health has become dismayingly commonplace.  It even creeps into public policy by official medical bodies, take for example this statement by the surgeon general of the United States:

Scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Breathing even a little secondhand smoke can be harmful to your health.

I'm not a smoker, and I certainly don't like breathing in other people's smoke.  But the thing is, I searched through the surgeon general's report in which these conclusions are made.  It's listed as a "major conclusion" of the report, but no part of the report is referenced as evidence for this conclusion.  In fact, no part of the report seems to back up this extreme statement.

The reason that this alarms me is because I've spent a lot of time arguing against woo concepts which contend that we're constantly subjected to tiny amounts of "toxins" that are responsible for every form of ill health.  I'm always explaining to people that it's the dose that makes the poison.  People often have knee-jerk reactions to ingredients in substances like vaccines, foods, and medicines that aren't informed by the state of current scientific knowledge.

It's harder to explain to people, for example, why we've concluded that mercury in vaccines is safe because of these reasons when the Surgeon General is actively feeding this kind of paranoia by stating that even the smallest exposure to a substance in passing can endanger your health.

There's a good excerpt available from audible.com (also available in mp3 format) of a book called "Hyping Health Risks" by Geoffrey Kabat.  Kabat is a researcher who is fully in favour of restrictions on secondhand tobacco smoke, but he clearly demonstrates that the hyperbole surrounding the issue takes the risk out of all proportion with reality.

I believe that this is a symptom of an alternative health type mindset that has made it's way into mainstream medical discourse.  Related to this symptom is the current intense focus on "healthy lifestyles" and "wellness" as a means of ensuring greater health.

I may have just lost some of you with that last statement.  Let me explain myself in more detail.

Keywords: epistemology

I just read Nightfall by Isaac Asimov.  It was voted the "Best Science Fiction Short Story Of All Time" by the Science Fiction Writers Of America in 1964.  When you find out that a story has received that kind of award, you've just got to check it out, right?

You can listen to an audio version of the story from the Escape Pod podcast.  Its text is also available online.  The reason I bring up the story is because it got me thinking about what science can know and what should be considered good evidence for something like a coming disaster.

The story is, of course, very compelling. though there was some science explained that I'm pretty sure is wrong.  For example, if a planet were to be in such close proximity to 6 suns, and an alignment took place where only one of those suns were shining down on a hemisphere, the remaining 5 suns would still be lighting up the other hemisphere.  An eclipse of that sole sun wouldn't throw the entire planet into darkness.

You can explain that away though.  It could be that this planet only has one continent, and when the character Sheerin is explaining the science, he gets it slightly wrong.  He does say that he's only giving the "layman's standpoint".

What I found more interesting was the kind of scientific evidence used by the scientists in the story to draw their conclusions.  So I want to talk about that a little more.  I don't think anything I have to say can be considered a spoiler, it's all revealed early on in the story.  But you may want to read the story before continuing anyway, if you haven't already.

Keywords: religion, epistemology

For those of us who consider ourselves skeptics, rationalists, or critical thinkers, there's a question about how we should handle religion and religious people.  The question has been brought up on several podcasts, blogs, and online forums that I frequent, so it's been on my mind.

How should we deal with religion?  What part should skepticism play in the discussion?  Can religious people really be critical thinkers? 

There's a school of thought that says that we should oppose religion and religious thought completely.  That religion stands as completely opposed to critical thought, and that religious people cannot really be in "our camp".

This way of thinking makes me uncomfortable, and I want to explore it a little more in this post.

Keywords: paranormal, historical, book

I wanted this posting to be another analysis of a tale from Nightmare Island, similar to my last two (here, and here).  I'd set myself the task of researching the tale of Arthur Price Roberts, a "Psychic Detective" from the 30's.

The problem is that while those first two stories contained details that could be checked and easily researched, trying to find information about this psychic detective is like trying to grasp a cloud.  The effort has left me with more questions than answers.

But I think that questions are important, and this case illustrates the need for critical scrutiny, and how important it is to provide sources for the claims that you make, especially when the claims are extraordinary in nature.

And this story is pretty extraordinary.

Keywords: link

I want to thank Doug Delong for mentioning The Dumbasses Guide To Knowledge on his Planet Japan podcast.  I had emailed Doug to comment on his Preacher and Skeptic blog, and got to talking about other things skeptical.

I wasn't expecting Doug to plug my blog on his podcast, but I'm pleased that he found it worthy of plugging.

And just to return plug, everybody who already reads my blog (listen up both of you!) should check out Planet Japan, where Doug and Jen discuss current events from the perspective of Americans living in Japan.

I haven't listened to the latest episode yet, but his show notes calls this blog "a guide to all things skeptical".  I appreciate it Doug, but you're obviously overselling it!  All things skeptical?  I just write about whatever dumbass topics happen to pop into my mind. 

And also check out the Preacher and Skeptic blog, where Doug debates a conservative Christian preacher on matters of faith.

Keywords: epistemology, personal experience

I think a lot about the question of how we know things.  It's especially important when I write a blog devoted to understanding science and the world around us.  Why should people trust what I have to say?  I write articles that attempt to counteract claims made by people who I believe are wrong.  But by what standards should I expect people to judge what I have to say as being more accurate than the claims I'm arguing against?

Should you trust my expertise?  My education is in the computer sciences.  I took statistics in college, but I'm not a statistician.  I basically don't have any formal education in most of the things I talk about on this blog.

When I look at some of the references this blog has been getting through Google searches, it seems that some of my articles have done pretty well in the rankings for certain searches.  That's gratifying to see, but it makes me wonder how I come across to others. 

As I've mentioned before, I think it's important to develop intellectual uncertainty, and to admit to the possibility of being wrong.  I think it's also important to pay attention to the actual experts, and try to understand the current state of knowledge.

What I hope I present to people are articles that are well researched and reasoned.  I think the strength of an argument should always be more important than a person's quality of expertise.

But, of course, expertise matters.  In this post, I want to explore how I believe that we should look at and think about knowledge and expertise.

Keywords: paranormal

I think a lot about what science can tell us and how supernatural/paranormal claims work.  It's an interesting topic to think about.

Of course, it's a wide open field, so this post may be a little bit unfocused. But some aspects of the issue have been turning around in my mind, and I'm enough of a dumbass to put my contemplations out here for the world to see.

I watched a documentary a few years ago about a girl who supposedly had some form of pseudo X-Ray vision and could diagnose medical problems.  One thing I found very interesting was a soundbite by a skeptic who said that if she can actually perform this task, we'll have to re-write everything that we know about physics.

That seemed a little bit hyperbolic for my tastes.  Even if it were true that this girl could do something that nobody could explain, that doesn't mean that the explanation wouldn't fit into the science of what we currently know about the world.

I personally think it's a mistake to approach claims of the paranormal from a position of "I can't imagine how it could possibly work, therefore it must not work.".  Not only is argument from incredulity a logical fallacy, it's also one of the types of arguments used to justify nonsense.

"I can't imagine how it's possible for ancient humans to have built the pyramids, therefore they must not have." is the common argument for people who believe that aliens built the pyramids.

Keywords: environment, holistic

Normally I don't talk much about global warming, but I've noticed that it's being addressed a lot in critical thinking/skeptic blogs and the like.  Particularly rampant are theories about why there are so many people in the skeptic movement who doubt that it's occurring.

Of the ones I've seen so far, I don't think any of them really explain this phenomenon well.  I want to explore this issue and give my views on the situation.

First of all, I want to make it clear that global warming is happening, and human caused emissions are playing a part in it.  Even many of the denialists have backed off in the face of recent evidence and agreed that it's happening, but instead see the it as a wholly natural phenomenon.  This position still goes too far, but I guess it's difficult to stick your head completely in the sand on this one.

But regarding why skeptical people might have doubts about global warming, I think the answer is pretty simple.  The fact is that on first glance, Global Warming seems like a big pile of alarmist crap.

Let me explain.