|
|
|
September 22nd, 2009
 | 09:41 am
Take this science quiz and see if you're as smart as Phil Plait and I.
Also, we're having contractions. They're forever apart, so we're not in a rush yet. We're going to the hospital tonight. I'll let you know something tomorrow. It's a girl, in case anyone has forgotten.
|
September 7th, 2009
| 08:37 pm
(All instances of "I" or "my" in the following article refer to the author, Harriet Hall.)
Why We Need Science: “I saw it with my own eyes” Is Not Enough -- Harriet Hall
I recently wrote an article for a community newspaper attempting to explain to scientifically naive readers why testimonial “evidence” is unreliable; unfortunately, they decided not to print it. I considered using it here, but I thought it was too elementary for this audience. I have changed my mind and I am offering it below (with apologies to the majority of our readers), because it seems a few of our readers still don’t “get” why we have to use rigorous science to evaluate claims. People can be fooled, folks. All people. That includes me and it includes you. Richard Feynman said
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool."
Science is the only way to correct for our errors of perception and of attribution. It is the only way to make sure we are not fooling ourselves. Either Science-Based Medicine has not done a good job of explaining these vital facts, or some of our readers are unable or unwilling to understand our explanations.
Our commenters still frequently offer testimonials about how some CAM method “really worked for me.” They fail to understand that they have no basis for claiming that it “worked.” All they can really claim is that they observed an improvement following the treatment. That could indicate a real effect or it could indicate an inaccurate observation or it could indicate a post hoc ergo propter hoc error, a false assumption that temporal correlation meant causation. Such observations are only a starting point: we need to do science to find out what the observations mean.
Last week one of our commenters wrote the worst testimonial yet:
"I have witnessed first hand the life that begins to flow through the body upon the removal of a subluxation. "
What does this even mean? Does he expect anyone to believe this just because he says it? Would he believe me if I said I had witnessed first hand the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan’s garage?
Another commenter wrote
"Those pro SBM commenters here seem to think that even if they see something with their own eyes that they can’t believe it if there are no double blinded officially published studies to prove that what they saw actually happened."
Well, yes, that’s pretty much what we do think; and we are appalled that you don’t understand it yet, since it’s the whole reason we have to do science. I would phrase it a bit differently: “Seeing something with my own eyes doesn’t prove it’s true and it doesn’t preclude the necessity for scientific testing.”
We can’t believe our own eyes. The very process of vision itself is an interpretive construct by the brain. There are two blind spots in our field of vision and we aren’t even aware of them. I saw a magician cut a woman in half on stage – that was an illusion, a false perception. I saw a patient get better after a treatment – my interpretation that the treatment caused the improvement may have been a mistake, a false attribution.
So for those who still don’t get it, here’s my simplistic article:
(read the article)
The following graphic is unrelated to the preceding article.
( Read more... )
|
June 24th, 2009
| 07:24 am
Here's a wonderful story about a nine-year-old who became lost in the woods while out with his family. With nary a helmet, curfew, or child-proof cap in sight, he did not panic and took steps to facilitate his own rescue. He is now safe and sound at home.
I am so happy that June is almost over. It's getting tiresome having the sun come up before 5:00. When I'm up in the middle of the night, I do not need the sun poking its head out and making the sky bright.
I think it's fascinating that my daughter, who isn't even -2 months old, already has her ovaries and all of the eggs she'll ever have. 50% of my grand-children's genetic information has already been printed.
Michael Shermer's baloney detection kit can help you spot warning flags that you may need to think twice before accepting what you're being told.
Last week I got bored and decided to go looking for some Australian television to watch. I seem to have struck pay dirt by finding Swift & Shift Couriers and Russel Coight's All Aussie Adventures on my first two tries. The first deals with the shenanigans of a package delivery service in Sydney, and the second is a satirical look at adventure/travel shows. What other Aussie TV should I check out? How about non-Aussie TV?
|
June 1st, 2009
| 08:46 am
Latest episode of "why do people laugh at creationists?" There are plenty more at youtube.
|
May 20th, 2009
| 01:20 am
|
April 8th, 2009
| 10:16 am
Phil Plait wants us to sign this petition to try to help get the Office of Technology Assessment re-instated. I don't know how much good online petitions usually are, but if Phil thinks it's a good idea, I'm willing to give it a go. So go sign the thing.
|
April 1st, 2009
| 09:32 am
Pigasus Awards for 2008 Written by Phil Plait
Every year, on the appropriate date of April 1, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) gives out the Pigasus Awards, a dubious honor to people or organizations that have done their best in the past year to snuff out science and promote irrationality. The award is named after the beloved mascot of the JREF because, after all, when paranormal powers are proven, pigs will fly.
The five categories of the Pigasus Award are:
1. To the Scientist who said or did the silliest thing relating to parapsychology in the preceding twelve months.
2. To the Funding Organization that supports the most useless parapsychological study during the year.
3. To the Media outlet that reported as fact the most outrageous paranormal claim.
4. To the "Psychic" performer who fools the greatest number of people with the least effort in that twelve-month period.
5. For the most persistent refusal to face reality.
This year's (dis)honorees are:
1) Dr. Colin Ross, who can shoot electromagnetic radiation from his eyes;
2) The Producers of the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed";
3) Late night cable TV stations;
4) Jenny McCarthy; who has written books and appeared on countless TV shows promoting measles; and
5) Kevin Trudeau; who sold quack books even after the government fined him for it.
Details of these prestigious prestidigitators are below. They receive no actual trophy, no prize money, no plaque; just the publicity they generally seek, though perhaps not in the way they want it.
Pigasus Awards for 2008
|
March 27th, 2009
| 11:20 am
KBTX is a TV station in Texas, and they are running a poll asking whether evolution, creationism, or both should be taught in public schools. How about the half dozen of you who still read this go vote?
|
March 25th, 2009
| 08:18 am
Leo, Jana: I am Uber, and you are not.
What do astrophysicists' cats walk on? (answer at end of post)
Helio-paws! (my beautiful wife came up with that one)
|
March 19th, 2009
| 09:38 am - international stupidity
The Australian communications regulator has issued a stark warning that websites who link out to 'banned' hyperlinks are liable to fine of up to Aus $11,000 a day.
Wow. Go Australia.
And from our neighbors from the north:
Canada, this is your science minister:
We are evolving every year, every decade. That's a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels, of course we are evolving to our environment. But that's not relevant and that is why I refused to answer the question. The interview was about our science and tech strategy, which is strong.
Yes, I said science minister.
|
March 17th, 2009
| 09:47 pm
The Texas State Board of Education will meet March 26/27 to decide just how revoltingly horrible their educational system should be. They will be making the final decisions on what text books to use, and what declamatory stickers to put in which text books. This article lists the proposed changes and gives reasons why they are unnecessary or plain wrong.
I think my basic problem with all of this, besides politicians making science-based decisions without having the required knowledge, is that most of these legislative decisions are trying to force some sort of controversy into everything. "Teach the controversy" they say. There is no controversy. They try to create controversy by trying to insert abiogenesis--the origin of life from non-living material--into the Theory of Evolution. Hell, sometimes they try to insert the origin of the universe into the Theory of Evolution. They try to make it seem like vast numbers of credible scientists don't subscribe to it. Because none of this is actually true, they have to pass legislation to ensure that students are exposed to it. This gives the illusion that things like Intelligent Design are as valid as Evolution, and then they get to cry "foul" when it's not given equal footing. If it takes special legislation to handicap science to allow ID to be taught in science class, maybe ID doesn't belong there.
|
February 23rd, 2009
| 12:46 pm
Sounds too good to be true? These early warning signs should give you reason to ask a few more questions.
The Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science by Robert L. Park, professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and the director of public information for the American Physical Society; author of Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud (Oxford University Press, 2002)
And no, we haven't found Atlantis yet
|
January 23rd, 2009
| 03:35 am
Our nephew is staying with us for a couple of days. Last night I went into the guest bedroom/library/game room, and do you know what I saw? My nephew and my wife jumping on the bed! I asked him if that was something he was supposed to be doing. He said, "only if Aunt Vic is doing it too." Good boy.
"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion."
-- Carl Sagan
|
December 3rd, 2008
| 10:49 pm
Roger Ebert reviews Ben Stein's piece of crap Expelled
This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.
|
November 19th, 2008
 | 09:17 am
This may be of interest to those of you who are in Tejas.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/sgublog/?p=375
Tomorrow, several of us are going to testify at the State Board of Education hearings over the revising of the science standards. This happens once every ten years, and since Texas is an adoption state for textbooks, it effects more than just the schools in Texas. They are attempting to keep language in the standards that allows teachers to teach the alleged “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories. As you know, this is a bogus concept, and they are only interested in teaching the alleged “weaknesses” of just a single theory of science.
|
April 16th, 2008
| 01:55 am
$312.48 at King Soopers today. That's a new record.
So apparently Expelled is more of a crock of falsifications and outright lies than even Bowling for Columbine was or government anti-drug propaganda is. Looking at this might be helpful before watching it. Granted, if you already want to see it, you're likely either already laughing or for some reason take it seriously, so getting the truth up front probably won't be much of a help.
Hooray for weekends. Mine started off with a kiss from my beautiful wife and a breakfast of steak and shrimp. I'm kinda almost out of pot, though. I have some, but it's not a lot. I waited too long to Make The Call. I do that about every other time.
Like a balloon, and something bad happens.
|
August 16th, 2006
| 08:52 am
|
June 14th, 2006
| 08:46 am
I just found a metallic green bee in my tea. What kind of bee is it?
|
April 18th, 2006
| 09:53 pm
This is why I despise religion:
Taken from endcreationism
Focus on the Family's children's site "Clubhouse Magazine" indoctrinates children against evolution with the most stupid, ignorant arguments imaginable:
"Q. Hi, Average Boy!
I need some advice on evolution. Everyone is talking about it, and I just don't understand why people think we came from monkey people. I hope you can answer my wonders.
Bye,
Parker D.
A. Hey, Parker.
Great question! I've actually had people tell me that it looks like I may have come from a monkey family. However, if evolution did work, wouldn't my ears be smaller by now?
Animals do adapt to their surroundings. For instance, my cat has developed a nervous twitch that lets him know when Billy walks in the room. That's a survival adaptation. But the main evolution chart that most scientists go by was actually made up. The guy who presented all the facts threw in an extra step — that hasn't even been discovered — to link men to apes.
Not to mention, if monkeys evolved into men then why do we still have monkeys? Wouldn't they be men, too? That's a good question to ask your friends the next time you are talking about evolution. Now if you will excuse me, I want to finish my banana.
Your friend and mine,
Average Boy"
|
February 25th, 2006
 | 08:57 am
The more I learn about the cosmos, the more Star Trek amuses. I watched an episode the other day where Picard and Gang attempted to re-ignite a dying star[1] with a photon torpedo, and it almost worked. This time they're talking about moving the core of a neutron star--whatever that is[2]--with the Enterprise and its[3] tractor beam.
Another thing that amuses me is when someone posts a question to a community, uses half the post to apologize in advance for asking a possible repeat question, and then gives the mods permission to delete it if that is the case. Don't bother. Just ask. Someone's going to tell you if it's been asked before. Spending a paragraph feigning humility just makes you look like scrotal skin.
And I'm out of weed, so I'm smoking resin. Bleh.
Does anyone want to bring us some more? *flutters eyelashes* We'll trade sexual favours for it.
[1] A star dies when it uses all of its fuel. To re-ignite it, one would have to add vast amounts of matter to it. Hurling a bomb into it simply won't work.
[2] The "core" of a star flying loose through space is just a hunk of matter. Gravity makes a neutron star so dense, but if you have only a chunk of it, there's not much gravity to squeeze it all together, so it's just a rock.
[3] No, it's not "it's," moron.
|
|
|