Skepticblog

Before I appear to do a thing so sacrilegious as to criticize Mythbusters, let me just make one point very, very clear up front: I like Mythbusters. My kids love it. I think it’s a fine show, and one of the very few that promotes good science education. It’s great to have it on television, and I dance the Macarena on tabletop in full support of their efforts. Now here’s the big “but” you’re waiting for:

In no way does Mythbusters deserve its high reputation in the skeptic community for promoting skepticism or critical thinking. It doesn’t. Continue reading…

Note: Late post today. I am covering the in-patient service and more time constrained than usual.

By now most people know that the dinosaurs (now clarified as non-avian dinosaurs), along with 85% of species alive at the time, became extinct 65.5 million years ago as a result of a massive meteor impact. This is almost certainly the impact crater at Chicxulub, which dates to the correct time. In addition, examination of fossils and geological layers centers this extinction event at Chicxulub.

This is referred to at the K-T extinction, referring to the end of the Cretaceous and beginning of the Tertiary periods. However, use of the designation “Tertiary” is being phased out, and the K-T extinction is now being referred to as the K-Pg extinction – for Cretaceous-Paleogene.

While the single impact theory is the current consensus, there are two significant if minority competing theories. One is the Deccan Traps flood basalts – a 200 thousand year long event spanning the K-Pg boundary that involved massive volcanic eruptions, which could have causes extinctions through release of dust and sulfuric aerosols into the atmosphere. While not dead, this hypothesis has not fared well under recent evidence and is supported by only a small minority of paleontologists.

Continue reading…

The Custom IIG Awards

On August 21st, CFI hosted the ten year anniversary of the IIG (Independent Investigation Group) with a huge bash. It was wonderful. Dedicated to the memory of Martin Gardner and with over 100 people there to celebrate, it was a non-stop brainstorming session jam packed with fun, thrills and excitement. Continue reading…

Skeptics and parallel rationalist communities spend a lot of time on “inside baseball” — jargon-filled debates about technical matters that seem incomprehensible, dull, or ridiculous to outsiders. These shouldn’t be the main skeptical topics (shouldn’t we be busy solving mysteries and educating the public?) but some discussion on these matters is unavoidable and worthwhile. Many movement-oriented skeptics and organizations have things they hope to accomplish; with goals, there comes discussion of best practices.

Among these insider debates, none is more persistent than that of “tone.” Hardly a week goes by that some tone-related tempest doesn’t spill out of its teacup and across the blogosphere. And yet, these issues matter to many (including me). When people devote enormous energy to skepticism, dedicate careers to skeptical outreach, or generously commit volunteer hours or donations to skeptical projects and organizations, it’s natural that abstract internal debates about the soul of skepticism are perceived to have powerful importance.

Continue reading…

Recently, two of the biggest media story brouhahas were Dr. Laura’s N-word gaff and the Ground Zero mosque, both of which commentators insist are First Amendment issues. They are not. Here’s why. First, let’s review the First…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Most people forget that there are actually five freedoms protected in the First Amendment: religion, speech, press, assembly, petition.) Continue reading…

There is an interesting blog debate going on between PZ Myers and Ray Kurzweil about the complexity of the brain – a topic that I too blog about and so I thought I would offer my thoughts. The “debate” started with a talk by Kurzweil at the Singularity Summit, a press summary of which prompted this response from PZ Myers. Kurzweil then responded here, and Myers responded to his response here.

Futurism

You can read the exchange for all the details. I want to focus on just a couple of points – predicting our efforts to reverse engineer the brain, and the question of how complex the brain is.  Kurzweil has predicted in the past that we will reverse engineer the brain – model it’s function in a computer, basically – by 2030. It was reported that in his talk he said 2020, but Kurzweil has clarified that this is not correct, he said 2030, sticking to his earlier predictions.

That’s a minor (but interesting) point, and Myers points out that it was not the focus of his original criticism. I agree with Kurzweil on some basic principles. First, we do have an active research program that is using computer modeling to reverse engineer the brain. These efforts are progressing nicely, and I do think that eventually it will succeed. I also agree that some technologies progress at an exponential rate, and they surprise those who were making predictions based upon a linear progression. Kurzweil gives an excellent example of this – the genome project. This project started out very slow, and many though it was lagging behind predictions, but as technology improved the effort to decode the human genome accelerated geometrically and actually finished years ahead of schedule. Now we can decode the genome of other species in a fraction of the time, and the pace continues to accelerate.

Continue reading…

Knebworth House: My Kind of Joint

It had to happen and I’m surprised it took this long. The UK has finally given up the ghost and supplied us with a haunted home that really deserves it’s share of attention – and tourists. The ancestral home since 1490 of politician, poet, playwright and prolific writer of early occult and science fiction themes, Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1803- 1873) is now officially haunted! At least that’s what his great great grandson 73 year old Lord David Cobbold is telling the press. Continue reading…

The mystery lights as they appear on the horizon

I’ll admit it was a pretty long time ago, like a year and a half, but a while ago I did a blog post about some mystery lights that often appear off the coast here in southern Orange County. From my house, they can be seen on many clear nights, ranging from about 180 to 190 degrees south, magnetic. They swap around a bit, and if you leave and come back ten minutes later, you may find the lights have moved one way or the other.

Closeup of the light on the right

Each object has about a half dozen very bright lights, tending toward the orange. They look like a ship only superficially. Cruise ships have many more lights, much dimmer; and cargo ships run dark with hardly any lights visible at all. So really they don’t look like a ship. They do look quite similar to oil platforms though, which tend to have bright floodlights. They are out there quite often, though I couldn’t tell you exactly how often. Not every night, but some nights, on no apparent schedule. Continue reading…

The ancient art of cherry picking passages from the Bible to support this or that argument has found new life in recent decades as conservatives claim Jesus as their political ally and in the past year with the Tea Party movement invoking Christ’s conservativism. What Would Jesus Do? (WWJD?) has morphed into Who Would Jesus Vote For? (WWJVF?) Was Jesus a conservative? I don’t think so, but the entire enterprise of politicizing historical figures with modern labels is fraught with fallacy.

Employing modern political terms such as “liberal” and “conservative” to someone who live 2,000 years ago is an absurd game to play because those terms as they are used today do not even apply to people who lived a scant few centuries ago. The original meaning of “liberal,” for example, was what we would today call a “classical liberal,” or someone who believes in laissez faire capitalism and small government. Followers of Adam Smith were liberals, but today are called classical liberals, or conservatives, because they want to conserve the political and economic principles of classical Enlightenment thought. Those who are vehemently opposed to these conservative principles are sometimes today called progressives, who want to progress beyond—instead of conserving—classical liberalism, and their type specimen is Franklin D. Roosevelt, who originally had the support of pro-laissez faire capitalists until he launched the New Deal. One of FDR’s ideological descendents was Bill Clinton, who turned out to be one of the strongest Democratic proponents of free markets in history, which makes him, what? A conservatively classical progressive liberal? You can see how odious such label making becomes even for modern figures. Continue reading…