Tri-Cities Skeptics: Home of Michigan Scientific Inquiry

Math: repeating decimals and 0.999...

2011-12-30T20:11:00.001-05:00

Hey everyone, true or false:

1 = 0.999...

In mathematics, the "..." after the sequence of 9s represents a repeating decimal. Basically, it means that the string of 9s continues on infinitely.

So, what do you think? Have you thought about it? Surprisingly, this is true. This may seem counterintuitive, after all, 0.9 is less than 1. 0.99 is also less than 1. And 0.999 is, again, less than 1. But that's not what we're talking about here! We're talking about 0.999... with 9s repeating infinitely. It can be very hard to accept this (trust me, I've been in enough internet debates on this topic to know that people are uncomfortable with the equality), but here is a simple algebraic proof:

1/3 = 0.333...
3(1/3) = 3(0.333...)
3/3 = 0.999...
1 = 0.999...

2011-12-17T01:31:00.002-05:00

R.I.P

You will be missed sir. You were the Atheist's Lion. Thank You!

A much needed dose of Curiosity.

2011-12-10T22:15:00.000-05:00

NASA has sent the meticulously clean and exorbitantly expensive rover, Curiosity, hurling in a boomerang path past Mars before it is to eventually land on the surface of the red planet early August 6th. I know for most, the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission might seem boring. For me, this is another step toward understanding the mysteries of our universe. As for NASA, the Mars environment and the planet in general raise many questions that need to be solved. The Curiosity mission should be exciting, to most, because it should yield fantastic photographs, the possibility of future manned missions to the planet, data concerning weather and environment, and information concerning the possible existence of life.

Curiosity will be exploring many aspects of the planet, primarily the long held question; is Mars habitable? Many factors will be investigated in order to determine the answer to that question. One factor concerning habitability is the existence of water on Mars. The existence of water on the planet has a huge impact on theories concerning the planet. The existence of water is still unclear and the answer has eluded researches for years. A recent find of Gypsum deposits on the great red planet has lead scientists to believe that they finally have the 'smoking gun' evidence for the existence of water on Mars. The 2.5 billion MSL mission to Mars, with the help of the rover Curiosity, will allow scientists to explore these questions even further.

Just by the looks of photographs, Curiosity seems to be an amazing piece of technology. The rocket booster landing looks straight out of a Transformer's movie. From past rover inadequacies, researchers have learned a tremendous amount about what it takes to explore the thought-to-be uninhabitable planet.

In previous attempts, rovers haven't fared so well on Mars. Early Mars rovers were built like tiny tanks and tended to get stuck in the sandy berms of Mars. Researches have made some changes to this rover; "Curiosity is five times as large as either of the Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit or Opportunity^[14] and carries more than ten times the mass of scientific instruments present on the older vehicles. The MSL (Mars Science Laboratory) rover Curiosity was launched by an Atlas V 541 rocket and is expected to operate for at least 686 days as it explores with greater range than any previous Mars rover." The sandy and arid terrain on Mars makes navigation tricky. Curiosity is equipped with "significantly larger wheels" along with better mobile capabilities than past rovers.

Hopefully this trip to Mars provides data that can help solve some of the mysteries behind Mars' secrets and unlock the door for further manned missions.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Mars_Science_Laboratory_Curiosity_rover.jpg

Skepticism and Atheism?

2011-07-28T12:30:00.003-04:00

I have been exploring the association of skepticism and atheism. Atheists find much in common with the so-called Skeptical movement, and certainly many skeptics are doubtful about supernaturalistic beliefs. However, atheists are often against religion in ways that may go beyond the use of mere skepticism. Can one be a skeptic and yet not an atheist? Martin Gardner and other critical thinkers come to mind here. They exhibited skeptical thinking yet retained a belief in some form of deism. Indeed, one might argue for the value of some form of "awe in the face of nature" while still utilizing skeptical thinking in one's examination of silly claims such as ghosts, astrology, homeopathy, etc. I embrace skepticism as a framework for critical thinking; to search for strong reason and empirical evidence. I suppose my skeptical stance and curiosity led to my non-religious views, but there are issues that go beyond current evidence and scientific knowledge. If one simply acknowledges this and wants to further the value and meaningfulness of the FSM, Santa, or similar myths, is this totally unacceptable? On skeptical and rational grounds couldn't we argue that carving out meaningful alternative transcendent beliefs could lead to greater peace and goodwill than mere atheism? Indeed, there may be a case that scientific evidence suggests the functional value of some form of transcendent belief in most people's lives. On what grounds as skeptics might we consider this if we are identified as atheist only? Skepticism seems best as a tool or perspective of science and critical thinking. The outcome of such thinking needs to be critically examined, but it offers no guarantees of absolute truths by itself. Hence, while there is much in common with atheism, atheists may or may not have come to their views skeptically, and I worry about the two being seen as identical. Perhaps, what we as skeptics should focus on is attempts by religions to promote ideas (ghosts, miracles, and such) that are, or have been found wanting empirically. Stay focused on what can be empirically studied? The ultimate conclusions and flag-waving ideologies (seen in Skeptic conventions?) that presume some final answer or directive, while tempting, should be cautiously addressed. What do you think?

RE:The Fiction of Climate Science

2009-12-07T19:56:00.030-05:00

There is usually a good amount of buzz surrounding global warming in the popular media, but with the recent CRU hack and the big conference in Copenhagen beginning today, the recent buzz has been unparalleled. There have been a slew of articles about climate change by journalists and “expert” bloggers (I don’t claim to be an expert - notice the links) over the past few weeks, many of which I’ve read. Then I came across a Forbes.com article by Gary Sutton called “The Fiction of Climate Science,” which was full of so many common debunked and redebunked errors that I couldn’t resist critiquing it.

Sutton begins with a very common myth – scientists of the 1970s predicted a quickly coming ice age. The myth is often brought up to discredit scientists - “First they said cooling, now they say warming. They obviously have no idea what’s going on!”

Sutton lists some 1970s media articles about global cooling, but quickly points out that what actually matters is what is in the scientific literature, not the popular media.

He goes on:

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

Well geez, there you go. The National Science Board – that sounds legitimate. I’m curious though, I wonder what else the National Science board has to say about the next ice age. Let’s take a look at the original source and keep reading:

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end… leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."

(Full article. Page 73, paragraph 2)

WHAA? What in the heck? 20,000 years from now?!? It appears this quote is concerning a natural long term cycle of ice ages, not a quickly approaching ice age caused by human activity. Okay, I admit it. I’ve known about this quote for a long time and I knew that Sutton was being disingenuous by leaving the last (and most important part) of the sentence out. I was just pretending I didn’t for a fancy set up. In fact, the full quote is from two separate reports, one from 1972, and the other from 1974. It appears that Sutton combined the two for effect.

It’s actually very possible that Sutton isn’t being disingenuous, but simply took that quote from someplace else. It has been repeated many times before, often by Sen. James Inhofe (who also left off the important end, I might add).

Sutton then goes on, referencing the journal Science:

The fall of Saigon in the '70s may have distracted the shrill pronouncements about the imminent ice age. Science's prediction of "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age," came from its March 1, 1975 issue.

Checking the online database, there is no issue dated March 1st, 1975. I couldn’t find an article related to an ice age in the issues directly preceding (Feb. 28) or following (March 7). It’s very possible that there was a simple mix-up with the dates. But taken alone, the fact that Science had the words "A full-blown, 10,000 year ice age" in an article in the 70’s is hardly proof of anything (especially after Sutton’s first display of dishonesty).

So what did the scientists of the 1970’s say about the long term climate trend? John Fleck and Thomas Peterson analyzed the papers published from 1965 to 1979 and found that 7 papers predicted global cooling while 42 predicted global warming.

Figure 1. The number of papers classified as predicting, implying or providing supporting evidence for future global cooling, warming and neutral categories as defined in the text and listed in Table 1. During the period 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling papers, 19 neutral and 42 warming. In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming.

There was no scientific consensus of global cooling in the 1970’s - it was nearly the opposite. 6 times as many scientists were beginning to focus on global warming and the effects of greenhouse gasses (even before Al Gore, I might add).

He follows up the global cooling myth with another common myth: the climate has changed in the past due to natural forcings, therefore current climate change is natural.

Those sustained temperature swings, all before the evil economic benefits of oil consumption, suggest there are factors at work besides humans.

Now of course the climate has changed in the past, and is influenced by factors other than greenhouse gases. The main player in shaping the climate is the sun. Whether it’s changes in the sun’s energy output, the orientation of the earth, or the distance from the sun to the earth (the earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle), the climate can be affected.

There is a strong correlation between temperatures and solar activity over the past thousand years, and this is often cited by skeptics as evidence against AGW (anthropogenic global warming). However, the correlation ended around 1975, which is when the fastest warming began. The most recent warming has been attributed to an increase in the greenhouse gas CO2. So while the sun does have a large effect on the climate, it’s not the only player in town and cannot be held solely responsible for the latest warming trend. Just because the climate has changed naturally in the past does not mean that it can’t change unnaturally today.

Sutton goes on with a very bizarre line of reasoning. He gives some examples of cooler, local weather but then points out that his examples are useless because they are only short term trends:

Today, as I peck out these words, the weather channel is broadcasting views of a freakish and early snow falling on Dallas. The Iowa state extension service reports that the record corn crop expected this year will have unusually large kernels, thanks to "relatively cool August and September temperatures." And on Jan. 16, 2007, NPR went politically incorrect, briefly, by reporting that "An unusually harsh winter frost, the worst in 20 years, killed much of the California citrus, avocados and flower crops."

To be fair, those reports are short-term swings.

So I guess it’s acceptable to present irrelevant information, as long as you point out that it’s irrelevant information (“to be fair”)? To me, it makes a lot more sense to just leave it out in the first place.

What he’s getting at there is a very common misconception – a confusion between weather and climate. Climate is long term (several years), while weather is short term (up to maybe a few weeks). Global warming does not predict that every day will be warmer than the last, it simply predicts that over time, the earth as a whole will warm.

Sutton finishes the article by tying in the recent CRU (Climatic Research Unit) hack:

Sadly, the public just learned that our scientific community hid data and censored critics.

I’m guessing that when Sutton mentions hidden data, he is referring to the CRU’s denial to release certain data in the face of Freedom of Information Act requests. The reason behind this may be that the scientists at CRU simply were not allowed too due to prior agreements with the Met Office. Whatever the case may be, the situation is now being investigated.

It’s also very important to point out that the CRU is not the only climate research center, and there is loads of data freely available online.

As far as the critics being “censored”, I believe Sutton is talking about this excerpt from an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann:

“I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This certainly sounds like the censoring of critics, but in fact the two papers in question [McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003)] were included in the IPCC WG1 AR4 report (Ch 3). So even if Jones let his emotions get the best of him in a private correspondence with another researcher, his attempt failed (again, the CRU isn’t the only climate research center, although that’s what many people seem to think lately).

Related reading:
1970s Times article about global cooling
1970s Newsweek article about global cooling

Ghosts, Ghouls and Goblins.

2009-10-31T04:56:00.005-05:00

It is that time of the year again, Halloween is here. Most people are out buying scary masks, going to haunted houses and handing out candy to the little ghosts, ghouls, and goblins that are trick or treating at their doors.

As for myself, I will be going to a graveyard and seeing what kind of evil spirits I can dig up. As a skeptic this time of year is always interesting. There are always great "real life" movies that hit the big screen (Paranormal Activity), stories of supernatural encounters are passed around, and if you are Pat Robertson, you tell your congregation that Halloween candy is cursed by demons (I'm not kidding, Click on the link, it will blow your mind).

What does everyone have planned for the spookiest night of the year? Let's use this thread for some "real" ghost stories. Talk about what you are dressing up as or just talk about the skeptical side of apparitions, demons or even possession. BOOOOO!!

H1N1 - Swine Flu Vaccination Concerns

2009-10-12T14:43:00.011-04:00

It is the season for the common cold, influenza and yes the new communicable disease on the market, H1N1. There is a lot of information circulating these days about H1N1 and some of it is important and the rest is misinformation. I would like to investigateH1N1 a little more closely and take a better look at the vaccinations that are being issued.

On one side of the issue, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is asking for individuals to be inoculated with the vaccinations for both diseases. The CDC and many doctors are particularly stressing this vaccination if an individual falls into one of the following categories:

The groups recommended to receive the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine include:

Pregnant women because they are at higher risk of complications and can potentially provide protection to infants who cannot be vaccinated;
Household contacts and caregivers for children younger than 6 months of age because younger infants are at higher risk of influenza-related complications and cannot be vaccinated. Vaccination of those in close contact with infants younger than 6 months old might help protect infants by “cocooning” them from the virus;
Healthcare and emergency medical services personnel because infections among health care workers have been reported and this can be a potential source of infection for vulnerable patients. Also, increased absenteeism in this population could reduce healthcare system capacity;
All people from 6 months through 24 years of age
- Children from 6 months through 18 years of age because cases of 2009 H1N1 influenza have been seen in children who are in close contact with each other in school and day care settings, which increases the likelihood of disease spread, and
- Young adults 19 through 24 years of age because many cases of 2009 H1N1 influenza have been seen in these healthy young adults and they often live, work, and study in close proximity, and they are a frequently mobile population; and,
Persons aged 25 through 64 years who have health conditions associated with higher risk of medical complications from influenza.

No shortage of 2009 H1N1 vaccine is expected, but vaccine availability and demand can be unpredictable and there is some possibility that initially, the vaccine will be available in limited quantities. So, the ACIP also made recommendations regarding which people within the groups listed above should be prioritized if the vaccine is initially available in extremely limited quantities. For more information see the CDC press release CDC Advisors Make Recommendations for Use of Vaccine Against 2009 H1N1.

Once the demand for vaccine for the prioritized groups has been met at the local level, programs and providers should also begin vaccinating everyone from the ages of 25 through 64 years. Current studies indicate that the risk for infection among persons age 65 or older is less than the risk for younger age groups. However, once vaccine demand among younger age groups has been met, programs and providers should offer vaccination to people 65 or older (CDC Website).

On the other side of the story, people like Rush Limbaugh, are claiming that they will not take part in the vaccination. His reasons are not very clear but it seems that he believes that his doctors have never advised him to take it, so he will not. I do think it is because he does not fall into any of the critical categories, but this is not completely apparent.

The contrasting views of these groups, I'll say pro-H1N1 vaccination and anti- H1N1 vaccination is causing an incredible amount of confusion for most common people, like myself. Being a veteran I look back at instances where the government was not completely transparent and wonder, is this another instance of the government trying to enforce something dangerous? For example, the Tuskagee Aircrew. Is this the same debate as with the MMR vaccination? Do we know enough about the H1N1 vaccination to administer it to hundreds or millions of Americans? Who should we be listening to in this situation.

My personal opinion is that the H1N1 vaccination is safe. I'll be taking it and the seasonal flu vaccine, maybe on the same weekend. What does everyone else think ? Should citizens be concerned? Is the government pushing too hard?

Happy Birthday, Earth!

2009-10-03T16:18:00.006-04:00

So the earth is 6,012 years old this month according to Bishop Ussher's famous calculation, where he added up biblical lineages. He concluded that the earth was created on October 24th, 4004 B.C. in his 17th century book "Annals of the World".

From the article:

Of course, there will be those who disagree with Usher's calculations of time...

Yeah, like, uh, perhaps the ancient Mesopotamians that never existed according to Ussher. But hold on, it gets better:

Of course, there will be those who disagree with Usher's calculations of time – especially evolutionists who need billions of years to explain their theory of how life sprang from non-life and mutated from one-celled animals into human beings.

Evolutionists? Why not radioactive decay-ists? That's much more closely related to the subject at hand. Plus, did you catch the bonus evolution misconception? "...their theory of how life sprang from non-life and mutated from one-celled animals into human beings." Yeah, not quite. The theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life came into existence (that's a whole 'nother ballgame). And the idea that one celled 'animals' mutated into humans is a bit dishonest (or ignorant, although I'm not sure that one is preferable to the other). There are more players in evolutionary biology than just mutation: natural selection and genetic recombination. As much as creationists are obsessed with what Darwin said, they always seem to leave out his main contribution to biology: non-random natural selection. Creationists tend to stress the whole mutation thing, probably because it's more icky sounding.

The article concludes,

For generations, [Annals of the World] was considered part of the essential reading for educated people.

Grandma's Remdedies

2009-09-10T13:18:00.005-04:00

Growing up, my grandmother knew how to get rid of most ailments. From a common cold to the pain of a skinned knee she was able to either "cure" my cold or just make everything better. How did she do this? I was either given a stiff dose of chicken noodle soup or a warm glass of milk at night. Sometimes I was simply given a hug and a kiss on the forehead. So do these remedies really cure anything ? Scientifically I'm going to have to say no, but they made me feel better.

In an article in the NY Times I read of a possible bacteria killing substance, cinnamon oil. This reminded me of one of my grandma's remedies. Anahad O’Connor, author of the article, explains that in a few studies cinnamon oil is somewhat effective in killing a wide range of bacteria. He explained that, in "a recent study by a team of surgeons, for example, found that a solution made with cinnamon oil killed a number of common and hospital-acquired infections, like streptococcus and methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. The study found it was just as effective as several antiseptics widely used in hospitals. Another study by French researchers in 2008 had similar results, showing that at concentrations of 10 percent or less, cinnamon oil was effective against Staphylococcus, E. coli and several antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria." This evidence is very intriguing. Now does this mean that we should run to our pantries in search of other make-shift remedies, not so fast. What are some thoughts about this discovery and how can we as scientists put this claim to task?

Here is the link to the article and some supporting information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/health/08real.html?ref=science

Near Death Experiences.

2009-05-28T17:26:00.008-04:00

Few have experienced near-death phenomena and come back to tell their story. It is a growing research field in which people are getting serious about. Researchers want to know what is on the other side of this sensational life.

Over the past 40 or 50 years claims of near-death experiences have been becoming more and more interesting. There was a time in which these types of experiences were out of the reach of scientific inquiry. Most of the time they were explained through demonic possession of a diagnosis of insanity.

Recently, medical researchers have been compiling a huge amount of data about NDE. This data ranges from an assortment of physiological, neurological and biological fields. Other data consists of the stories that the NDE patient tells after coming back from clinical death. These stories typically involve bright lights, out-of-body experiences and visions of some sort of god. So what do we know about consciousness? Is there another side to this life we live? Do we slip into a realm of angels, demons spirits and gods? Or is dying a visual roller coaster consisting of the many ideas, thoughts and dreams one has had throughout his or her life? Sort of a systems shutdown before being turned off for good.

Many medical researchers would like to believe that there are two realms, that of the conscious and the unconscious, which in my opinion is just confusing. Some would like to think that there is a "place" we go after we die. I'm interested in this line of research but not sure about the evidence.

There are a few interesting tests being conducted to investigate the events after one's death. Some entail an image near the ceiling of the operating room that, if the patient has an out-of-body experience, they should be able to recall this image. Others use images projected from laptops near the ceiling so that the floating ghost-like body can see while out of the corporeal body. This method seems at least plausible. I mean the researcher is giving the benefit of the doubt to a believer. If there is a floating ghost in the room, they should at least see an image near the ceiling.

I do think there would be flaws. Some people may claim that their ghost was not looking for said image. Or that the body did not quite go high enough to see the image. Also a number of patients going into operation may suffer from what we call demand characteristic. When coming out of sedation, they may tell glamorous stories of visual images and such, in order to satisfy the needs of the researcher. They actual may even convince themselves that they were having an NDE. I am just a bit skeptical about the set-up in these experiments. Interesting but could use some work.

I like the ideas being used for these tests. It seems pretty black and white. Either the person sees the image or they do not. I'm sure some of the people are able to simply guess the image. Some might even guess it perfectly. I really think the experience of the NDE is being missed. The research should not be too concerned with whether or not a person can guess and image that is above them in the operating room. The research should focus more on what type of social constructs and self concepts influence or instigate a NDE. Also the neurological, cognitive, social, and physiological mechanisms for triggering NDE should be closely investigated. The biological answer should not be confused with a mystical explanation.

Here are a few ideas for people to toss around. I've got a few pieces of research to read if interested. Just email me and I'll give you some of the information I have been looking at. This is a fairly dense research topic, so I'll try to keep it narrow. Here is a start....

Pseudosciences--Graphology

2009-03-01T14:04:00.004-05:00

Among the more popular pseudosciences is the belief regarding handwriting analysis. I have been doing this stuff since highschool and people are often amazed at how accuate I can be. Alas, I am a bit skeptical, and I was amazed that people often felt my readings were accurate even after I messed up the reading by getting my analysis wrong--at least wrong based on the popular books I was using. I soon found that people would often find something in the reading to fit to their lives and credit my analysis. I also learned, from studying principles of magical thinking, that whatever shape or form was suggested by the writing could be used in my reading and people would accept that. For example, if the letters are slanting (to the right) then the person is more emotional. If the "lower" writing is twisted, it can mean sexual conflict or
unconscious turmoil. I think this experience helped me realize there is more to the psychology of such beliefs than the content of such systems. Many hand writing folks come to believe in their analyses because they never do any controlled tests or really give credence to scientfic tests about their field of work. For example, give them someone else's writing to analyze, but don't tell the client--the client will be just as impressed. Give them various samples of people with known personality traits and see if they can reliably tell which is which---without any face to face feedback. The Barnum effect and other psychological principles are key elements of such beliefs. I mention all this because I just ran across an article in today's paper (from the Grand Haven Tribute) where a graphologist from Michigan moved to Colorado and now finds people there also feel she is very accurate in her readings. Why, she is almost, even psychic! I know there are folks (especially in the areas of business and especially in Europe) who just think this handwriting analysis is so accurate and useful. It is a good example of how sloppy thinking and unscientific training can promote activities (Feng Shui anyone?) that ARE wasteful of resources, time and money! Perhaps bankers and business people ESPECIALLY should learn how to think more carefully these days? lol For a more critical analysis of graphology and some of its history and psychology see:http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/grapho.html For the news article see: http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/296542379874741.bspFor a reading from me (guaranteed 80% accuracy)--please send $100 to ....;-)

Bigfoot Making Headlines in Bay City

2009-02-28T13:07:00.004-05:00

Link to the article:
Despite skeptics, West Branch Bigfoot devotee making presentations about sightings.

In Autism Case, Reason Prevails.

2009-02-13T14:24:00.008-05:00

This just out, go scream it from the rooftops, MMR Vaccinations are not the causal force for Autism. Oh, wait, that is old news? But....I thought....oh yes, science has been right on the mark about this issue for a number of years now. The rest of society is just catching up. I was going to write a long drawn out article about how this is a great win the arena of reason but I think we all understand it's importance. Go Reason..!!!

Click on image for Washington Post Article.

Velikovsky: Worlds Still Colliding.

2009-02-09T12:55:00.010-05:00

I recently became a member of a local skeptic group in Raleigh, North Carolina. I attended my first group meeting last week at a local Chinese Restaurant. The meeting went fantastically and we discussed a really interesting article.

The article was based on a theory put forth by Immanuel Velikovsky approximately 58 years ago in his book Worlds in Collision. The theory claims that earth has been a victim of both, close-calls and actual collisions by neighboring planets, primarily Venus and Mars. Velikovsky's evidence was derived from ancient mythology and other religious texts (including the Bible). The book did sell well for a few months until some scientists caught wind of it and debunked it on the spot. All that is left is a cult following trying to fit evidence into their broken hypothesis.

At the skeptics meeting we discussed a few reasons why, as skeptics, we would be interested in this claim. I'll discuss some of the reactions in order. A few things we talked about were, what is the actual evidence for Velikovsky's claims, is the evidence even tangible? What do Velikovskians get out of being correct about their claim, and where does the theory stand today?

The evidence for Velikovsky's claim is scant at best. Velikovskians believe that there is no evidence of ash or debris within ice core samples, independently collected from locations around the world, because it was either washed or melted away. This belief is outrageous. It is unfalsifiable and Velikovskians might as well say little green men carried the evidence away, it is just as plausible. The lack of supporting evidence is overwhelming. Occam's razor can only allow for one answer here, the best conclusion is that the earth was never hit by a planet. Maybe a few meteors, but not a planet.

If a planet were to have hit the earth, some type of residue would have been left behind. One instance where scientists do believe a meteor hit the earth, is called the K-T event. It is said to be a major cause for the extinction of the dinosaurs. In the case of the K-T event, first the impact was predicted, then the evidence was found. It was a mystery how the dinosaurs became extinct. By using the iridium residue found at the site of impact scientists concluded that a meteor had collided with earth. There was other evidence besides an iridium layer, but the point is, in the instance of the K-T event, science made a claim and it was subsequently supported by physical evidence. The Velikovskian theory has no supporting evidence and is loosely based on fictitious, mythological literature.

The next question is, should the Bible and other ancient religious texts be used for evidence of historical events? This is a very tough question and the answer is very complex. I do not have a formal argument put together as of now, but I do not think an ancient book based on Zeus is historically accurate. Granted, some of the events may be historically accurate, but where do we draw the line? Also which texts are accurate and which are not. Some texts even contradict one another.

We discussed how people can hold these unwarranted beliefs, though other types of evidence completely contradict them. We also discussed why fictitious literature may not be the most reliable type of evidence to help support scientific claims. At the end of the day, we concluded that using the bible to support the bible was circular at best. Solid physical evidence was needed to help support Velikovsky's claim and there was none.

I really enjoyed the meeting and we did have a bit of discourse about why anyone would even be interested in such a claim. It is a silly claim, but it goes to show how a group of people can be blind to evidence staring them right in the eyes.

2009-02-05T13:54:00.002-05:00

I have an interesting experience as an anthropology student interested in archaeology at a Christian university. This semester, I decided to give the class "Topics in Bioanthropology" a try. When I got in the class, I discovered, oddly enough, that the class was about world religions. Oddly, out of five textbooks, two of the books were written by the teacher, Kenneth Richard Samples. He gave us a free magazine from his new website, www.reasons.org, which he claims gives good scientific grounding for a Christian's belief in God. Red flags were waving in my mind the entire time I was in class. First off, in no secular school would a teacher be allowed to use his own textbooks as required reading. That is a conflict of interest, paramount to egomania, and demanding a bribe. I instantly decided that I could not allow myself to financially support this man. Since the magazine was already free, I kept it. I feel it would be good to examine his magazine, and the various confusions it includes, as many of these arguments appear among other "scientific" christian thinkers. For reasons of space, I'll only deal with the first article, "Darwin's doubt." It begins by quoting Darwin a few times. One quote shows Darwin wondering how anyone can trust his convictions if his mind has evolved from that of the lower animals. From there, the author, Kenneth Samples, goes on to discuss fallacies of the naturalistic worldview. He does this in three points, followed by his own conclusion. I will discuss these in turn, and then counter as best I can in turn. As Samples has a PhD, and I'm still working on my BA, his superior intellect may get the better of me at some points.

1: Nonrational source of Man's rationality: Naturalism postulates that man's faculty for rational thought was created through evolution, a random, purposeless and unitelligent process. Samples argues that a non-rational process cannot produce a rational thinker, because a reaction can never be greater than it's cause.

I would argue that he has missed a number of major details to come to this conclusion. Chief among them is his definition of rationality. The term "Rational though" is a label created by humans, and applies to a thought process that conforms with the normal happenings of the world around them. The universe, in it's organization, is the source of evolution, and since the universe is considered by us to be "rational," it then follows rationally that if the universe is rational, the fittest offspring for that universe are those which are most rational. I would also suggest that his idea of a reaction never being greater than the original cause should be reconsidered in light of the enormous nuclear powerhouse of a Star, which is, to the best of our knowledge, formed by gasses condensing in space. Perhaps Samples does not believe in the natural formation of stars though.

2: Survivability VS true beliefs: Samples argues that what a species believes is non-essential to the process of evolution. This is true enough; bacteria can survive without even the capacity for belief. Sadly, Kenneth Samples oversteps the bounds of logic when he argues that naturalism "leads to the conclusion that our belief-producing faculties- memory, perception, logical insight, etc.- are unreliable and cannot be trusted to produce a preponderance of true beliefs over false."

While evolution does not require true belief, evolution does require survival. In most cases where belief is involved, true belief is advantageous to survival. Belief in a female of one's species where there is none does not help survival of the species, nor does belief in safety when a predator's jaws are closing in. If evolution did produce belief, that belief must be adaptive, and for it to be adaptive, it must include a preponderance of true belief over false beliefs. I would also propose that there is enough evidence that evolution can produce some form of belief, based on the fact that animals behave as though they believe the world around them to exist.

3: False belief, and naturalism's epistemology: Kenneth Samples finally argues that naturalism fails because naturalists consider spirituality to be incorrect. Since evolutionists rely on their evolved ability to think, their claim that an incorrect belief in spirituality evolved as an advantageous trait is a serious flaw to their value set. This is fairly clear, and correct as far as it goes. Obviously, the ability to think rationally and also believe in God are problems for atheistic evolutionists.

Sadly, Samples is too busy deconstructing the naturalist worldview to consider solutions to this situation other than his own. Rather than admitting the naturalist worldview has a problem, and seeking to solve it, he instead disposes of the worldview entirely, and takes up the wholly supernatural solution of special creation for humans, for which no proofs are provided. The idea that maintaining one or more false beliefs to avoid investigating problems that cannot be solved by simpler societies is not explored. Nor does Kenneth consider the possibility of Theistic evolution, whereby the adaptive nature of a capacity to believe in a spiritual realm is supposedly caused by the spiritual realm being a correct belief.

Conclusion: Kenneth Samples entered into the debate with a firmly held belief, and left the debate with his own belief still firmly held, although he never challenged it or defended it. His belief is that God is the ground and source for reason, and that evolution is false.

Like Samples, I do have difficulties in connecting modern science with the creation story in the bible. As a Christian, I can also affirm with Samples that God is the source of all things. However, as a Scientist, I cannot respect Sample's flippant dismissal of a largely reasonable worldview. For me, his claim that Evolution is a lie smacks of blasphemy. The Heavens and the earth Declare God's Handiwork, and if the people who examine the earth so carefully claim evolution to have been the process whereby we reached this point, then God's handiwork is Evolution.

Blatherings about macroevolution being a lie are likewise foolish, and are based entirely on some fool assuming certain outrageous things. Imagine God, in his infinite wisdom, inspiring a Hebrew writer to use a word for "Kind" that just happens to have the exact same definition which fallible scientists would apply to the word "Species" several thousand years later. The only thing the two words have in common is a very slippery nature. "Kind" could just as easily mean "Genus," or "Phylum," or "Kingdom," or virtually nothing, for all we know.

Using Genesis as a biology textbook makes about as much sense as using Revelation as a math textbook, and claiming evolution is incompatible with Christianity is more foolish than arguing that Churches shouldn't admit anyone who has ever sinned.

Consciousness and Thermodynamics

2009-01-10T02:06:00.004-05:00

Lately, the National Geographic Channel has been airing a program called ‘Moment of Death’. It focuses on what defines death as technology progresses and what may happen to living things once they die. While watching the end of the show, there was what I thought was a pretty fair and skeptical treatment of near death experiences - and then as the end credits began rolling, a rather ridiculous argument came up. Put forth by author Mary Roach, I quote:

The first rule of thermodynamics says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and consciousness by some peoples definition is a form of energy, and if that’s the case that energy is going to persist even after death.

*sigh*

For some reason I’ve seen this argument pop up all over the place recently. It seems to be a favorite of ghost hunters, I’ve heard it from friends and have seen it put forth by New Agers. So I think it is very deserving of a critique.

Firstly I’d like to point out that anyone can define anything as whatever they want, but it doesn’t make it so. Hopefully that’s obvious. Basing the entire argument on some people’s definition of consciousness simply doesn’t cut it.

But the argument sounds good, right? I mean, there are some big scientific words in there. It’s also coming from a woman on TV! And she’s getting the last word of the program! How can you possibly argue with that?

Well, the argument pretty much shoots itself in the foot in the very first sentence. Let’s define some terms here. What is energy? It sure seems like a whole lot of people have absolutely no idea what energy actually is. Energy is a measurement. In particular, energy is a ‘thermodynamic quantity equivalent to the capacity of a physical system to do work’. Our bodies do have energy in them, but that’s because we eat food, which our bodies break down into energy that it then uses to do work. There’s nothing transcendent about that. But what about our consciousness?

The argument is also based on the premise that our consciousness transcends our physical body as “energy”. However, evidence points to consciousness not as a single form of energy, but as an emergent property of brain activity, along with the sense organ input (or stimulus). When you drink alcohol or do drugs, there is a chemical reaction that has a direct effect on your emotions, coordination, vision and memory. Lithium, the third element on the periodic table, is used to treat mood disorders. There are countless cases of brain injury that result in loss of memories, motor functions and cognitive abilities; even changes in behavior. When you die, metabolism stops and no physical laws are broken. It’s as simple as that.

So it turns out that consciousness is not simply a form of energy and therefore the law of conservation of energy is not applicable to it. Ironically, the law of conservation of energy is applicable to a different dualist idea of consciousness. Some people suggest that consciousness is the result of some mystical force that is not made of energy or matter. The problem with this is that according the law of conservation of energy, matter can change into energy and vice versa, but the total amount of matter and energy in the universe cannot be altered. Because matter only changes when influenced by other matter or energy, a mystical force that’s not made of energy or matter can’t do anything because it can’t influence any physical energy or matter.

How about one more angle? Let’s pretend the premise is true: consciousness is a form of energy and all natural laws do apply to it. If this were the case, then yes, consciousness could not be destroyed. But, as pointed out by author David Mills, if consciousness can’t be destroyed, according to the same law, it cannot be created! Obviously, consciousness exists, so following the logic, it must have always existed. This is a rather embarrassing flaw in the argument since everyone doesn’t remember being conscious before they were born. (Some people may interpret this as evidence of something else wacky like reincarnation, but the consciousness of a person continuing to another life simply to be wiped clean of past experiences is not what I would consider “surviving your own death”. And remember, consciousness is not a form of energy, were just pretending so for a second to point out flaws.)

So there are three angles to an often repeated argument. The first being nothing more than techno-babble, the second being inconsistent with a pretty well established physical law, and the third pretend ‘if so’ argument being pretty weak once thought through.

Ginkgo Biloba - Less than Effective.

2008-11-19T16:42:00.014-05:00

This just out, Ginkgo Biloba does not halt or slow the onset of dementia. I guess I should raid the medicine cabinet and throw out all of my ginkgo biloba. After conducting the longest and largest clinical study concerning ginkgo biloba, researchers have concluded that the once touted herbal remedy is not effective in helping delay or prevent the onset of dementia or Alzheimer's (New York Post).

Over 3000 participants took place in this very comprehensive study. There were 526 participants who were diagnosed with dementia. Approximately 16 percent of the participants taking placebo pills were later diagnosed with dementia and 17.9 percent of the participants who took ginkgo biloba were later diagnosed with dementia. The research did not support the hypothesis that ginkgo biloba was more effective than any other means of slowing or halting the onset of dementia.

The data led researchers to conclude that ginkgo biloba did not stop or slow the onset of dementia and Alzheimer's disease. One researcher even said that, “This gives physicians and advisers the evidence base to be able to say more definitively that using ginkgo extract the way it’s sold in CVS or Walgreen's is not likely to help you at all, and gets pretty close to being a waste of resources,” Dr. Schneider said. “These are important studies, disappointing as they are.” (New York Post)

Okay, now for a meander down Ethical Lane. Think about all of the money made on this herbal extract, millions of people gave money to the drug companies making these claims and did not care to question the validity of their claims. Now what? Are the companies guilty of making false claims? If so, they should be held accountable. If I claimed to make a drug that cured autism, I would be held accountable for the effects of the drug. Or can they fold up their suitcase from the street corner convenient store and head on down the road with the money they made, declaring there wasn't enough data either way? Pharmaceutical agnosticism I suppose. I'm hoping someone is held accountable for selling the snake oil.

I guess being mad and disappointed is all we can do right now. I don't think anyone was actually hurt by the drug. One disappointing aspect of the article is that the physicians are holding out for different data to support their claim. They believe that the herb may be effective in a younger cohort. They believe that if the drug is taken earlier in life, the effect may be greater. That is a very large claim to make without even seeing any results. Remaining humble might be the best route right now. I hope their claims are thoroughly researched before selling any more useless drugs.

Eat less, Exercise more.

2008-11-05T17:26:00.012-05:00

We always hear it from the doctor, eat less and exercise more. Our reply is, even the donuts doc? How about one or two beers at night? Does exercising mean something more than Nintendo? We all know the answers to these questions, but would rather just cut corners. In the end, I don't think our health is the priority, instead we are worried about our waistlines.

I'm slowly approaching my mid-thirties and noticing my body is changing. I'm getting love handles and my tummy is a little wider than when I was twenty. I really enjoy this change and it's a challenge to stay in shape. I have noticed my eating habits have changed over the years. Sometimes I will wake up and get my first meal around noon. Other times I eat two double cheeseburgers and a chicken nugget. Other times I'll eat organically fresh vegetables and drink a nice tall glass of water. My metabolism is probably on a roller coaster and fighting to maintain it's natural state. I can do all the exercising in the world but it seems the get older I get the less my muscles obey. So what does it boil down to, better health or losing weight? I think we all know the answer to this question.

One thing I have learned over the years is that eating less, exercising more and not smoking is the best way to maintain a consistent weight. It's not simply about my weight it is also about my overall health. I just read an article where it is claimed that a pill tricks the body into burning fat. This may seem like a miracle for some. A magical pill that helps burn fat; that sounds too good to be true. It sounds like a quick way to keep your younger looking figure without having to do all the work, what a delight.

Being obese is a serious health risk but can this pill really increase the health of individuals? Or is it purely cosmetic? The article goes on to talk about how lab mice have shown to gain little to no weight at all when given highers dosages of the drug. This sounds fantastic but what is happening to the rest of the mouse. How is the heart dealing with this drug and the kidneys or the liver. The article does say it is too early to make any conclusions about the drug but the claim is so miraculous most people may miss that part.

I think the author should have supplemented the article with recommendations on how to increase one's overall health and not simply say, look here is a new pill that can trick the body into burning fat. That seems misleading and loaded. What does everyone think about miracle pills and diet fads? Are they helpful or harmful?

Test a claim? What are you talking about!?

2008-11-04T20:15:00.024-05:00

At the skatepark in Bay City, the lights automatically turn on at 6:15 pm. However, it gets dark around 5:30. I don't mind too much because it gives me a chance to look up at the sky and check out the stars. And then 6:15 rolls around, the lights turn on and skateboarding can once again commence. But hey, where did all the stars go? They were just out a minute ago and now I can't see them! The answer is pretty simple: your eyes have adjusted to the brightly lit skatepark and can't simultaneously adjust to the comparatively dim stars.

But even such a simple answer appears to be to hard to comprehend for some people. Moon hoax conspiracy theorists often point to photographs taken on the moon by Apollo astronauts as proof that the moon landing was a hoax. "There are no stars in the photographs", they say "so the moon landing was faked." So today I thought I'd put their claim to the test. On a clear night under the bright lights of the skatepark, I took a couple photos of my friend Josh.

The first photo (upper right) I took was set to properly expose the subject (Josh). But wait, where are the stars? According to the Moon hoaxers, I should see stars in the photograph! Did I fake my earth landing without realizing it? Or were the camera's settings not set for the dim stars? In the second photograph (lower right), I tried to collect as much light as I could (f/1.8, 1 sec. exposure, ISO1600). And yay! You can see a star! Well, sort of (barely, in fact). It looks like a dim blurry spiral because of my shaky hands and a 1 second exposure. But can you see Josh? Not very well.

The point is that you can't set a camera to properly expose a well lit subject while simultaneously exposing a poorly lit subject. Apollo astronauts had even more trouble seeing the stars because the sun was out the whole time they were on the moon. The light source in the photographs I took is fairly bright, but not nearly as bright as the daytime sun. It's a bit confusing because the sky is black in all the Apollo photos and most people associate that with night time and stars, but the astronauts were on the moon during the day. (Earth's atmosphere makes the daytime sky blue. No atmosphere on the moon = black sky.)

So there: there are no stars in the Apollo moon photographs because a camera cannot photograph a very bright object and very dim object at the same time.

This claim has been refuted numerous times over the years, but it's still put forth by moon hoaxers as evidence of trickery! More importantly, it's also a claim that can be put to the test by anyone. Just go to a car dealership or lit parking lot on a clear night and take a look at the sky. Please! Don't take my word for it. (I could be part of the conspiracy myself; a stooge on the government payroll, spreading conspiracies and misinformation.) Be skeptical, and take a look for yourself!

Pareidolia

2008-11-03T19:37:00.006-05:00

Joe and I went to Asheville, NC and we had a great time. We attended a Guy Clark show, which was a great live performance if you have never seen him, and climbed Chimney Rock. At the top of Chimney Rock was a wonderful surprise, a devil's head. Okay, not really, but it's a great example of pareidolia. This is one image I didn't have to squint or turn upside down to see, it was right there in front of me, perfectly visible, a gargoyle's head. I was amazed. It looked like someone had carved the stone and carefully placed it on this ledge. It was pretty neat. I tried to frame the quote on the rail into the picture, but it is still too blurry to read. It said, "God is here always." I think someone took the image of the devil's head a little too seriously. Enjoy the pic.

Happy Halloween!

2008-10-31T11:20:00.006-05:00

Happy Halloween! Astronomy Picture of the Day has posted a great photo of the Witch Nebula. Halloween, astronomy, pareidolia and witches. Awesome!

Placebo Effect

2008-10-24T03:53:00.009-04:00

Some would think that when they are prescribed antibiotics or medicine, they are receiving an active medical ingredient. "According to a new national survey in which 46 to 58 percent of U.S. physicians admitted using placebos regularly. Only 5 percent said they tell patients explicitly that they are doing so."

Now this may not seem like a big deal to most, I mean the patients report feeling better right? What can be the harm ? You might even be asking yourself, what is the placebo effect? The placebo effect is when a person is told they are being subjected to an active ingredient when in fact they are being given an inert or benign substance / treatment. After receiving the placebo, patient tends to report feeling better or improving without having been subjected to any type of "real" treatment at all. For example, a placebo drug may be used or sometimes a placebo treatment / surgery.

The problem here is not the effectiveness of such treatment, though it could be argued that the effectiveness is less than actual pharmacological substances or surgeries; but the ethics of the doctor, when using such treatments / medicines, should be examined. In some cases patients may be deceived or even told lies. What are some thoughts about using placebos in medicine? Also check out the article and we can discuss the logic of the physicians.

A Post for Kirk

2008-10-24T01:05:00.006-04:00

Not quite a croc-o-duck, but this thing is pretty neat.

Evidence.

2008-10-10T16:17:00.008-04:00

Capt Psych's piece on "True Believers" stirred up thoughts about the essence of evidence.

What does it take to change one's mind about something they believe to be true? Does one piece of very strong evidence overturn a theory? How much evidence is really needed to be considered "enough" evidence ? These are problems in epistemology, how do we know what we know, so to say. I love this branch of philosophy, but there are a number of sink holes and quagmires one can come across when discussing evidence, truth, knowledge and beliefs. I'm hoping I can stay on track here.

As scientists we make observations all the time. The universe is full of interesting phenomena and as hominids we want to understand how the universe operates. A better understanding of our environment simply increases are chances or survival. We seek patterns and form explanations for things that fit certain frameworks. Sometimes our explanations work and sometimes they do not. Frankly, we would like to accurately make predictions about these phenomena. Take for example human behavior, or physics; with strong enough evidence predictions about these systems become possible or at least plausible.

We are all given the same type of information, data or evidence but how we connect the dots is a different matter. Consider the analogy that a simple connect- the-dot picture is similar to scientific inquiry. The dots represent different pieces of evidence and the picture is sort of like the perceived concept filtered through the mind of each individual. One thing to keep in mind is even with all the dots, the picture can still be misunderstood.

There are many different types of natural processes occurring all around us, our explanations and theories are used to describe and better understand them. With enough dots the picture becomes clearer. If there are a lack dots to connect, we may find ourselves guessing about the picture. I hope this metaphor works for the topic.

One quick note here and I'm not sure where to go with this, but one perceived reality may be wholly different than the next. When one says "creation of life" this means something to one person and something totally different someone else. Somehow agreeing about these different concepts and ideas is a difficult part of science. When a scientist is describing gravity he or she is talking about one gravity. This gets a little more complicated with other issues but for now, bear with me.

Take evolution for example; there are huge differences between creationists and evolutionists with no bridge connecting them. Evidence for one group is not the same for the other. The bible is not a valid form of evidence for some and in the same breath, genetic evidence is not good enough for others. This is where things get difficult. What types of evidence are valid and what types are not? I'm going to list a few types and we can have a discussion about the pros and cons for each.

Evidence is all around us everyday and in a number of forms. Three very important versions of evidence, and very common types, are experimental evidence, third person evidence and personal experience. These types of evidence all have different levels of plausibility and should be approached without bias.

1. Evidence derived from Scientific Experimentation

2. Third person evidence (anecdotal evidence)

3. Personal Experience

As Scientists we observe the world around us and make assertions about how things operate. Evidence is pivotal in supporting these assertions. The main purpose for evidence is to support a hypothesis or an assertion. Once the assertion has been made and the evidence has been collected, and here is the great thing about science, the assertion then is open to further inquiry and criticism. In most cases scientists will then use reason, logic and evidence to create the best explanation for the phenomenon. This process is conservative and sometimes slow in order to refrain from making hasty conclusions.

I'm hoping to hear from some of the group about evidence. I'm all over the place about this and I'm trying to fight the compulsion to throw in philosophical terms. At the end of the day, it is really about the type of evidence used and the means of gathering this evidence that matters.

True Believer Ideology

2008-09-30T11:11:00.005-04:00

True Believers and Belief Perseverance

http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html

Those of us examining the paranormal and pseudoscience are familiar with people who do not really care about evidence or reason. They will continue to believe regardless of scientific consensus or the lack of reasonable evidence because they are really motivated by, and feeding on, the false mystery and mystique of these ideas. Are other domains immune from such “true believers”? Of course not, because what psychologists call “belief perseverance” is maintained by one’s prior action and rationalization. Once we have developed and defended a rationale for our beliefs, they become resistant to change despite new evidence. Will McCain admit his judgment about Palin was rash, impulsive and wrong? Will preachers admit to error and absurdities in their fundamentalist interpretations of their Bible? Will those in racist, terrorist or cult groups admit to being mistaken about their leaders or their ideologies? It’s always possible, but not likely. When we see someone casting off their past beliefs, it is usually a revelation or conversion to a new ideology brought on by identification with new social-political groups. Regardless the level of evidence, these folks are no different in their stubbornness than the paranormalist or medical quack.

There may be one key difference however. The preacher, the politician, and those belonging to extremist groups do seem to share a stronger framework of self-defining belief that justifies their identities, social position and goals. Such a framework is called an ideology. While the psychic believer or proponent of pseudoscience may become enmeshed in an ideological framework of fellow travelers, and while such beliefs themselves can be part of a stronger religious or political system, usually paranormal and occult believers are not tied to powerful social movements. However, all so-called true believers have become such because of rationalizations enhanced and reinforced by ideological frameworks that provide their identity and purpose.

Are skeptics any different? I think skeptic groups can become just as stubborn and rigid as any other group, but the framework of scientific thinking can help avoid mindless belief perseverance. Scientific skepticism is based on adherence to good evidence and sound reasoning. Good science encourages investigators to consider how they could be wrong; the idea of falsifiability in evaluating claims. This is an idea not easily countenanced by the creationist, paranormalist, quack or cult follower. Good scientific reports present limitations, suggest further ways to test ideas, and attempt to explore alternative explanations for findings. The quack or proponent of pseudoscience might easily whine that the skeptic is not open-minded. Indeed, skepticism should not be based on mere debunking alone, or automatic dismissal of strange claims, but rather on efforts to foster sound reasoning and ways to fairly evaluate ideas. However, being open-minded means not only to be open to consider novel ideas, but also to be ready to follow where the evidence leads. Herein lies the problem for the true believer. If the evidence suggests we are wrong, the scientist and skeptic should be excited about the possibility of new knowledge and new avenues of exploration. To the true believer however, such evidence suggests the need for revision of major beliefs about one’s identity and purpose. Extremist groups often provide exercises, rationalizations, and ritual rehearsals to counter such suggestions. One common feature of these defenses is to cast those on the “outside” as enemies or representatives of evil. Such strategies, at least among the devoted, will often work. Hence, Sara Palin believes she is protected from witchcraft by her preacher, and her political managers knew it was important to cast the media as evil in order to protect her and McCain from any hint of mistaken judgment.

I am interested in other thoughts about the ways of belief perseverance and true believer ideology. Does science have its own ideology as defined here? Can you be a good scientist and true believer in this sense? Are Democrats any different than Republicans? Don’t all political consultants know and use these principles to persuade and keep their candidates and constituencies in line with their ideologies? Is religious belief necessarily closed-minded? My original commentary on such things, after the Heavens Gate suicides, can be found at: http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/hg/gpeters.htm

An updated revision without typos and spelling mistakes can be found in:
http://captpsych-garysnotes.blogspot.com/

See also Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes Were Made (but not by me). Orlando: Harcourt Inc.
The classic on true believers: Hoffer, E. (Orig. 1951, now 2002). The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements. New York: Harper-Collins.

Pascal a la First Church of the Nazarene

2008-09-24T22:53:00.018-04:00

While driving, I like to keep my eye out for church billboards because they often display some sort of clever message like: “Having truth decay? Brush up on your Bible!” or “We set the sail; God makes the wind.” The other day I saw one that immediately caught my attention. The message read: “If you’re living like there’s no God, you’d better be right!” Why must you be right? Well, because if you’re wrong you’re going to hell, of course. This is quite a bold statement, and I think it left out some important things. It also should have included something like this: “If you live your life believing in the Christian God, in is the Islamic God, or in any other specific God, you’d better be right!“. If you subscribe to any religion in particular, you better hope you pick the correct one or you could end up in hell right next to the unbelievers.

The message could be considered a tip of the hat to Pascal’s Wager, credited to philosopher Blaise Pascal. Basically it goes like this:

If you believe in God and you’re right, you go to heaven. If you believe in God and you’re wrong, nothing happens. If you do not believe in God and you’re right, nothing happens. If you do not believe in God and you’re wrong, you end up in hell.

At first glance, it seems like belief in a God is the best way to go. But as pointed out above, if you believe in the wrong God you could just as easily end up in hell. (Logically Critical, 2007)
Another flaw in the wager is the assumption that believing is something a person can choose to do. To say that you believe and to truthfully believe are two completely different things (God could see through any trickery, being omniscient and all). (Dawkins, 2006)

The last assumption being made is that a creator God would punish those who do not believe. However, it seems that a deity who created the universe would have to be some sort of scientist. (I know this is quite the anthropomorphism, but God gets anthropomorphized so much one more couldn’t possibly hurt.) If he is a scientist of sorts, it’s very possible that he would reward those who put superstitions on the back burner while trying to figure out how things work by natural means. (Dawkins, 2006)

People on earth believe in thousands of different deities. Any one, or none, could be correct. If hell exists, there are many ways to end up there. If I had to wager, I would go with the Flying Spaghetti Monster because he is the only deity I know that promises a beer volcano and encourages people to wear pirate paraphernalia.

Dawkins, Richard. "Pascal's Wager." The God Delusion. New York: Mariner Books, 2008. 130-32.
"Pascal's Wager." Audio blog post. Logically Critical. 2007. 20 Sept. 2008

Is Belief in Willpower the Mother of Superstition?

2008-09-05T11:37:00.009-04:00

We have seen here how many superstitions and false beliefs are tied to the natural ways our brain seeks patterns, connections, and promotes interpretations that provide meaning and security. People often prefer mysterious, supernatural stories about personal or shared experiences rather than accept a natural explanation that to them, seems trivial, mundane, ho-hum, and leads them to see themselves as just another blob of humanity; that is, not-special. To those of us who value reason and science, the natural world and our place in it, inspires and enriches but perhaps also, teaches us humility.
Many of our superstitious beliefs center around stories about choices and events that occur for special, mystical reasons. We have seen how many are attracted to quackery, superstitious thinking and the paranormal because of the way promoters stress people’s uniqueness, special powers, mystical interpretations of personal experiences, and need to feel special. In our everyday lives few beliefs are stronger than the sense that you produced, or are the causal agent for your own behavior. My desire for coffee and my picking up the cup of coffee seem entirely due to my free will and apparently my prior thoughts that lead to that behavior. Of course, many of us can accept also the fact that there are many factors that produce our choices and our desire for coffee. A rational and naturalistic account of these factors need not undermine our sense of choice and control. However, many may believe in willpower as directed by a unique self that is supernatural and independent of their natural embodiment. Perhaps it is just such belief in this kind of agency that promotes other comforting cultural myths and superstitions? What do you think? Research by psychological and neuroscientists challenge such simplistic views of free will. For example, people may often have thoughts that occur just before they act that they then use to affirm their belief that they or their thoughts produced this behavior. However, this association between a prior thought and following behavior may just be illusory and yet people will still hold to themselves as the special causal agent. In neuroscience work, it has been shown that the brain prepares for choice before people may be consciously aware of having made a choice. For some of this fascinating work see Daniel M. Wegner’s "The Illusion of Conscious Will" and check out some interesting discussion here.

Simply Explained #1

2008-08-29T18:04:00.007-04:00

I was just thinking of a way I could commit myself to doing at least one update a week and came up with an idea. I'm hoping everyone will share their own personal input, because with enough participation this could be fun and interesting. I would also like to hear other people's simple explanations.

I found it interesting that I have never questioned the blueness of the sky. I wondered why the sky appears to be blue. It seems like a simple concept, but I just take it for granted.

I did a little research and figured out a simple explanation for what seemed like a complex concept. Here it is in short, "The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.

However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue." Now I have a better understanding for why the sky is blue. It is now simply explained.

I challenge everyone to think about, what may seem like, a complex concept and find a simple explanation. Post the simple explanation in the Facebook thread and we can all discuss the concept in further detail. There may be no explanation available, but we can toss around some ideas.

For me, this will be an exercise in understanding the world around me while creating reading material for our blog. Ultimately, I hope this will inspire others to investigate the world around them and question everyday events.

Seeing What We Have Been Prepared to See

2008-08-28T10:34:00.008-04:00

Now and then someone asks me to comment on their photos when strange things appear on their pictures. They point out white flashes, blobs, dot and specks (of course, if they have been Net-corrupted they call these orbs). Alas, I am not an expert in photography or camera glitches, so usually I just point out common problems or say I do not know. They are often delighted because they want to retain the mystery or affirm their beliefs that they captured a ghost, energy vortex, orb, or whatever meaning they have been led to assign to such things. They seldom really want a natural explanation, or appreciate the value of parsimony, or the fact that when we do not know we cannot leap to what we want to believe anyway. I often wish I had more expertise in cameras and photo glitches, but such questions about photo specks and blobs are really more similar to seeing faces in clouds or hearing messages when songs are played backwards. Typically, when casually taking pictures, people seldom are bothered with such artifacts or blobs but presume they are due to the variety of common problems that can occur with cameras and how pictures are taken—lighting changes, reflections, dust, shadows, etc. It is only after hearing or reading about orbs or ghosts that they begin to look for such anomalies and seek to confirm what they have been led to see. It is only when they hear that I am interested in investigating paranormal events that they then wish to show me some blob or speck on a photo. Once they have been set up or conditioned to think along the lines of these false mysteries, my natural explanations are seen as boring or dismissive, and my honest inability to offer some explanation is seen as confirming what they wish to believe. Without this preconception or a context suggesting what to see, many would not see such glitches as anything so extraordinary. We could easily demonstrate this by varying what we tell people or by creating different ghostly contexts before people are asked to look at photos (something I should ask my students to do ha). Have others encountered this kind of thing when people talk about their photos? My favorite photo "expert" is Joe Nickell who many years ago taught me some "magic for skeptics" at a csicop skeptic gathering. He is a regular columnist for Skeptical Inquirer and author of a valuable book "Camera Clues" which provides some help for photo investigation. BTW, he has a cool article examining lighthouse ghosts in the Sept./Oct. Issue of Skeptical Inquirer. He mentions a number of Michigan lighthouses.

Cancer Cure??

2008-08-26T10:42:00.005-04:00

When it comes to medicine, I typically do not know what to take as good science or bad science. There is just so much terminology and crud to pick through that I miss the subtle claims completely. I do understand the golden bar in science of controlled double blind experiments, etc. With this said some groups still over exaggerate the effects of certain drugs and so called cures. I ran across this article and it seemed pretty interesting.

There is a hint of conspiracy theory brewing in the article. In that "Big Pharma" does not really want to let this information out because they will not profit. Can that really be the reason why the ultimate medical discovery, next to the cure for AIDS, is not being let out to the public.
Maybe the medical community hasn't fully tested the drug in controlled human experiments or even in lab animals. I guess it could be a conspiracy but does that even seem logical?

What does everyone think of this article? Is there really a cure for cancer out there, waiting to be revealed?

Election Time: Who to Believe?

2008-08-19T08:47:00.009-04:00

Once again we are down to a couple candidates and each one of them has their good points and their bad points. One candidate wants to raise taxes the other wants to give tax breaks. One is for gun control, the other wants less gun control. The whole time each candidate is saying the other candidate is lying, or flat out wrong. As a voter, I find this time of the election to be very difficult.

First of all, my options are fairly limited. Now I know what the Libertarian is saying, but there are other options, well really the only candidates that are close to getting enough votes to win, are the two major parties. I wish this was different and we had a variety of REAL candidates running for the Presidency, but the grass roots movements have not caught on in America. They simply get out funded, out foxed, and kicked to the side of the street when it comes to major elections. I do have hope though. I think there will be a time when 6-10 candidates can legitimately compete for the presidency, but for now we have two main parties.

My main point is not to ramble on about our election process, though this subject warrants an entire volume of criticism, I wanna talk about the major parties' stance on science. I wrote a little piece, a few months back, outlining each nominee's position on space exploration and science education in general. Barack Obama is still strongly in favor of funding science and science education. Nothing has changed since then.

Recently, a story has surfaced saying Obama wants to give $2 Billion dollars to new funding for NASA (an organization that could really use the money) for more space exploration. John McCain was heard "telling business leaders that Obama has changed his position on some key questions of NASA funding in recent months and should not be trusted to support the program. Well Mr. McCain, he has not changed his original point, and that is to support science. That is the point that matters. Whether his support was greater or lesser before (according to his planned budget) at least he is in the right ballpark.

On the other hand John McCain, according to a poll put out by Popular Mechanics, had nothing to say about space exploration. He did not comment on general science education all together. This does not win my vote.

I want a candidate who is science savvy and would like to make science education a priority in the U.S. There are only a couple more months and the candidates have time to change their minds and change my mind for that matter. I'll have to withhold judgment till I walk into the voting booth.

When I do enter that booth, the entire year of issues will be in my head and I'll cast my vote. I'm not sure who it will be, but I can tell you what is important: science education, helping the less fortunate, becoming an international ally and not an international bully, alternative fuel sources, decreasing the divide between the wealthy and the poor, reproductive rights, same sex marriage, and the list goes on. These are the important issues for me. That is what is on my mind when I go to vote. November is right around the corner, I hope everyone is ready.

Bigfoot Body in Georgia?

2008-08-13T14:21:00.013-04:00

One thing skeptics often say when discussing Bigfoot is "If Bigfoot exists, where are the bodies?". Most doubters, including me, rightly dismiss anecdotal evidence as unreliable and claim that some sort of concrete evidence is needed. Not a blurry photo, random hair sample, foot print, or fecal matter. A body, on the other hand, would greatly fill this requirement.

On to the story: A 'Bigfoot' body has been found in the Georgian wilderness. The body has been examined by "veteran Bigfoot tracker" Tom Biscardi (Fox News), however the article leaves out his comments. (An aside: Is it fair to call someone a "veteran" Bigfoot tracker when they have failed to actually track Bigfoot?) There is a press conference scheduled for Friday that will reveal all the hairy details (hairy!).

If this body turns out to be a real Georgian Man-Ape, I'll be convinced. However, there are a two reasons why I am skeptical:

1. Occam's Razor
When posed with multiple possible explanations for something, the explanation that introduces the least amount of new assumptions is the one that is most likely to be true. A few possible explanations in this case are that: 1) it is Bigfoot, 2) it's a hoax, or 3) it's another known animal that is mistaken for Bigfoot.
In this case I think the explanation that passes the OR test the best is number 2: it's a hoax. We've seen many Bigfoot hoaxes in the past and there is definitely motivation to do so (publicity, maybe a book deal and some cash). This explanation does not require any new assumptions.
The next best is number 3. It does seem like a stretch that someone could mistake say, a bear for Bigfoot, but I think it is a possibility that needs to be considered (especially if the body is several hours old because decomposition may alter the animal beyond recognition). A similar case happened very recently with the "Montauk Monster" which turned out to be a raccoon.
The last one, (which I'm secretly rooting for, but am very skeptical of) is that Bigfoot actually exists. This seems to be a rather simple explanation, but there are a few issues with it. New species are discovered all the time and this is not a problem. The main problem is that the particular animal in question is, well, big - we're not talking a new species of insect or field bunny. No matter how much wilderness there is in Georgia, is it really enough to sustain the necessary population of Big's without them being discovered? I can't answer this question, but it's one worth asking.

2. Reported Through the Mass Media
In the world of science, most all new ideas and discoveries first go through the process of being peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal before reaching mainstream news. In fact, most science never reaches mainstream news but that's a different issue. However, peer review and publication is a lengthy process and something like Bigfoot appeals to the general public much more than something else like carbon nano tubes so it is expected that it would make headlines. The fact that real scientists have not yet examined the evidence and published their results is a reason to be skeptical. This does not mean that it's definitely a hoax, it simply means that it's fair to with hold judgment until more information is gathered.

Like I said, I'm very skeptical and I'm leaning towards "hoax", but if Bigfoot really exists - sweet! That would be very exciting. If something that large can go undetected for so long, imagine what else could be out there! Remember, skepticism is a methodology used to evaluate claims. To be a skeptic is not to be a nay-sayer, but to critically examine the evidence available and make the best conclusion possible. We'll just have to wait for Friday!

Perseids Meteor Shower

2008-08-13T11:27:00.009-04:00

Every year in the beginning of August the earth passes through the Perseid cloud, which is a cloud of debris left behind by the comet Swift-Tuttle as it orbits near the sun.

I was out watching last night and I saw 11 meteors in about an hour even though there was light cloud cover. I happened to get lucky and photograph a meteoroid in the act of meteoring. You can still catch them at night until around August 24th so go out and take a look!

Relocation

2008-08-08T11:28:00.001-04:00

I'm in North Carolina for the time being. If anyone wants to contact me, email me on here of facebook. Talk to y'all in a few days, I'm trying to find myself a job.

Ben Stein is truly an idiot and mean.

2008-07-25T16:17:00.005-04:00

Here we go again, mudslinging from Mr. Stein. This guy seems to really enjoy ad hominem attacks. I just found a clip that shows him comparing Barak Obama, to the Fuehrer, which in German means leader or guide. Hitler gave himself this title which was the result of the Enabling Law. The Enabling Law gave Hitler supreme power in the German Parliment. Obviously Stein does not understand how comparisons work. His comparison of Hitler and Obama is completely irrelevant.

I can understand if Stein just does not like Obama, I mean politicians are hard to like sometimes, but to compare him to a mass murdering genocidal maniac is just lame. I mean I wouldn't even compare someone I did not like to Hitler. Stein's comparison fails.

I also think Stein is being a hypocrite when he says politicians are the ones feeding their egos, and he is on the TV in front of millions of people feeding his own ego. He has made a movie that he hope would be viewed by millions, he's even on a commercial for red eye medication that he hopes will be viewed by millions. Who really has the complex Mr. Stein? I'm not sure why Stein compares everything to Nazi Germany. I mean he has put Obama, Evolution and who knows what else in the big Nazi basket. He needs to reflect on the damage he is doing with his hate mongering rhetoric. Instead of being closed minded he should maybe approach his issues with science, evolution, Obama, Liberalism and whatever issues he deems Nazism, with more of an open mind.

Bigfoot on the banks of the Saginaw River.

2008-07-24T11:54:00.003-04:00

I was searching around YouTube and ran across this pretty amazing video. It has decent quality and I can't really make out what is walking across the screen. I'm still a bit skeptical though. I'm not sure where these creatures would live. Or how they could sustain life without anyone ever running into them. It just seems like a stretch.

Seperation of Church and State.

2008-07-12T13:49:00.005-04:00

For me, the First Amendment is one of the most important Amendments in the Constitution. It reads, "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."

Last week, Barak Obama, one of my top choices at the moment, took a turn that made my stomach ache. He wants to give an enormous amount of money to the same faith-based initiative that Bush stated. Ultimately he is following in the footsteps of Bush, and that does not win my vote.

He believes that faith-based programs are a great way to take care of social dilemmas. I agree that faith-based organizations are excellent at taking care of social problems, but what about non-faith based organizations? Or how about we don't give faith based groups a huge amount of federal aid and then treat them as church affiliated groups. Treating them in this fashion seems to go against the First Amendment. The government needs to treat all organizations equally.

I think this may merely be a problem in semantics. When is says faith-based organization he is really saying anyone who is helping others, which is fine with me. But if he really means church groups, well they better have their tax free status revoked. Where it seems Obama would sincerely like to do anything he can to rid the nation of social ailments, he is convincing me to get on board his faith-based bandwagon.

How does everyone else feel about this move?

Ghosts Up Close Tour

2008-07-08T05:56:00.014-04:00

As everyone knows, the weekend was absolutely beautiful. The Fourth of July was so much fun, good food, good friends, and good drinks. There was also a great historical walk put on by the city. Unfortunately, we were unable to go into any super scary dungeons or catacombs but we were told of some pretty interesting tales from the early 19th and 20th centuries. Bay City is rife with interesting history and the narrator of the Ghosts up Close Tour told us all about it.

The walk started off a bit awkwardly. We were given a crash course through a physics lesson, or what seemed like physics. It was loosely based on the idea, that we really do not know everything about the universe, so there could very well be ghosts, demons, etc.

The narrator used concepts like dark matter, and quantum physics to show the amazing complexity of the universe and then it followed that humans do not understand everything. His discussion of the material was rather simplistic, coming from a psychology major, but it definitely missed the point with the audience.

He should have plainly said, let's take a look at the evidence and everyone be open minded and skeptical about what we come across. That would have been far more appropriate. But how interesting is critical thinking and skepticism anyway?

By using irrelevant information, dark matter, complexity, etc, the narrator was in turn forming a argument from ignorance, or an appeal to ignorance. He was insinuating that, just because we do not understand the entire universe and it's building blocks that we really can not rule out the possibility of evidence for ghosts, demons or fairies. I think the real point was to keep your mind open to the stories he was telling, which is fair enough.

The rest of the tour was far more watered down from the pseudo-science gunk. We were told of stories about loggers and bar fights, women of the night and gun fights. There were stories of people being shot in the street and dumped down shoots into the river. Other stories were told of Native American battles and medical havoc.

Overall the tour was fun and interesting. I did have a gauss meter (Ghost detector) and though I did receive a couple of readings of 5 or better, I did not personally experience any ghosts on the tour. I guess I will have to get up to the third floor of the antique store, or down into the catacombs of the city to do further investigation.

PHOTOS:

This was the starting point of the tour. We were told that
there might be a few ghosts in the third floor of this building.

This is now a bakery, but was once an old infirmary.
We were told that a huge number of amputees were
taken care of here.

Here are some photos of me ghost hunting. I had a few indications of anomalies in the area, but nothing solid.

Psychic Kids

2008-07-07T22:16:00.011-04:00

So I'm watching this show right now on A&E called "Psychic Kids" and it's rather terrifying. The talk of spirits and demons is not terrifying - the uncritical encouragement of these children to persist in delusion by the parents is. This particular episode features 3 children (two 8 years old and one, 9!) who can see spirits/dead people/demons yada yada yada.

During the show they unite the three children along with their mothers. The mothers all complain during the interviews with the "psychologist" Dr. Lisa Miller (she has a PhD, she must be good!), saying things like "everyone thinks we're crazy!", or "we have no where to turn!". However, it appears that they have already chosen where to turn: delusion-ville. Dr. Lisa Miller said something about how the children do not appear mentally ill. Of course they are not mentally ill! They are 8 and 9 year old kids that have imaginations and fantasy prone mothers!

A few times, the kids are given flash lights, sent off to creepy dark houses with medium Chip Coffey, and encouraged to put on a show. They are pretty much terrified the whole time, screaming and crying. This show is nothing more than psychological abuse and it disgusts me.

Dr. Frank's Homeopathic Pet Spray

2008-07-01T13:35:00.004-04:00

Ah, the lows people sink to to make a buck! This is right down there with pet psychics. I like how it is advertised as "natural" all over the website. Rightly so, I suppose, since the entire solution is nothing but water.

Join us on Facebook!

2008-06-27T12:49:00.004-04:00

Join the TCS group on Facebook! We've been on there for a couple days now and it's going rather well. Spread the Meme!

Ghosts up Close: Historic Tour of Bay City

2008-06-26T14:24:00.003-04:00

July 5th, 2007

Historic Walking Tour "Ghosts Up Close"

Office: Edutainment

@ 4 pm

Location: Leave from the Bay City Antique Center

Join the Bay City Historical Museum on a walking tour of Bay City highlighting stories of ghosts, legends and crimes.

Leave from the Bay City Antiques Center at 4 pm.

Tickets are $5 and children under 12 are free.

Phone: 989-893-5733

Skateboarding session afterwards.

Michigan Legislation: House Bill 6027

2008-06-25T14:30:00.005-04:00

Since the Movie Expelled , many states in the U.S. have been working very hard on trying to keep Intelligent Design out of their schools. It's been one heck of a battle. In some states, the Intelligent design movement is knocking at the doors of many public schools disguised as "academic freedom"; this is simply a joke. Up to this point, I thought Michigan was safe from the idiotic ramblings of Intelligent Design, but it is not.

Rep. John Moolenaar has submitted a bill that is going through the House Education Committee as we speak. The bill is described by the Michigan Citizens for Science as a "Trojan Horse" and I would have to agree. The bill is set up to bring Intelligent Design and Creationism into the classroom as science.

HB 6027 (as it is called), if passed, would have a tremendously damaging affect on biology and science. The proponents of this bill and Intelligent design, do not understand that science as a discipline is not a democratic process. Science, whether you like the results of experiments and testing or not, provides us insight to reality. Sometimes outcomes are not as one would like them, but they cannot be changed by a vote from Congress.

I suggest anyone who is concerned call the office of Rep. Moolenaar and explain to him that he is doing our public schools an injustice and that the bill should not be passed.

If Rep. Moolenaar is simply concerned with teaching the controversy in science then we would have to teach, flat earth theory, phrenology , alchemy, astrology, psychic readings, and a number of pseudo-scientific theories that are just false. I suppose, to be academically fair, they may not be false, but there is just no evidence to support them.

At the end of the day, academic freedom does not mean that false theories should be taught in public schools. Instead it prescribes that once a theory is proposed, criticized and falsified, it should be thrown out. That is academic freedom.

Get Involved and protect your public schools from outrageous pseudo-science.

Fucking THANK YOU George Carlin

2008-06-23T14:52:00.004-04:00

Today we mourn the loss of a great person, George Carlin. Carlin had ailed from heart problems in the past and he died last night in Santa Monica at the St. John's Hospital from heart failure. George Carlin was so much more than just a four-time Emmy award winning comedian. He was an advocate of freedom, freedom of speech and the separation of church and state. He was a funny secular Humanist in ways, though I doubt he would have subscribed to the group in general.

He pushed the boundaries of free speech in much of his stand up. He paved the way for other comedians to talk about who ever and what ever made others laugh, unabashedly, and without fear of offending anyone. If you did not like George Carlin's shows, then he didn't fucking want you to go. Carlin was a comedian who prodded at the establishment of church, government, upper class, lower class, obese, anorexic, hell he was able to make fun of anyone he wanted and received billions of laughs for his racy remarks. Carlin was afraid of no one, not even god at times. He has said,

If this is the best God can do, I'm not impressed.
-- George Carlin, Napalm & Silly Putty (2001)

I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.
-- George Carlin (attributed: source unknown)

My girlfriend, my very Catholic grandmother, my girlfriend's mother and I saw Carlin last year in Saginaw, MI and I'll have to say the guy is original. He is the type of comedian that does not rely on his old stuff. He wrote and practiced new comedy all the time and he used some on us. The show was hilarious and my very Catholic grandmother was practically rolling on the floor holding her stomach. I just want to say thank you George, for all the laughter.

Spread the Meme

2008-06-22T21:04:00.005-04:00

I'm still trying to get this blog's name out on the cyber net...I'm hoping others are interested in writing with us here at TCS.

Technorati Profile

Water on Mars: Could their be life?

2008-06-22T12:55:00.006-04:00

The Phoenix Mars mission has yielded a great discovery, the robotic arm uncovered what is said to be ice. In two days time the uncovered ice disappeared and seemed to sublimate into the atmosphere. While most scientists believe the image showed evidence for ice, there are others who are still not sure if the rover definitely uncovered ice. There might be other elements that could resemble what was under the topsoil.

For instance, some thought maybe the white substance was merely salt. While the scientists who believe it is ice say that it disappeared because it simply changed states after it was uncovered. This is what I love about science...evidence is now needed to show the claim to be true. Only evidence can be used in this situation, and the scientists who believe that there is ice on Mars, could be wrong.

There is no amount of pressure from others that can make the claim true. Just because a majority of scientists believe it is ice makes no difference. It will be settled on evidence presented. Good conservative, skeptical science will win the day. The next question is, was there ever life on the Red Planet.

The presence of frozen water is essential to showing that life could have existed at one time. In time the rover will give scientists more data and evidence that will help them answer the question of life. Until then we will have to wait...like kids being told a grand story, waiting for the spectacular ending.

Carl Sagan once said that, "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." For right now I believe Mars is that somewhere.

FDA Swipes at Pseudoscience

2008-06-18T10:12:00.004-04:00

The FDA has officially stood up against the growing industry of fraudulent medicine and dangerous pseudo cures. In the past it seems that either the FDA has had their hands tied or just did not get involved in maintaining the integrity of medical claims put forth by alternative medicine companies. In the latest clash between pseudo medicine and the FDA it looks like the reason has won.

The LA Times reported that 25 companies found on the internet were warned about their so called cancer cures. The companies were told to stop selling their products or else they will be faced with penalty. The FDA ultimately came out and said that these drugs and so called cures could seriously hurt unsuspecting patients.

Finally, someone has stood up to the charlatans of the alternative drug industry. The FDA needs to be tough in this area and go after any and all companies or individuals making false claims. These fake medical officials are simply preying on helpless victims and padding their pockets with money of people who are unable to see through the deception and lies. Using vulnerable people in this fashion is unfair and reprehensible.

The FDA really has not got involved in gem therapy, crystal healing, faith healing, etc., but they should. These practices have not produced any data that shows they are more effective than actual medical treatments. At best, these treatments produce a weak placebo effect or no effect at all. In some situations these therapies can prove to be dangerous or even lethal. I hope that the FDA investigates more alternative medicines and claims of "healing power". People who are being suckered into these treatments need guidance not deception.

Predictions for the Future

2008-06-07T11:17:00.004-04:00

A few months ago, I was introduced to the book, The Singularity is near.
I was quite amazed by some of the claims made by author, Ray Kurzweil
and since then I have been keeping my ear to the scientific community. Kurzweil explains that technology is increasing in an exponential manner. Each year that passes, the complexity and intricateness of computer technology increases. Kurzweil projects that in the near future computers and humans will, in simple terms, be indiscernible. He thinks that just in a couple decades computers should be able to pass the infamous Turing test. He goes so far to say that, in nearly 15 years humans should be able to extend their lives tremendously.

All of these claims are fantastic and many would like to think that humans are getting closer to ridding the universe of horrible things like, cancer, aids, and anything else that can cause pain and suffering, but I think the road to resolve suffering will be very gradual. I'm hoping for artificial intelligence (AI) breakthroughs and medical revolutions. I mean science has me so damn excited I can barely contain myself.

On the other hand I take a rather conservative approach to science. I really like what Kurzweil has to say about the progression of medicine and computers but at times it seems a bit ambitious. I think a couple factors could have horrible impacts on the progression of science. In no particular order, a lack of funding, theological positions that restrict the freedom of knowledge and scientific endeavor and our own desire for violence ( see nuclear war). These three hurdles along with many others not mentioned need to be addressed in order for Kurzweil's predictions to even come close. I can imagine the metaphorical faucet for funding of science and scientific inquiry in general being shut off if these problems are not fixed. We have to wait and see where science takes us. So far, science is doing a pretty decent job keeping humans alive long enough to enjoy a good life.

2008 Candidates on Science

2008-06-02T08:14:00.006-04:00

Well, it looks like the nominees for the major parties are picked for the most part, barring any small miracles. Barak Obama and John McCain are the two front runners of the Democratic and Republican parties respectively. We may still see a couple other candidates, like Ron Paul as an independent or maybe someone else as a Libertarian candidate. Politically speaking there are many things that I can agree and disagree with when it comes to each candidate's platform, but I'm wondering how they stack up in the science department. Can they tell the difference between science and science fiction?

Do they understand the importance of sound science and scientific inquiry in general? The race is now narrowed down to a few candidates and their potential running mates. How do these remaining candidates view science, and is science a priority in their campaign for the presidency?

The Popular Mechanics chart depicts who has information concerning science and who does not. Barak Obama seems to be the only candidate, still in the race, that commented on science. Ron Paul and John McCain do not even have any information concerning scientific research. Popular Mechanics made it easy and spelled out each candidate's proposals and promises in the realm of science. Click on the hyper links to read what each candidate has to say about science. Remember to vote in November, well funded, sound scientific inquiry is depending on your vote.

1. Barak Obama

2. John McCain

3. Ron Paul

4. Hillary Clinton (as a VP or if by an act of Zeus she is the Democratic nominee)

Memorial Day: What it should not be about

2008-05-26T08:39:00.003-04:00

Hey, it been awhile since my last post, but I though now would be a good time to do another and talk about Memorial Day. As many should know, this holiday is a day in which people should celebrate and honor the soldiers in the armed forces who have fallen in battle to protect our freedoms. Not honoring these militants. Also Bushy Boy has a lot of nerve doing this, while keeping our troops in the unwinnable war on terror. So remember those who have fallen, for fighting for the right reasons, For our freedoms. Not nihilistic ideologies or dwindling resources or power.

Interview Declined

2008-05-21T13:05:00.004-04:00

Well....I'm not able to get an interview with the lady at Crystal Creations, she politely declined. I agree that is might not be in her best interest to do an interview. I was thinking about why she might have denied. It might be because she does not like to be filmed or recorded. Some people are weird about things like that.

It also might be that she does not want to give out her most precious and lucrative secrets about magnet therapy. On the other hand she might have delcined the interview because she is not really sure about the efficacy of her own treatment.

I do think that she sincerely believes her magnet bracelets and necklaces are taking care of the aches and pains her patrons are suffering from. This may be the case, but it does not take away from the point that she may in fact may be harming some of her patrons by not looking into other medical explanations for aches and pains. An absoloute answer without the assistance of a medical professional can be dangerous in these situations.

As a general tip, I would have to say that if anyone is interested in taking part in magnet therapy, at least get a second opinion from a family doctor. Do not simply rely on the magnets to cure all types of pain.

Gravity Illusion

2008-05-10T10:03:00.006-04:00

I've been busy for the past couple weeks, relaxing and working at a couple different jobs. I still have not been able to finish up the interview with Crystal Creations. Next week, I'll be ready to attack all pseudo-scientific claims head on. I really enjoy having Ben and Jinrai writing on this blog. It's a wonderful surprise to see something I did not write. There is still room for more writers, any takers?

Well, I was just surfing around on a couple of my favorite sites (Digg) and I found this video clip that was pretty interesting. I read about this phenomenon in either Skeptical Inquirer or Skeptic, not really sure, but they explain how this perceptual phenomenon works. Enjoy the video clip and I'll try to have the interview done in a couple of days. Until next time. It's Saturday, May 10th here in Michigan and I have to go receive my Bachelor's degree in Psychology. Ciao!!

Help Sam Harris!

2008-05-09T21:44:00.004-04:00

Sam Harris needs help with a new study! Go to his website and take the four surveys to contribute. If you only have time for one, pick a random one so that there aren't more responses to the first one than the other three. Go!

Flat-Out Flunk

2008-05-07T13:25:00.006-04:00

I'm sure you're all aware of Expelled Exposed already, but I suggest checking the ever-growing reviews page. I checked it a few weeks ago and there were only about 8 reviews listed but now there are at least 30, plus links to other types of news coverage. All the big names are there, everything from New York and LA Times to Rotten Tomatoes and E! online, and they all give great reviews of the nonsense that is Expelled! Also, make sure you spread the Expelled Exposed link around and post it on all your own blogs because it's creeping up the Google ranks when you search for "Expelled" and it would be sweet to see it listed above Expelled the Movie.

2008-05-06T10:10:00.001-04:00

I have been following the latest anti-videogames crusade in a post GTA IV world from journalists like Glenn Beck from Fox News. He says his usual, but I think his and other clueless like-minded people have this unique position where not only are they anti videogames, but many times are anti media, decrying media as the corrupter of youth, who are also incidently Christian. What an amazing coincidence! They just think everything not god is evil! They are also using the same arguments and broken logic. I dub this the "anti-fun" or the "Nazi" mentality, which is actually a form of Godwins Law. provided is such an example of wonder journalist and human integrity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKFpwWdpl_U&eurl=http://www.destructoid.com/

Manget Therapy: Part 2 of 3

2008-05-01T22:57:00.005-04:00

BCWilla and I took a ride over to the Crystal Clear Creations (magnet therapy store) today. It was really interesting and the woman working there was really nice. Her name is Joyce Walker and we are going to ask her to do an interview with us. We are hoping she accepts so that we can pin her down about what she is really claiming. It's tough. I do not wanna make her made or feel uncomfortable but I do believe the magnet therapy she is promoting may not be up to the level she is proclaiming.

Until we actually get an interview with here, here is a brochure for everyone to read and see what you think. I have scanned them and put them up here, take a peek. It should be a couple more days and we will be putting up some video or audio about her store.

Caveat Empor: The G- Ball and the 3-day melt!

2008-05-01T17:01:00.004-04:00

I saw this infomercial this morning claiming if you do some rather pointless looking exercises with what can only be described as a basketball, dubbed the "G-Ball", you with lose weight according to there stated days/weeks routine. This commercial is actually pretty funny, and this seems to smell like bs, and it probably is. It justs.... melts!(the YouTube vid of said commercial):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZcFpI24QhA
Enjoy, or not.

Magnet Therapy and its effects

2008-04-30T00:58:00.004-04:00

I was curious about a local radio ad I heard the other day. It was a store in Bay City Michigan that claims to have magnet bracelets for therapy use. The commercial does not seem to make any miracle claims but my interest was piqued. I'm going to give a couple really simple (probably oversimplified) examples of studies being done and everyone out there can do some of their own research. I'm also going to try to set up an interview with the store in Bay City and have it filmed. We will try to get a better understanding for their claims about magnetic therapy. In the mean time click on the heading and you can read a great article from Quakwatch.

Overall, I would like to hash out my own ideas about magnet therapy in general...right now my thoughts are mixed. The placebo effect seems like it can be very robust in situations where a unique therapy is being used and needs to be carefully controlled. Also, even if there seems to be a causal relationship between the therapy and the effects of pain reduction; still, the actual mechanisms for the reduction in pain may be unknown to researchers. More investigation is needed in situations like these in order to not make hasty generalizations about claims.

Here are a few studies concerning the efficacy of Magnet Therapy:

Study 1: The Effectiveness of Magnet Therapy for Treatment of Wrist Pain Attributed to Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

Study 2: Efficacy of static magnetic field therapy in chronic pelvic pain: A double-blind pilot study.

Study 3: Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of static magnets for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: results of a pilot study.

study 4: Magnet Therapy: What's the Attraction?

study 5: Static Magnetic Therapy Does Not Decrease Pain or Opioid Requirements: A Randomized Double-Blind Trial

I was just doing a Google scholar search and these were a few of the articles I found about the efficacy of magnet therapy. I'll do a better search in the stacks tomorrow and reference a couple more articles with more credibility. I'm really going to shoot for objectivity here and would appreciate some input. What questions can I ask? What journals should I search in? etc. I'm open to suggestions. This is my first interview and it should be fun and informative. Stand by for the rest of this story and the outcome to our interview.

What is God?: What I think.

2008-04-28T21:07:00.001-04:00

God is many things to many people. To some, God is a person who created the life the universe,and everything. To some there is more than one. To others, God has a certain name, personality, and mannerisms. There are also some who believe themselves to be gods. There also is a set of rules to humans to follow. Some people believe that God is a he,some believe that God is a she. That He gets sad, is angry, is happy, cries, shouts, speaks, is jealous, schizophrenic, bipolar,masochistic, sadistic, tyrannical, good, evil, neutral, non-committal, immortal, all-knowing, the Alpha and the Omega. Dead, living outside time and space, a concept, a title, moral, immoral, amoral, incoherent, an illusion, a disease, a virus.
What do I think about god? I think that god is nothing more than an excuse to throw away one's morality, logic, accountability, responsibilities, and critical thought and understanding of the universe. That god is more an attribute of all the things greedy people want, or is a unnecessary crutch for the weak. That it is an illusion, and a delusion, as well as tool to control others, to emulate that which they desire, power. This power is false however. So to me god really IS everything, yet is nothing. And that my friends is what a true illusion is.

An Intro: Jinrai

2008-04-28T20:25:00.003-04:00

Hello,everyone.
This is Jinrai, newbie here, I'll lend a few articles every now and then. I am 24 year old male atheist, single, and I am a gamer, so some of my posts maybe game related, or will post something religion/non-religion/science/politics related as well. So I hope my posts will promote some discussion.

Spring Cleaning...Skeptical Organization on the way.

2008-04-27T22:50:00.005-04:00

As everyone can see, there is a fresh new mind tossing out ideas on this blog and this should be a bit refreshing. Welcome aboard Willa!! I always welcome new ideas and perspectives to old issues, it helps me think about old topics in a new light. My undergraduate work is finished and I'm waiting for graduate school. In the mean time I have some spare time (go figure) and I'm looking at drumming up some interest about science, politics and social news happening right here in Michigan.

One of the professors I was lucky enough to study under at Saginaw Valley State was Dr. Gerald Peterson. If you can imagine James Randi, minus the beard, that is Dr. Peterson. Dr. Peterson speaks from his love for science and psychology and portrays an amazingly clear and interesting perspective of psychology. He uses close up magic, knowledge of experimental design and critical thinking guidelines to make psychology far more interesting than most can even imagine. He taught me how important reason, evidence and well developed critical thinking principles are in life.

We were talking about a project I was working on about two or three months ago and the topic of a Michigan Skeptics society came up. He told me that he was involved in one a couple years ago and I was interested. Dr. Peterson and a number of people in the Tri-City area had started a skeptics society called the Tri-Cities Skeptics.

I then asked if the zine / organization still existed. He explained that most of the members had gotten busy with other things and that it has been stagnant for the past couple years. I got permission from Dr. Peterson to use the name and hopefully generate an understanding of scientific and nonscientific claims. I would like to stick to science and issues happening in Michigan but any state is open for discussion. Well, with all my new found spare time I thought that we should pick up where the last group left off.

The blog, up to now, has focused on a lot of interesting issues. The format will not change much, unless there are some sweet designers out there just drooling to create a new lay out. The Tri-Cities Skeptic Blog will specifically be addressing all kinds of issues that challenge scientists. From the pseudo-science and the paranormal to stem cell research and the 2008 candidates. I am hoping a lot of ground will be covered. I am also open to others contributing. Just send me an email or a comment talking about interests and the contributions that can be made and you can be part of the Inquiry team.

Dr. Peterson was able to find the mission statement for the organization and I would like to adhere to the original mission as much as possible. I hope that this will be an exercise in good healthy discourse. Go ahead and read over the mission statement and get ready for some fun discussions about science.

Mission Statement

The Tri-City Skeptics was formed in October of 1996 in response to the proliferation of paranormal and pseudo scientific claims and the unbalanced presentation of such claims in the media. Such claims, too frequently, go unchallenged by members of the media because of a lack of expertise, or because such topics are more easily marketed as entertainment.

A skeptical approach need not be synonymous with cynicism or mere rejection of ideas. Rather, it is an approach emphasizing reason and scientific scrutiny before rejecting or embracing claims. Skeptics look for compelling evidence and sound reasoning when faced with extraordinary claims. We model our efforts after the skepticism of science. When gathering data, we attempt to do so objectively, formulate the test hypothesis systematically, and arrive at conclusions open to revision is reason and further evidence warrant. In examining the ideas and beliefs of others, we will make every effort to adhere to the view of the renowned philosopher Spinoza; making every effort not to "ridicule, no to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them." Our mission thus, is to discover what is known, make an effort to learn the facts, and communicate practical information to fellow citizens. To this end, the Tri-City Skeptics shall endeavor to:

* Promote the development of skeptical inquiry and investigation of the paranormal and popular claims while, at the same time, encouraging a more objective and common sense analysis by local media and area citizens.

* Provide local media organizations with a resource to consult for alternative views on paranormal stories they be covering.

* Investigate local paranormal claims, quackery, and pseudo science and report our findings to local media and interested groups.

* Create or locate material useful as a resource, including articles, books, tapes, projects and essays for member's use.

It is our sincere hope that this organization will be an effective advocate for skeptical, yet open-minded inquiry into extraordinary claims, and a community resource for citizen-consumers.

Ghost Hunt, Yay!

2008-04-27T19:39:00.014-04:00

Hello guys and gals! This is my first post on the Bright's Side blog and I'm going to be posting on here whenever I can.

I recently went ghost hunting at ol' Mansfield Reformatory in Mansfield, Ohio (for any TAPS fans, MR is featured in episode 212, season 2 of "Ghost Hunters" and there have also been a few movies and music videos shot there). There were about 100 other people there that night (quite an interesting crowd) and the evening started out with everyone splitting into groups. Each group had a tour guide that showed us around the main "hot spots" (or is it "cold spots"?) for about an hour. The guide I was with had his fair share of ghost stories and while I think he was sincere and well meaning, we all know how highly ranked anecdotal evidence is.

After the tour we got to go around on our own and explore. The prison was pretty big and although there were a 100 others walking around, we rarely bumped into anyone. The night went basically as follows: explore a bit and then pick a spot and wait for something to happen. Anything, anything at all! Although I often watch paranormal shows at home and chuckle at the investigative procedures, being there made it much more amusing. We'd be quiet for a few minutes and if ANYTHING at all happened, it was evidence! While the group I was with was mainly family and not expert paranormal investigators (is there such a thing?) it was still funny to see what was accepted as proof. We went into the situation with such a vague constitution of evidence that it was only a matter of time before the "ghost hypothesis" was being supported. That seems like it is the typical case in most all paranormal investigations. Cold spot here, door creak there, some nice dusty orb photos, a sprinkle of pareidolia and you have yourself a successful night of ghost hunting.

I was the most vocal skeptic of the group and was given a lot of threatening glances through out the night when I offered alternate explanations. That's the other bone I have to pick with most paranormal investigators: they don't really seem to care about what is true, only about furthering their case with an abundance of unrelated creaks and shadows. I enjoy science much and it seems to me like the main idea of science is to pursue what's true, not what we'd like to be true.

This may be somewhat cliche, but it really was an old, big, drafty building. Most of it hasn't been maintained ever since it closed in 1984 and there were several broken windows and creaky flood boards. We also saw a few bats around, which were the scariest parts of the night (they're rather ugly). We stayed until about 3:30 am and not a whole lot happened even though I kept taunting the "spirits", asking them to punch me in the face if they were around. While it ultimately ended up being really fun (mainly watching other ghost hunters compare gear and exchange stories), I was a non believer going in and a non believer going out. So there, if anyone out there wants to criticize me, I tried to believe, I really did! Just not very hard.

EXPELLED SMELLED like lies!

2008-04-22T08:01:00.009-04:00

I finally did it, I went and viewed Expelled. With one hand over my eyes and the other over my mouth, (so if I were to vomit, I could catch it). I watched the propaganda spew from the idiots who put this movie together. The fun part about seeing this movie was that I did not contribute to the liars who wrote it. Instead, I bought a ticket for Prom Night (which I have never seen) and went on my merry way to see Mr. Stein lie, lie, lie. I guess that is my way of protesting. I would rather give my money to Prom Night than Expelled any day.

A second note about the movie, they stole music, ideas and video from many great minds and used them deviantly. The administration and staff of Expelled also lied to the scientists involved, who were willing to take precious time out of their schedules, and tried to make them look like horrible people. Everyone involved with creating Expelled should be ashamed of themselves. On the contrary, I applaud every scientist involved. All who were interviewed did their part, and stuck to their guns; science.

I really want to put together a long entry here...but I have to think about where to start. I just read a really good review of the movie in Skeptical Inquirer. I now have to take a day or so to relax, think and then write about this big pile of fecal matter called Expelled. Until then there are a bunch of articulate critics writing about the lies and propaganda put forth by Mr. Stein and his comrades. Here it is...Expelled Exposed. I'll get back to this blog entry soon....

Alright, I'm back....I've had a couple days to cool down. Ben Stein is really making me laugh at this moment. His attempt to connect the atrocities of the holocaust to my belief in Evolution, makes me want to vomit. He should be ashamed for using the genocide of millions of people to make a point....and which is not really compelling in the first place. Actually I was dumbfounded to see how blatantly Stein accused people who believe in Darwin's theory as immoral Nazis. It is disgusting.

Anyway, I was scanning the news today and I ran across a pretty interesting Evolution story. I had read before that some evidence pointed to a connection between chickens and the Tyrannosaurus Rex, but this story is absolutely beautiful. The sheer elegance of the hypothesis being supported by data shows the power of the theory of evolution.

The great part about this story is that scientists have been making this prediction far before they found any form of evidence. Like good science, the hypothesis was confirmed. Chickens and Tyrannosaurus Rex are common ancestors. I would love to think that Ben Stein had the time to read my blog, but I'm sure with his arduous creation agenda, he is off dumbing-down America at this moment with his horrible and detrimental ideas about how life sprang from a super being. I really do hope that Ben Stein sees a few stories like the one here....and the T. Rex story and so many others. For his sake I hope the light bulb in the really dim attic turns on and he sees the light.

Can Polygamy be Moral?

2008-04-09T11:29:00.011-04:00

The nation and the world are watching a fundamentalist sect of the Church of Later Day Saints go through, what they are calling, religious persecution. They claim that the religious persecution is equivalent to persecution in Germany and Russia. As most have seen, the church / compound in Eldorado Texas has been raided by the federal government concerning allegations that young women are being forced into underage marriage and possibly underage sexual acts.

This claim was actually brought to the federal officials because of the accusations of a 16 year old girl who was said to be forced into "spiritual marriages" and allegedly beaten by her "spiritual husband". So what should the federal government do? What is our moral obligation in such a situation? I mean the first Amendment does protect religious freedom, does it not?

Obviously, in my world view, these young women and children need to be protected from these horribly misogynistic men. They are taking part in horrifically egregious behavior and claiming their religious beliefs condone them. This type of justification is utterly immoral. I'm not saying polygamy in general is immoral, but the fact the women involved were under age is troubling.

Just to be clear, not all Church of Later Day Saints members take part in this type of behavior. Also, not all polygamists take part in underage sexual behavior or underage marriage, but on the whole; how much of this immoral behavior would be thwarted if polygamy was not protected as religious behavior or did not exist all together? Another question that is rattling around in my head right now is, Since this is a religious belief, supposedly from god, is it not just as plausible as any other religious belief? I mean it has to be morrally sound, it's from god right? So where do we draw the line in the sand when it comes to religious beliefs?

With this said, I do think we find ourselves in a conundrum. This behavior is supported by the religious beliefs of these people and shouldn't they be protected? Are we not suppose to be moral relativists when it comes to one's traditional religious beliefs? I definitely hope that we can see that behavior like this can not be masked by religion. There is no moral justification found in any religious text for these men. If a god did exist....the idea that these men believe they are following the teachings of an omni benevolent god is completely delusional.

I really like the way Christopher Hitchens has been framing this point as of late. I might be slaying his idea a bit but I think it goes something like this: Immoral actions will always exist but give one example of immoral actions performed in the name of atheism. This may seem extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible. On the other hand, give an example of an immoral action done in the name of religion. The later seems to lend itself to a huge number of examples, the crusades, sexaul deviance associated with polygamy, bombing of abortion clinics, 9-11; I think you get the point.

Creation Stories of the World

2008-04-04T16:49:00.003-04:00

I just finished reading about PZ Meyers being expelled from a screening of the movie, Expelled (irony huh?). I did some searching around and ran across an interview that Ben Stein did with Bill O'reilly on Fox News. It was great, Mr. Stein was pleading with Americans to give him and Intelligent Design proponents the ability to teach the controversy. Stein and ID proponents just want the right to give an alternative to Evolution.

Well I say, I am all for teaching other stories. Please teach the controversy, but let's not leave anyone out...or expel their views. Let's teach them all. Every single creation story known to man. Stories and myths from around the world. I wanna hear about Japanese creation stories, and Egyptian creation stories.... I wanna hear about how the indigenious people of Hawaii believe the earth and humans were created. I do not want to limit this very important debate to a dichotamy, I wanna hear from every ethnicity. Then we can sit down and hash out who is right and who is wrong on this issue. Here are a couple links to stories from other cultures...take a peek.

Stories from around the World

Myths about Creation

First Amendment Rights...Praise the Spaghetti Monster

2008-04-01T12:46:00.004-04:00

Looks like the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has struck again. In front of a Tennessee court house stood the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in all of its glory. I'm sure townspeople who are not familiar with the spaghetti monster were baffled when they saw the statue. Hopefully people can see it as a joke and, instead of getting bent out of shape, laugh a little. The statement left with the statue was very humorous. I can imagine people read that statement, let out a, "hmph" and walked away.

I really enjoy the humor of the Spaghetti Monster, but there is a hint of seriousness in its use. I'm not going to preach much on this topic but would just like to point out that it's absoloute absurdness should be analogously compared to the absurdity of the existence of a god. Both, the existence of a god and the existence of a flying spaghetti monster are unlikely at best.

Democracy not Theocracy...or TheoCRAZY!!

2008-03-27T15:04:00.004-04:00

I attended a simulcast yesterday entitled, Separation of Church and State...but were afraid to ask. It was held at the Quad Theatre in Saginaw, MI and being brodcasted to 37 cities nationwide. It was an amazing meeting of freethinkers and like minded individuals, focusing on the separation of church and state. I was kind of stunned at the number of elderly folks. The age range was from 45-60 and being a college student I would have thought more young adults would have been interested. The demographics were surprising to say the least. Overall the simulcast was well done, a bit cheesy, but very informative. I'm not sure if I would have had the Bacon Brothers (yes, Kevin Bacon and his brother) play music, but it was fun to watch. Everyone should go on to the First Freedom First website and participate in keeping a separation between church and state.

Parkinson's Research looks Promising.

2008-03-24T12:13:00.006-04:00

There are new results concerning Parkinson's disease. I'm really hoping that a break through in stem-cell research is around the corner, but I'm sure everyone know as well as I do, medical revolutions are almost impossible to predict. Most medical discoveries are almost serendipitous mistakes. Penicillin, antibiotics and X-rays have all been "chance events" turned into technology or usable medicine. On the whole, as long as scientists have the ability and funding to research, beneficial information will flow from these endeavors. The moment funding is taken away and people stop doing science, is the moment we will find our society in peril. So I hope stem-cell research moves along swimmingly and bigger and better breakthroughs are yet to come.

Stagnate Funding for Science Research Could Have Dire Consequences

2008-03-11T12:36:00.004-05:00

I am a senior at Saginaw Valley State, graduating with my degree in Psychology. As I read the report put out today by Boston.com , I realized that the money I will be asking for in the future could be at stake. If research funding for the "hard sciences" is flatlining, how will that impact the other scientific communities. Would Psychology departments around the U.S. not be able to provide scholarship money and other benefits to incoming graduate students? If they are not able, then how will graduate students get through an entire program without becoming broke and strung out. These are questions graduate students are asking themselves and the answers are ambiguous.

Harvard is asking the U.S. Senate to contemplate the reprecussions concerning a reported flatline in scientific research funding. Scientists across the United States should be asking the U.S. Senate to consider the detrimental effect that could potentially resurface in the future if funding does not dramatically increase. In order to win the fight against modern day disease, famine and other problems facing humanity, science deserves money to conduct research. Science, as of now, is the best tool we have for resolving problems we face as a nation, and as a global community. Get involved!!

"Unaffiliated" who are Affiliated with Religious Groups

2008-02-25T23:09:00.004-05:00

A new poll shows a huge increase in people who are "unaffiliated" with religion. The New York Times revealed the results to a recent survey, which shows that people who claim they are not affiliated with any religious denomination, are now the fourth largest "religious" group in the U.S.

How does that work...? If one is unaffiliated, then how can he or she recognized as a religious group. Can the New York Times just print atheists, agnostics, nonbelievers, free-thinkers, hell even brights would suffice. To say, the unaffiliated are affiliated with religious groups, seems strange. Get some courage and just say it, people are losing faith and gaining reason.

Happy Darwin Day !!

2008-02-12T11:38:00.000-05:00

Today is Darwin day...so keep on evolving. This is coming on the heels of a creationist lecture I attended yesterday. The Creation Museum sent a lecturer, Terry Mortenson ( he has a Ph.D in the history of geology...is this really a field of knowledge?) to come and proselytize their theological position against evolution. Dr. Mortenson actually represented an organization called, answers in genesis, which is a so called scientific organization. There were about 10 areas where I felt that Mortenson failed to make his point, but I did not have enough time to get all my questions out in the Q&A. A biology professor went to work on this guy before I even had a chance.

I was rather blown back by the way this biology professor questioned the Creation Museum represenative. The biology professor cornered him and pinned him down intellectually. It was professional but to the point. This is the type of hard line questioning that needs to come from the scientific community. Other than that, it was people walking lockstep to the donation dish to drop five dollars and grab more creationism propoganda.

Dr. Mortenson was basically not informed on the matter of Evolution. Instead he was preaching from his playbook from God, the bible. Dr. Mortenson was also using the names of evolutionary theorists names in support of creationism. It was subtle, but he claimed that people like Dr. Stephen J. Gould, and Ernst Mayr (go figure two men who are dead, but who probably rolled over in their graves) did not agree with some parts of evolution. This showed that this man did not understand the complexity of the arguments going on within the evolution community. He mistook the wonderful debate between actual scientists with the complete rejection of evolution. Dr. Mortenson should read the texts of these people and he will understand that these fights were about the mechanisms of evolution not evolution itself.

I did get to ask him a couple of tough questions and he somewhat tip toed around both of them....but what can I expect from a peusdo-theory (creationism) based on faith alone. I took a ton of notes and in short it was the same ole thing. Evolution does not explain the "origin of life", though mutations and natural selection may be correct, for some reason evolution is not, the fossil record is not correct, etc. It was tough to sit through this lecture and hear this man (who has a doctorate in the history of geology) say things like, Noah's flood is real, Jesus is a historical figure, and that the earth is only 6000 years old. The man has a doctorate in the history of geology for god's sake.

Well, today is a new day. It's Darwin day!! One last claim by the Dr. Mortenson was; as scientists [we] hold Darwin up to an almost deity status. I thought that was strange. Sir Charles Darwin was human, a man of great knowledge, but human. It was a great attempt at trying to say Evolutionists are just theists, but in a different way. WRONG...WRONG...WRONG!!!! We do not speak of supernatural deities, spirits, angels or anything of the sort. We look at the natural world and try to understand it, naturally. Thank you Sir Charles Darwin for all you have done.

Happy Birthday Explorer 1

2008-01-31T19:41:00.000-05:00

The U.S. space age is 50 years old today....Happy Birthday!!!

New Blog: Arab-Isreali Conflict

2008-01-28T13:38:00.000-05:00

I'm currently taking a class at Saginaw valley State that really interests me, it is dedicated to outlining the history of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. I'm in my final semester and needed a simple class to graduate. I thought I would have to take a horribly boring theater or art course. After searching through the course catalog I found that Dr. Renna, one of my favorite professors, was teaching an Arab-Israeli conflict class. I jumped on the opportunity to understand one of the most important conflicts facing us today...the dynamic clash of cultures in the Middle East, specifically between the country of Israel and the self-proclaimed country of Palestine.

Because of this class I will be archiving news articles whenever I get the time. I think it is important to become familiar with the issues surrounding the conflict. There is a constant stream of news coming out of the Middle East concerning the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. My blog will be focused on discussing the events in the region by relating them to the discussions taking place in my class. I will be trying to take an objective stance on all of the events since I have no idea, as of now, who I support. The blog will be opinion based but hopefully based on facts. The blog will be portraying my views concerning the matters of the Arab-Isaeli conflict and not the views of others.

See...Good Science is Skeptical

2008-01-17T16:02:00.001-05:00

The Tom Cruise post was less than satisfying, so I should at least make another attmept at a worthwhile post. I was reading through some news articles and this beauty caught my eye. This story is not a beauty because of the amazing medical claim that is being put forth. Though cloning human embryos is quite spectacular; the fact that some scientists are skeptical about the claim is what caught my attention. This is a direct example of why science is a wonderful, honest and worthwhile endeavor.

Science searches for the truth. It is also in pursuit of better ways to take care of humanity, regardless of where the data brings us. Science is hesitant, modest, conservative and not open to "any old" claim. Science has a tough skin. It takes criticism on the chin like a veteran boxer, though a theory may get knocked down, a new or a better one will get back up. This is what I love about science. It is made to stand the test of time all the while correcting its flaws. Good science in something that makes life worth living.

Tom Cruise Makes Miraculous Claims (with no evidence).

2008-01-16T14:10:00.000-05:00

Here we go again, Tom Cruise spouting outrageous claims at the top of his lungs. Why can he not shut up with this scientology stuff. I really do not have much to say about this idiot. I just wish more people would speak out against his lunacy.

Thump, thump, thump

2008-01-15T13:26:00.000-05:00

I'm going to take a step back from the political arena and delve into the medical field. I came across a really interesting story that shows promising research in creating hearts "bioartificially". Researchers at the University of Minnesota have been working on developing heart transplant technology for rats, by using the outer structure of the heart and heart cells from other rats. This reserach would be used in human heart transplants in the future. The hope is to provide more safe and effective options to patients.

The claim is that a rat heart can be gutted out, like remodeling a house, and rebuilt using the existing outer structure and heart cells from another rat. The researchers have now moved on to using the same technique on pig hearts, which are similar to human hearts. As of now some pig hearts are actually used in transplant surgeries in place of human hearts. The researchers believe that using the bodies own cells to grow organs would be beneficial in that foreign organs would not have to be introduced. The research is still in its initial phases but looks very promising if all goes well.

Hucakbee is back on the pulpit.

2008-01-14T14:02:00.000-05:00

Mike Huckabee is back on the pulpit...I mean the campaign trail. Can he for one moment stop talking about god and get to the damn issues. The Washington Post wrote a story about Mr. Huckabee conducting a sermon at a local New Hampshire Church. Huckabee being a former Baptist priest, made this leap from the political trail to the pulit look easy.

This story should be a slap in the face to all who are supporters of the seperation of church and state. Huckabee seems to have a real hard time the ideologies in his campaign. He speaks about religion whenever he gets a chance. Now as proponents of the seperation of church and state the people the U. S. need to look at his actions and make a decision; do we really want a person who relies on religion to make personal decisions as much as Huckabee.

If Huckabee looks to "his lord" as a decision maker when it comes to difficult personal problems, why would he not do the same for tough political dillemmas. His sermon should open eyes to nonbelievers, agnostics and people who believe the seperation of church and state is important. Huckabee also draws similarities between volunteering for military duty and volunteering for religious duty. This comparison could not be any more wrong. He does no justice to those who volnteered in the U.S. military to protect our SECULAR government. He instead tries to show that people, accepting Jesus, are in a similar battle...when they are not at war with anything excpet their own exestential fears and human psychology.

Watch for Mr. Huckabee to pander to the Evangelical crowd during this entire primary race. If he does become the Republican condidate for the general election, we as secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, proponents of seperation of church and state, constiutionalists, whatever you would like to call yourself, need to made our voices be heard. The U. S. is a Secular country.

Being a veteran, his statements enraged me. I fouhgt for a country that is willing to uphold the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. Mr. Huckabee needs to read the constitution and understand that this country was not founded on christian or even religious grounds but instead a secular principles.

Microwave popcorn, not your hand.

2008-01-12T16:14:00.000-05:00

Here is a story my girlfriend found surfing the internet. I can not believe this guy went through the hassle and endured the amount of pain he did in order to fulfill a horribly obscure bible quote. The things true believers will do in order to impress their god with unwavering faith. I'm just glad he stopped at this quote and did not go out and kill the infidel. Scary story though...

Scientology: Coming to a city near you !!

2008-01-06T12:02:00.000-05:00

I was going about my business, pumping gas yesterday and a head line in the Detroit Free Press caught my eye. I did a double take and realized it said, Scientologists heading downtown. Along with my bland cup of gas station coffee, semi-sweetened with free hazelnut cinnamon, and a banana, I bought the newspaper.

I started reading the article and was blown away in finding out that the church of Scientology has purchased an eight story building in downtown Detroit directly across from Hart Plaza. I could not believe my eyes when I read that some officials in Detroit believe that by having this fraudulent religion operate downtown will bring about more diversity.

John Carroll, the executive director of the Detroit Regional Economic Partnership is quoted as saying, "To make a a city vibrant, you need many kinds of business and organizations, and diversity is very important" (Detroit Free Press). He goes on to say, "This certainly brings an element of diversity", little does he know (Detroit Free Press). Councilwoman Shelia Cockrel is also on the record as saying, "It's going to be an occupied building with people working downtown. That is a net gain for the city" (Detroit Free Press).

Does Detroit need money that desperately? I mean 3.5 million dollars may seem like a lot of money but does the benefit outweigh the consequences. Now I know what one would say, the negative effects of having Scientology in Detroit are only hypothetical. With any religion there will be consequences. I think having wacky fringe organizations who believe in unicorns, fairies and tea pots bring about diversity but I can assure everyone, this would not be a good idea. I would just hope the city of Detroit could be more critical in conducting the investigation of who they are allowing to set up shop.

This type of news would not typically even catch my attention but, it was Scientology and I wanted to know when this crippling religious belief would be moving into Michigan.

To be fair, I'm an atheist and do not accept any religion on it's face. Some religions do seem more plausible than others. For me, at the end of the day, I reject all forms of religion. Scientology just so happens to strike me as the most fraudulent and dangerous in the media as of now.

The story of Scientology is terribly convoluted and tough to pin down. I have searched for a unbiased explanation of Scientology and it has been difficult. For more information about how the religion of Scientology works can be found on Atheist Nation. Here you can you find a couple video clips that will give perspectives on the corrosive nature of Scientology.

One may ask, why is Scientology not conducive for a better community in Detroit? First the church will be given the same rights as any other religion. This is really a free pass to do and say whatever they, regardless of how illogical. They will be given tax breaks and generally a free pass as a legitimate religious belief. By allowing Scientology to operate as an entity within the city of Detroit is an egregious slap in the face of reality and deteriorates scientific inquiry. The religion or philosophy puts forth horribly unscientific claims of aliens and unobserved life on other planets along with a whole slew of terribly unscientific claims.

I truly wish the officials of Detroit would seriously reconsider their decision and try to critically weigh the positive and negative effects of having this church open its doors. I would like these people to investigate the origin of Scientology and what their real beliefs about science, the human mind, the mind, etc. Money and greed should not be the defining factor. Michigan is in rough economic shape, but not dire enough to just let any horribly fraudulent organization to come in the state and put forth extraordinary claims.

G'day from Brisbane, Australia

2008-01-05T08:55:00.000-05:00

G'day Jason & Friends

This is just an initial posts to confirm that I am a friend. Several years of drought in eastern Australia is (as i type) currently ending in flood.

I will think of more interesting things to comment about after a good night's sleep.

Good thinking!

Ian

Iowa Caucus: Winners make me nervous.

2008-01-04T11:19:00.000-05:00

The results are in for the first national Caucus of 2008. The people of Iowa have voted and two candidates stood out. The winners are (drum roll please) Evolution denier and religious zealot Mike Huckabee, the former Republican governor of Arkansas and Democrat Barack Obama, who is also religiously affiliated and senator from Illinois. The outcome to the caucus is alarming and for one reason, the denial of evolution by Mike Huckabee.

On June 5th, Mike Huckabee stood up for what he believed and said there is a God and that God created the heavens and the earth. His affirmation of God creating the universe is a denial of evolution. More evidence that Mr. Huckabee does in fact deny evolution. In a Republican debate where the candidates were simply asked if they do or do not believe in evolution, Huckabee, Brownback and Tancredo, raised their hands admitting they do not believe in evolution. Their denial of evolution is alarming. These are well educated people running as Presidential candidates in the United States. I'm glad that Mr. McCain actually pandered to both the religious and the nonreligious by saying, yes I believe in evolution, but God is also responsible. Two birds with one stone, that's a politician.

Mr. Huckabee has also denied evolution on the Bill Maher show. This clip blew me away. I couldn't believe that a person running for the highest office in the U.S. could look at the evidence of evolution and with a straight face, deny its existence. Well, ok he did not say he actually denies evolution. He does say, God created the heavens and the earth...sounds like creationism to me. I do like the fact that he is tap dancing around this question. It's also comical that he says he is not running to be an 8th grade science teacher (which we would not be hired) but wants the vote for president, WOW is about all I can say here. I'm glad Bill Maher pushed him into a corner and showed that Mr. Huckabee's position on evolution is disturbing.

Where do nonbelievers go to find a candidate that accepts evolution. As far as I can see right now, John Edwards accepts evolution. He seems to understand science and is not subjected to pandering to the religious vote. He is a candidate that believes in the sperartion of church and state. Thank you John Edwards.

A Vote Minus Faith

2007-12-16T12:58:00.000-05:00

I found this cartoon on a wonderful site, Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons. When I saw this cartoon it reminded me of what could happen if this secular country adopted a theological ideology. Having our candidates endorse their religious perspective is egregious and abhorrent. If anyone should understand that our country is secular it should be these candidates. People like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter do not understand that their religious beliefs are just as slippery as the theocracy they are aligned against. I do not think these people are wicked for wanting a better country. They are excluding a great number of Americans that do not have any theological beliefs, but care tremendously for our nation and other nations around the world. The exclusion of American citizens, who do not have any religious beliefs, is not the American way.

The 2008 election is going to wonderful. Everyone is aligning themselves behind their favorite candidates. They are getting their arguments ready for stem cell research, immigration, health care, economic issues, etc. Every American probably has their favorite candidate which supports his or her own beliefs. One belief that I wish would just steer clear of this election is religion. In a secular country where the government should not even be affiliated with a religious denomination all the candidates are definitely pandering to the religious communities.
Can we just try to have one election that is wholly secular, just one?

Mitt does not have my vote...

2007-12-09T16:21:00.000-05:00

The 2008 election is going to be amazing. I'm still up in the air but I'm eliminating candidates by the day. My credential for this process has been somewhat crude but I'm throwing out anyone that is being endorsed by a religious figure head. So far, Gulianni has been endorsed by Pat Roberston, so he's gone. Huckabee was endorsed by Jerry Fallwell's family, so he's gone.

Huckabee also went on the record at a debate reassuring everyone that he does believe in a creator of the universe and that it's God. He then tried to pull of some goofy joke at a rally where he supposedly called him and asked Huckabee to make sure the Republican party was doing the right thing. I found that to a bit strange. I mean really, did he talk to God and why didn't he just ask to help fix this war thing....I think that is far more important then just getting himself elected.

Mitt Romney at one point seemed like a good candidate. I'm now investigating some of the things Mitt Romney is talking about in his speeches concerning religion. I really liked that he explained religion should be separate from politics, good Mitt. But I am worried about some of his religious beliefs.

Most would like to argue that Mormonism is similar to Christianity, but would Christians agree that Jesus came to North America and visited the indigenous people of this continent. That claim troubles me a bit. Not because it involves a figure that I believe is not the son of god, but it is a remarkable claim based on a small amount of evidence. As a skeptic I am a bit leery about accepting that Jesus Christ, of any sort, made it all the way over to the America's in the 4th century C.E., that is a bit of a stretch. I mean how did he get here and who did he bring: Peter, Paul, anyone? In the fashion of the great Carl Sagan; show me the extraordinary evidence, please.

Pandering to religious communities is making me sick and I hope that some of these candidates can show me that they are not in fact religious zealots. I hope they will show me they can make critical decisions for our country based on evidence and what is best for the country. Believing in mythology and stories turns me off.

Thank Jesus Bear for Secularism !!

2007-11-28T15:05:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone, this is my teddy bear named Jesus....I will name him Jesus so I can ask him (her, for the postmodernist) to help me answer all my prayers, questions and qualms. I know this bear is not really the Christ figure and I know it's really just an idol figure...but the spirit of Jesus is within the bear and I will ask him (her) to help me.

OK...ok ....ok, I'm being sarcastic. Can anyone believe this story coming out of Sudan though, I mean really, 40 lashes for naming a teddy bear Mohammed, give me a break. This is what happens when the government is able to create laws based on horrible dogmas.....discipline based on the bible, what a horrible idea.

Skins Cells may be the answer.

2007-11-20T15:28:00.000-05:00

Reserachers are looking for a less controversial way of using stem cells and have now opened a new door to stem cell research. Researchers are claiming that they are able to make Embryonic stem cells without the controvesial use of a human embryo.

For years the debate over finding cures through stem cell research has hinged on the "right to life" argument. On one side people are saying that the use of human embryonic is morrally inmpermissable. On the other hand the advocates of stem cell research have argued that the good outweighs the bad in terms of the consequences of stem cell research. It's really not as simple as I have put it here, but this is typically the lines drawn in the sand.

According to the researchers in this study there may now be a way in which stem cells can be produced without actually using human embryos but the research is still in its intial phase and has not been widely used. The research will still have to be scrutinized by the scientific community for flaws and better resolutions. One downfall to this study is that in order for the skin cells to changed into stem cells they are injected with dangerous virsues which can be deadly to humans. Researchers are looking for better ways to carry out this change but none have been found yet.

There is an up side to this research and that is the controversy of using human embryos should be out of the picture and science can once again move along swimmingly. Scientists can go back to helping cure diseases and not worry about religious zealots putting a stopper to a very worthwhile endeavor.

The end of the world as we know it....

2007-09-12T09:31:00.000-04:00

Science is Great....I will be the first to say that of all the endevours humans have put forward since the beginning of time...Science has to be one of the most beneficial. On that same note, science has two faces and has also been one of the most destructive bodies of knowledge ever created. This is a horrible dichotomoy that science has been pushed into. On one hand the greatest solutions to the world's most horrible problems have emerged from Science. For example, cures for horrible diseases, better treatment of water and sewage, increased longevity and the list could go on and on. On the other hand, the greatest suffering inflicted on humanity has been at the hands of scientists. The nuclear bomb, chemical and biological warfare, military weaponry in general and this list is also endless. So where can science really help humanity and where can it bring an end to our existence?

Right now the U.S., North Korea, Russia, India, UK, and many other major players in the world are striving to create the most destructive weapons they possibly can. I'm glad one thing weighing on the minds of these scientists while taking part in this research is how humanely and efficiently they can kill the "bad" people (sarcasm). Why aren't these countries looking to help create a better society instead of trying to destroy everything in sight. One reason may be an intense paranoia....there are many other possibilities but this is the first that comes to my mind. Everyone is paranoid the other is out to get them....That is very scary.

Being a veteran of the U.S. Navy I understand the need for protection from foreign and domestic enemies....but do we really need nuclear, biological, and chemical war? I mean what the hell are people thinking when they come up with this shit? Were we going to be at war with Chuck Norris, Rambo, or the Terminator...I think not.

I'm hoping most were not thinking with their religious ideologies in place...."oh if we die, we go to a better place, heaven." That is pure bullshit. I mean how can anyone justify wiping out a entire population of people? That is just insanity. And I do not believe anyone on this big blue planet is sane enough to possess any of these disasterous weapons of mass destrcution....NO ONE....no not even Mr. George W. Bush.

After I read this article I thought...Great, the Russians are trying to come up with new ways to kill thousands of people...SWEET. But then I tried to put this article into context and realized that the Russians are not the only ones looking into weapon technology. Instead they are one of many in a rat race to be the first to destroy the rest. Which should be a very humbling moment in time for all societies. Science is a double edge sword that should be used carefully.

Welcome Back...

2007-09-10T17:03:00.000-04:00

Here is a quick post to let everyone know I'm still alive and kicking. No I didn't just pick up and become Christian and decide to leave the idea of atheism behind, I'm still a non believer and I am embarking on my final semester (for the most part) here at SVSU. I'm taking a ton of philosophy courses and a couple psychology courses in order to finish up my degree in psychology. I'm really busy but I'm going to make it a concerned effort to make more posts to my blog and keep everyone interested in what I have going on. Right now I'm throwing around a paper topic concerning, causality and the nature or causation in general. Well until next time.....stay tuned.

Beyond Belief.

2007-08-14T11:30:00.000-04:00

I've been watching this set of clips about once a week for the past two months. I believe it has to be one of the most important pieces of discourse to happen in recent years. It's called Beyond belief. The symposium consists of speakers from around the world who have come together to discuss the compatibility of science and religion....and if they can't work together then what ? All the heavy hitters of psycholgy, phsyics, biology, etc. are present. Sit back and prepared to be blown away. It's very intriguing and here is the link that will expand your mind ten fold. Beyond Belief.

Ten Commandments Advocate Causes Uproar.

2007-08-11T10:39:00.000-04:00

As of late I have been seeing Pat Wurtzel's name in the newspaper and in the news in general. Pat Wurtzel is the publically elected county commisioner of Saginaw, Michigan. Wurtzel's name is lining the pages of newspapers because he is pulling all the strings available in order to have the ten commandments put back into the Saginaw County governmental building.

Wurtzel's claim is that by having the ten commandments displayed in the county government building it will solve the problems of Saginaw and eventually solve the problems of the world. This is a huge statement and there are a few problems with the claim Wurtzel is making.

First there is no data showing that having the ten commandments in these buildings does actually have an effect on overall crime rate in a city. Wurtzel has not provided data showing either a positive or negative effect concerning the ten commandments. In all reality would the display of the ten commandments have any effect on society. If it did then why hasn't it been used in the past, the ten commandments are not a new piece of litearture.

Also, having the ten commandments displayed in a government building (paid for by taxpayers) is a violation of the first amendment. The first amendment is rather clear when it reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If the building was privately owned we would not even be having this converstaion. Let's explore the two reasons I have set forward for why the ten commandments should not be displayed in publically funded buildings.

Having the ten commandments on display in a building or to the public may actually have no effect on society. At best some researchers believe the research has been inconclusive and there is no way to really tell if religion has an affects on crime rate. What this means, inspite of Mr. Wurtzel's claim, is that scientist's are still unable to make a clear decision concerning the affects of religion on crime. The actual "effect" of religious belief is still unknown, so at best the claim Mr. Wurtzel is making is still unknown. For him to make this claim and not be supported with any true scientific evidence and should not be taken as truth.

If there is evidence supporting the claim by Wurtzel then how come it's just surfacing now, when there has been a few thousands years of horrible crime being committed. Couldn't societies have saved themselves from a tremendous amount of pain and suffering by just displaying the ten commandments a long time ago?

We need to understand the complexity of crime rates and we truly do not believe that by simply displaying the ten commandments (whether I believe them or not) will have a significant effect on the city of Saginaw's crime rate. There are far more complex issues going on in the city of Saginaw. These issues are complex enough to leave well educated lawyers, judges, police and typical citizens dumb founded.

The second issue at hand is the violation of the first amendment. This issue does not seem to take as much scientific or logical reasoning. The Constitution of the United States specifically states that there should be no law respecting the establishment of religion. Having the ten commandments on display in a public building is establishing religion in a building paid for by taxpayers, which is a direct violation of the first Amendment. I believe this is cut and dry. I mean this is such a slippery slope for so many things. First the laws will be displayed and then law in Saginaw will reflect the laws of the Bible. I can just imagine the series of events that would follow after putting the ten commandments on display. Does stoning people to death on the stairs of the court house for adultery sound familiar?

I believe the reasons for not having the ten commandments displayed in a government building are clear. There is no evidence that shows displaying the commandments would decrease crime at any rate. It is also a violation of the first amendment. I'm going to keep my eyes on this Wurtzel character. In order to keep our great secular government free of ancient biblical text that does not even help decrease crime, we as humanists, secularists and U.S. citizens need to take action in times like these.

The U.S. Nanny ??

2007-08-07T14:03:00.000-04:00

A study conducted at Stanford University has shown that some foods packaged in brand name wrappers are tastier than non brand name foods according to preschool age children. Dr. Thomas N. Robinson of the California's Stanford University found that if children thought a food came from McDonald's they thought it tasted better than an identical food that was not branded." Dr. Robinson's finding shows signs of a societal type of brain washing. It seems that the pragmatic dietary teachings of the nation, which aren't that good to begin with, have been highjacked by your's truly, Ronald McDonald.

The question arises; do the ads have an effect on children or does the food have an everlasting impression on kids? Where is the powerful addiction to fast food coming from ? Should we legally limit the amount of fast food people can eat? Or legally limit the amount of advertising fast food places can use? That type of logic seems to be quite paternalistic and not a very good solution to the problem. Do we just allow people to eat themselves to death, well there should be some alternatives....and speaking as a fast paced college student this takes some time and effort.
Some may not understand why this study is important, but the implications are detrimental to the health of school kids across the nation. The study may indicate that brand name fast food companies are brain washing kids through advertising. But how can this be the case? Maybe parents aren't doing enough in the way of educating their children, but I'll adress that issue in a moment.

As anyone can see our nation suffers from a huge amount of obesity and the numbers keep growing. More and more children are eating fast food and not getting enough exercise. Now I know McDonalds is not the only reason for the huge surge in obesity. Just because this study shows that kids think food with their name brand on it tastes better means they will always choose fast food. There are other factors that play a role in unhealthy diets. Let me just take a minute to brainstorm some of the other coporate entities, and the reasons for how they might be involved in the indirect "fattening" of the nation.

1. Video Game companies - what better way to help kids in the U.S. not get exercise than offering them a way to sit and do nothing. Yes, I can see some benefits coming from video games. For example, a lively imagination and better hand eye coordination may arise from playing video games. But doesn't anyone else see that these video games are the "staples" that keep a child's derriere to a couch. It boils down to, if there is a choice between going outside and playing video games, I would hate to see the number of kids that would choose video games.

In defense of video games, there are a couple new video game systems on the market that are getting involved in unstapling youth from their couches. The Nintendo Wii is one of the first systems that is truly interactive. I like the idea of having to get up and move about while gaming. There are some other cool ideas coming from the video game community, for example dance dance revolution and hopefully gaming goes in the direction of exercising the mind and body.

2. Fast food companies - These people could really make a difference. Though I don't totally blame the nation's obesity on them, they could definitely help make a difference. The responsibility also falls on the ignorant person who chooses the triple whopper with extra cheese and an order of deep fried jalepeno poppers on top instead of the side salad.

3. Poor dietary education - Growing up in a fairly poor family with parents who didn't examplify the best dietary decisions; I can see where other kids would have a hard time making decision in the future. Though we were poor, we still had a garden and fairly healthy food available. We lived in the country and there wasn't a McDonald's in my home town. So how would a poor dietary education have an effect on health ? Imagine a child that grew up in a house hold were going to McDonalds was a reward. Or the parents were so busy they weren't able to provide a wholesome, well rounded meal for the kids. How would these children know what was actually healthy for them. Do television ads provide them with the knowledge they need? I would have to disagree. Many television ads are geared towards motivating the taste buds and stomachs of patrons and not motivating their health needs.

4. Poor socioeconomic status - Being poor does not automatically mean that a person will make bad decisions when it comes to diet. Being poor DOES limit the amount of choices someone has when it comes to the types of food they can choose. As you know, the tasty, and unhealthy foods are your local grocery store are cheap. So now the responsibility falls on the parent to buy nutritious food for their kids. While we all hope this would happen it typically doesn't. The time and money it takes for a parent to go to Kroger and buy a week's amount of food is alot more difficult then one would like to admit. Going to McDonald's for a quick fill-me up dinner is horribly easier.

While fast food chains are getting better at lending people other options when it comes to fast food but it's still very limited.

So now what do we do about all this horrible nutrional knowledge lingering around the nation? I understand if we don't wanna eat fast food, then don't. But take a look at this study. Kids somehow are being effected by fast food companies advertising. Us adults need to deem this effect either good, bad, or otherwise.

So again, is it brain washing? Could we wrap rat poison in a McDonalds wrapper and the children would still indulge? If this is the case then we , as a nation, should be more involved in the dietary decisions of our children. The funny thing is that we know that this happens with a number of products.

Advertising is everywhere and it's powerful. People buy Nike shoes, GM cars and Bud lite beer becuase we think they are the best products on the market. Are they the best products available? I mean are there any other cars that meet the same standards as GM or is it truly unpatriotic to buy foreign vehicles....that's where it begins. I believe this story is a testimony to free thinking.

What it really boils down to is getting the evidence out there for everyone to analyze. Good diets bad diets and how to go about making good decisions. That is the best we can do as a nation. People should always be allowed to think for themselves whether the results are good or bad. But allowing free thinking does not always ensure people will make the best choices. For example, people smoking, doing drugs and other horrible habits that they know can and will eventually kill them are bad choices. I guess as long as others are not hurt in the process of people becoming obese, or people aren't killing others by smoking the choice is their own.

"Exercise not Exorcise the Demons"

2007-07-30T10:37:00.001-04:00

Exorcisms have been used for hundreds if not thousand of years by people of religious faith. People of some religions believe that the human body can be infested or possessed with evil demons, spirits and other horrible supernatural entities. The demons (etc.) make humans act in very unusual ways. For example someone may speak in Latin (why not Farsi or French I have no clue) when that is not their native tongue. There is sometimes vomiting and the typical crazy stuff that goes on when someone is possessed most of us have seen the movie Exorcist.

The modern medical community has never deemed "possession" to be medically proven. There have been mysterious mental disorders over the years that were deemed "possession" but a lack of understanding does not warrant "possession" existing. Though I'm sure some Christian doctors would like to believe that being possessed is possible. But me winning the Tour de France is just as possible as demon possession in my view. In the past people who suffered from mental abnormalities for example schizophrenia and some other paranoid disorders were typically put into a group labeled "possessed". Now with a more modern understanding there is no longer "possession" but instead a better explanation, schizophrenia. The term "possessed" has slowly worked it's way out of modern medicine and is now a trend of the past. Not even the Catholic church is willing to admit that demon possession occurs.

So with this in mind we can now look at the article I was reading earlier today. It comes to us from Phoenix Arizona and it so happens to involve exorcism. Early in the morning of July 27th police responded to a call where a relative believed an exorcism was being attempted. When the police arrived they heard yelling and screaming coming from a room in the house. They pushed the door open, which was blocked by a bed and to their horrifying amazement saw the 49 year old Ronald Marquez over top of his 3 year old grand daughter choking her while her 19 year old mother watched. Most everyone was covered in blood and the child was choking and crying. The police officers used a taser on Marquez and after two attempts finally got him handcuffed. He then started to suffer from shortness of breath and when medics arrived was pronounced dead. Justice was served I suppose with out even a trip to the courtroom. Boy this guys death saved tax payers some money.

Here we are again. Religion has once again given someone the justification to go off and kill an innocent child. So now the question is; why did this guy think he was really helping his grand daughter? Did he really believe that she was possessed? If he did really believe that she was possessed he thought he was saving her, not killing her. The mother must have also thought he was doing her a favor by squeezing the life out of her. One quote in the article startled me. "Investigators later learned the man was trying to "squeeze the demons out of the young girl," Tranter said.

The young girl is three, how possessed was she? At three the child might have been crying quite a bit and maybe, at the most, disobedient. But these behaviors are no reason for saying she was possessed and definitely no reason for trying to kill the child. The child should have been brought to a physician before any of this occurred. May be the young girl suffered from some early forms of personality disorders. A diagnosis would be very difficult being she was so young, but bringing her to a doctor is worth a shot. Another scenario could be that the child was being abused and did not like the parents or grandparents because they were the source of abuse. In turn she did not want to obey them and for a very good reason refused to obey. A person would have to be ignorant to confuse a medical diagnosis with a myth but it could have happened.
Instead of looking into help for the child the family took the problem into their own hands and relied on an erroneous belief that the girl was "possessed".

Luckily, the girl survived and was not hurt. Though she will probably be traumatically scarred, she is doing fine. Once again, this story is an example of the harm a wacky religious belief can do to an innocent girl. We can all see where this type of faith is wrong.

Banned in the USA (at least in public places)

2007-07-24T09:37:00.000-04:00

A hot issue in the news lately has been the ban of smoking in public places to include the workplace. This is a heated issue and the answer seems to lie in classical liberal thought. Jeremy Bentham and more noteably John Stuart Mill were the grandfathers of classic liberal thought. They laid the foundation for protecting people from harm and in some cases, severe offense.

Here is a rather abrupt explanation of classic liberalism and particularly Mill's harm principle from his book, On Liberty. Classic Liberal ideology is concerned with protecting civil liberties, natural rights, individual property rights and human rationality. Simply described, a classic liberal would insist that the state (or society) not interfere with anyone's rights UNLESS someone else is being harmed or seriously (gravely) offended.

Mill had a principle he called the "harm principle" and it went something like this: "The harm principle holds that each individual has the right to act as he wants, so long as these actions do not harm others. If the action is self-regarding, that is, if it only directly affects the person undertaking the action, then society has no right to intervene, even if it feels the actor is harming himself." This principle seems to apply in the smoking issue.

As I read the article about Illinois banning smoking, one statement makes me turn to my Liberal ideology. A guy from a bowling alley (who probably smokes) is quoted in saying, "I feel like it's the Nazi regime coming in here, taking away all of our rights, said Tim Main, as he cleaned up Mike's Ten-Pin Lounge in Alton. "First they make it so you have to wear seat belts, and now they want to put a stop to smoking. What's next?" Let me explain something to you buddy.....you don't even know what a dictatorship is like. I hate the comment that the person who smokes has a right to kill themselves. What they fail to remember is that second hand smoke affects others.....and is deadly. First of all, a person's right to smoke does not give you the right to give others cancer. What is so difficult about smoking outside? It's not a mystery anymore, second hand smoke is dangerous....bottom line.

When I put my "John Stuart Mill hat" on it makes me realize that even though a person does have the right to smoke and that right should be protected; people do not have the right to harm others with their second hand smoke. The famous quote, "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" seems to ring true. So, go ahead smoke till your little heart's content, just do not think you can let it affect me. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving people rights and protecting the rights of others but when those rights infringe on mine.....that's far enough.

I should not have to sit there while someone blows smoke in my face. I know what the reply to this is, walk away. But it's a public place...isn't it just easier to ask the smoker to smoke somewhere else? I mean they should have the burden of proof that smoking does not have an ill effect...when someone can demonstrate this theory then I'll be more than happy to stand next to my smoking comrades.

I comend Illinois for stepping up in helping make a difference. An overwhelming number of states have taken the same steps and should be commended. Michigan, my home state, has not been enlightened but there is legislation on the table. It is only a matter of time before people realize how disasterous smoking is to their health.

Avon's Evangilist

2007-07-23T11:27:00.000-04:00

Well I've been surfing around the internet this weekend looking for some interesting topics and I really tried to bite my tongure when I heard about Tammy Faye Bakker. I really did try but it's not going to work. I think I need to explain to people that sympathy for a money hungry, greedy, coniving, deceitful television evangilist like her is not warranted. So anyone out there who is letting tears smear their religious mascara.....STOP !!

Tammy Faye Bakker was the wife of TV evangilist Jim Bakker. They were the founders of the Christian PTL Network, the Heritage USA theme park and hosted The 700 Club with good ole boy, Pat Robertson. So you may be asking yourself why I am so disgruntled? Ok here, God is suppose to be ulitmately perfect, so he must know the best use of a few hundred million dollars....right? Do you think he would have wanted this Bonny and Clyde of evangilists to take the money and create a damn theme park? I'm not God, but I can think of many more productive ways to spend that money. How about missing children for example.

Ok so these two people, Tammy Faye and Jim Bakker used their television show and religion to extort money from millions of Americans. Yes they were human and yes they don't represent all Christians but they sure did reach out to a few in the U.S. I understand they were corrupt, but they truly believed what they were doing was in the name of the Lord. Or did they....? I mean they sure played it off like they did. Who is to question that type of faith....that is true religious faith.

Doesn't anyone find this to be somewhat immoral? Tammy Faye basically engaged in a vaudville type displays, crying and carrying on about how much people should donate to their foundation because it is the word of God. All the while Tammy Faye and her crooked husband padded their pockets with profit. They were building hotels and mansions around the U.S. The money might have been put toward some good but for the most part the two money hungry crooks, along with Pat Robertson bathed in this profit. Sickening.

Toward the end of the article I read, Bakker was quoted as saying, "I believe when I leave this Earth, because I love the Lord, I am going straight to heaven." Bullshit.....we should all look at this type of behavior as being reckless. Not to mention very immoral. Stealing money from millions of americans is not a ticket into heaven it should have been a ticket to the federal peniteniary. Tammy Faye Bakker was a glorified theif and for anyone that is saddened that she has left our planet....well you should be ashamed. Bakker was a shallow person. When King asked her what she wanted to be remembered for she had the audacity to say, "well, my eyelashes." What an IDIOT !! I'm glad she is not able to sing any more music, write anymore books or basically pan handle on television. The only people that should miss her is, AVON.

Clarity

2007-07-18T23:08:00.000-04:00

I've come to what I think at this time is the greatest moment of clarity, that clarity in itself does not exist, or at least not as we perceive it (or is that the whole problem with clarity?)

I've noticed so far that there are two forms of clarity that I can trace to two completely separate neurotransmitters , theres dopamine clarity and theres serotonin clarity, both of themselves endless and dose dependent but still a "state" and capable of doing some crazy things. Someone who has built up a half a gram a day meth habit is in a state of complete focus in clarity but at that point the clarity that could have gotten a lot of great work done has become corrupted and spun out of control. Then, an entirely different experience is the clarity that comes from agonism of 5ht-2a and is more of a complete clarity, a full blown experience of knowing some form of true knowledge (seemingly) then the tweaked clarity that comes from a rush of overconfidence. In reality though, agonism of 5ht-2a seems to sort of make one stupid and confused (What does 6*34 equal four hours after 3 1/2 hits of acid?) so how clear can it really be?

I don't know exactly where I'm going with this other then the fact that clarity is not in itself a clear topic at all, and the word in itself encompasses a vast variety of different things ranging from a deranged tweaker and a boy with a bunch of 2C-E up his nose, to "sane" people and "insane" people.

So how can I really know anything?
Less or more next time?

MartyrDUMB !!

2007-07-16T14:47:00.000-04:00

Once again Osama Bin Laden makes his way to the silver screen. A video clip that was recently released by al-Jezeera shows Bin Laden speaking on martyrdom. He is telling the people of Islamic faith (or whoever is listening) that the way to paradise is through martyrdom. Advocating this position seems very problematic for a number of obvious reasons. The concept is flat out horribly immoral. I also do not hear Islamic nations or individuals railing against Bin Laden for his grotesquely inaccurate interpretation of what he calls "Islamic martyrdom".

A few questions come to mind...one being, why doesn't Bin Laden partake of such behavior? This reminds me of the immature way a person will have a friend, tell another friend, that a third friend is just flat out annoying, in order to avoid being called a jerk. Except martyrdom is far more destructive.

So if martyrdom is the "one-way street" to paradise, one may ask why is this concept troublesome? I mean it's the guy's personal religious view. Nobody should be able to tell him what to believe and what not to believe. Is anyone getting the sarcasm in this statement? Is the potential for horrible loss of innocent life clear enough ?

Everyone on this planet (especially the people of Islamic Nations) is saying that Bin Laden has hijacked the Islamic faith and changed it into a perverted version of his own sick ideologies. Well if this is the case how come we are only able to find a handful of countries that are willing to help put an end to this despicable concept, martyrdom. It must be because of my theory of friends. One person in the group doesn't want to look like the odd duck out.

This is the same idea that Martin Luther King Jr. suffered from when he was put into prison by racist and bigots in the south. King was standing up against people who wanted to destroy his human rights just because of his skin color. All the while the "good christian" pastors and ministers of the nation turned their ears to King's outcry. Did these pastors and ministers agree with the bigots and racists? If they didn't, how come they did not come to the rescue of an OBVIOUSLY mistreated Martin Luther King Jr? Were they afraid to step on the feet of people giving them money? It seems that since they did not help King; their refusal to help was just as immoral as the behavior of the racists and bigots.

This idea applies to the countries in the middle east. Killing innocent people for any reason is wrong. So why can't the people of Islamic countries see this and act against others advocating such action? Two words, Religious ideologies. Plain and simple.

Now to be fair, martyrdom is what I am addressing in this entry but Christianity has ideological views that are just as dangerous. For instance, views that inhibit the advancement of crucial stem cell research based on a biblical text. Religious views concerning the right to marry the same sex. The oppresion of women and the rights of women. And the list goes on. What it boils down to is that religion (in the case of martyrdom) is advocating a very immoral activity and that should not be allowed.

I suppose a person could construct an argument that martyrdom is a virtue that should be cherished without envoking religion. But what would it be? The concept still alows for the killing of innocent people....and if a person can not see that this behavior is completely wrong then they should be subject to their own rules. Follow by example is what I always say. Jim Jones backed out in his own plot....he shot himself. I can imagine what happened there...."oh shit they really did it..Bang!!" Bin Laden is scared for a lack of a better term....does he indeed not truly believe what he preaches about martyrdom? If so.....PROVE IT.

Non-Science is Non-Sense

2007-07-14T12:14:00.000-04:00

Our great nation and many other nations on this tiny little planet are learning more about technology and science than ever before. What was once a mystery, for example genetics, is now on the chopping block for rigorous scientific scrutiny. Which is a good thing. Science does not by any means solve all riddles of life, but it does give us an insight to the natural world. Yes we have been wrong concerning scientific claims in the past, geocentrism for instance, but scientific research and the ability to change has allowed for corrections in science. The scientific community is changing very rapidly and aiding in ending suffering, hunger, disease, and many other horrible attrocities nature throws our way.

Science is a great endeavour that is open to testing, malleability and change. Pseudoscience on the other hand is mystical and not subject to scientific challenges, falsifiability, etc. Pseudoscience can be dangerous and exploit rather innocent and unexpecting people. For example the pseudosciences of faith healing and psychics in particular feed on people with their pocket books open in the hopes of helping terminally ill or missing loved ones.

These two areas of "so called science" take advantage of people who are in dire need of legitimate medical science. So what can be done to help prevent this unwanted harm and misappropriation of knowledge. First let's distinguish some of the qualities of good science and bad science.

Good Science vs. Bad Science

Good science is subject to huge amounts of peer review. Good science is always ready to change with the presence of solid well investigated evidence. Good science is based on huge amounts of research and hours and hours of replicable experimentation. Good science is found in the way of scientific honesty and skeptisism. This is not to be confused with cynicism. Yes, humans have been wrong in terms of scientific knowledge but with "good science" change is welcome.

Bad science on the other hand is based on msytical accounts of anecdotal experiences. Phenomenom that can only occur to the right people, at the right time, in the right circumstances, with out being replicable. The people who can usually perform or discuss the matters of "bad science" are the inventors of the science or the ones who are reaping the benefits of profit. Bad science is not open to scientific testing because when shown not to be the case, excuses arise to why, for example, a person was unable to bend a spoon in the presence of others. Bad science is unwillingy to admit being wrong even in the wake of huge, unsurmountable stacks of evidence compiled in the contrary.

Now I look at the two pseudosciences in question, faith healing and psychics. One may say that my rendition of bad science is actually performed with good intentions and is really trying geared toward helping people. My answer to this claim is, Adolf Hitler was also trying to help people in the way of eugenics but that still makes his practices completely and utterly WRONG.

I'm unable to exhaustively discuss why faith healing is not medically "good science" a good reference libraian should be able to point you in the right direction. I am able to say that faith healing is not based on ANY credible medical evidence that shows it helps any more effectively than actual scientific medical treatments. For someone like Benny Hinn to be, "on tour", telling people he can heal them from terminal diseases, should be a crime against humanity.

Psychics fall into the same category as horrible pseudoscience. If they were correct at least more than a good federally funded investigative forensics team, I would then be impressed. But they are not. Psychics, when wrong employ the same tactics as any other performer of pseudoscience, make up phony excuses. They still get paid and still exploit families who are typically suffering from the lose of a loved one. The pyschic would just make the excuse, "I was unable to harness the energy needed to be able to find your baby boy maam, I appolgize but the energy just isn't there". This too is a horrible misuse of one's so called authority of science and should be a crime.

Overall "good science" is willing to allow for faith healing, and psychics if only they could pass rigourous scientific testing. Carl Sagan captured this concept quite eloquently when he said, "extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence".

Sinner !! To hell you go !!

2007-07-10T09:30:00.000-04:00

Uh oh D.C. !!! All you politicians better start getting your stories straight. Looks like another madam is ready to drop some names of her own. I can see all those politicians in D.C. scrambling right now to make sure their strings are cut from this mess.

Deborah Jean Palfrey is being accused of running an illegal escort ring in the nation's capitol. She insists that the escort service was legitimate and says she has approximately one hundred names to drop and I can't wait. So far there seems to be one Republican on the chopping block and he isn't that big named. Republican Sen. David Vitter has been accused of being involved in the escort ring. He says out of respect for his family he isn't going to divulge any information concerning his involvement. I think out of respect for his family he shouldn't have been involved in the damn escort ring. Idiot!!

On top of his insincere remark about respect for his family, he also used the name of God to show he has resolved his problems miraculously. He was quoted as saying, "This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible," Vitter said. "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling." Again, you are an Idiot!!!

Come on Mr. Vitter, don't you think that since you were probably praying to God prior to all of your shennanigans that he (or she) would have kept you out of this mess if he really cared about you. I mean he could have easily done something to interfere in your meetings with your escort. Something as simple as a flat tire would have been sufficient. I mean he didn't have to perform any huge miracle, for instance walk on water.

Another point that seems to stand out is that Vitter is a lector at his Catholic church. So theists? I thought religion teaches you all you need to know about morality....whoops failed with this guy huh ? Oh I know....FREE WILL right....well he should have used his friggin righteous freewill to choose otherwise.

Well Mr. Vitter....hopefully Guliani can cut his ties to you early since you are the black sheep of the family. And we can thank God for not keeping his mouth shut on this one huh ?

Well this event should keep the political paparazzi busy for a few weeks. I'll be buying my bag of popcorn and soda water while I wait for this one to unfold.