http://www.dbskeptic.com Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Sun, 11 Sep 2011 01:30:05 +0000 en-us hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 Digital Bits Skeptic brings skepticism and critical thinking to a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture. Andy Kaiser clean Andy Kaiser skeptic@dbskeptic.com skeptic@dbskeptic.com (Andy Kaiser) 2009 Skepticism and critical thinking in a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture skeptic, skepticism, critical thinking, new age, religion, pop culture, skeptical articles, critical thinking articles, philosophy http://www.dbskeptic.com/images/dbskeptic-logo-144.jpg http://www.dbskeptic.com/category/cryptozoology/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/15/the-flight-of-dragons-movie-magic-versus-science/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/15/the-flight-of-dragons-movie-magic-versus-science/#comments Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:06:45 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1621 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/15/the-flight-of-dragons-movie-magic-versus-science/feed/ 10 Andy Kaiser Editor's note #1: This article contains spoilers about The Flight of Dragons movie. - Editor's note #2: This article uses many audio clips from The Flight of Dragons. To fully appreciate this article, listen to the podcast or use the above audio play... Editor's note #1: This article contains spoilers about The Flight of Dragons movie. Editor's note #2: This article uses many audio clips from The Flight of Dragons. To fully appreciate this article, listen to the podcast or use the above audio player. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1345 "Look down there, Gorbash my friend. On that troubled earth below us, confusion and chaos reign. All mankind is facing an epic choice. A world of magic, or a world of science. Which will it be?" The movie "The Flight of Dragons" begins with that brief monologue, spoken by wizard to dragon. The rest of the movie answers the question while providing great entertainment. When I say "entertainment", though, I don't mean all sunshine and flowers. The next scene in the movie is of a swan, paddling down a river. A few tiny fairies hop on the swan for a ride. Suddenly, in the river ahead, there appears a gigantic waterwheel, spinning fast to power a mill in a nearby house. The swan can't escape the waterwheel's current, and swan and fairies are sucked underneath and killed. Here we have an eerie visual of one of the movie's themes: Magic versus science. Will one destroy the other? Which one? Can they possibly coexist? "The Flight of Dragons" takes place in a world of magic - where wizards ride dragons as casual transportation, where magic does exist - and it's powerful - but it bows to the will of science. The movie is primarily about a quest involving four wizard brothers. Three are good. One is bad. You may recognize the evil red wizard "Ommadon" as voiced by James Earl Jones, also the iconic voice of Darth Vader. The wizards argue whether or not they and their world can coexist with magic. One wizard proposes building "The Last Realm of Magic", in order to hide from the physical world and safeguard what magic remains. The evil wizard Ommadon disagrees. This scene is even more powerful and takes on more meaning when you see it with the video. Those last words, where Ommadon says, "I'll teach [Man] to fly like a fairy!" are spoken to a visual of a slowly spinning nuclear bomb. "The Flight of Dragon" movie's main plotline is simple - in order to stop Ommadon, the good wizards try to steal his magical crown, the source of all the red wizard's power. Peter Dickinson and The Flight of Dragons Yet, the surrounding themes are not so simple. To find a hero, the wizards are told by an oracle to recruit an unusual choice: the long-distant relative of "Great Peter, the Dragonmaster", seven hundred and seventy-seven generations removed from the original. Why this particular descendant? Because, the oracle says, this man is the first of the decendents who is a man of science. Later, this comes in very important. The man is Peter Dickinson. He lives in the late twentieth century. We see a flash-forward to the future - it appears to be the late 1970s or so, which makes sense - the movie was released in 1982. We see Peter Dickinson talking to a pawn shop owner, and find that not only is Dickinson a dragon fanatic, he's also written a book, called "The Flight of Dragons". Here's a spot where this supposed kid's movie breaks convention. There really is a Peter Dickinson. He really does love dragons. He really did write a book called "The Flight of Dragons", in which he attempts to show how dragons could've existed, flew and breathed fire. We get to see this detail in the movie, as our hero analyzes dragons and develops a scientific theory of how dragons fly! Through some magical hijinks, Dickinson is transported into a dragon's body and mind, and there he remains for most of the movie. It's fun watching him try to figure out dragon-flight and dragon-life, and it gives the magical quest a new level of difficulty. While "The Flight of Dragons" book is non-fiction, the movie is very close adaptation, and not just in the book's subject matter. The artwork, particularly the background images, the wizards' towers, Andy Kaiser clean 18:32 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/12/trading-my-fingers-for-aliens/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/12/trading-my-fingers-for-aliens/#comments Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:56:25 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=940 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/12/trading-my-fingers-for-aliens/feed/ 17 Nick Farrantello By Nick Farrantello Article ID: 1316 - I don't believe in anything. UFOs, Bigfoot, ESP, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, you name it.  In my mind it's all a bunch of hooey.  Despite that, I still consider myself very open-minded. By Nick Farrantello Article ID: 1316 I don't believe in anything. UFOs, Bigfoot, ESP, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, you name it.  In my mind it's all a bunch of hooey.  Despite that, I still consider myself very open-minded.   The reason for this is nothing revolutionary.  It's a reason that other skeptics cite as to why they too are open-minded.  Simply put, I want there to be flying saucers.  Are you kidding?  Alien visitors from another planet, how awesome would that be?   I want there to be a Loch Ness Monster.  The idea of some animal surviving from the age of the dinosaurs would be fascinating.  I want there to be ghosts.  Who in their right mind wouldn't want there to be an afterlife?  ESP?  Bring it on.  Mindreading would be the bomb. Now, in the spirit of complete disclosure, Bigfoot doesn't do anything for me.  If there really is some big, hairy, naked guy running around in the woods of Montana, I'd just as soon not know about it. To make it absolutely clear, as to how much I would love it if there where aliens, I want to state here and now:  I would sacrifice digits if that would prove the existence of aliens. I am serious. I am willing to give up to four toes (or two fingers) if that loss would somehow help prove the existence of aliens.  Or three fingers if it would help determine that the aliens built the pyramids.  Now, I am not sure what would initiate such an exchange.  Maybe if I found some proof of aliens, and I wanted to share it with the entire world, but at the last minute, government agents discover me. As I make a run for it, I get my hand caught in the screen door.  No, that's just clumsy. Maybe something involving me escaping from a Russian submarine.  ...Yeah, that sounds better. It doesn't matter.  I'll even take the clumsy way.  The point is, I really want there to be aliens. That is why I am open-minded.  And that is why I think other skeptics are open-minded.  Many have the exact same desire I do. Not the thing about the fingers - I believe I'm the only one to say that - the part about them wanting supernatural things to be true. That I have heard from many others. Carl Sagan expressed this in many of his books.  I've heard Steve Novella, the head of the New England Skeptical Society, say it on his podcast.   Even James Randi, the King of all Skeptics, has said stuff like this.   They want ESP and flying saucers and ghosts and yes - God knows why - they even want there to be a Bigfoot. If you read skeptic literature, you've probably heard this appeal to impartiality before.  But here's an angle on this subject that you might not have heard.  I'll state it in the form of a challenge.  Show me one person on the other side of these issues that has said the same thing. I don't mean, show me a believer who thinks it would be cool if aliens existed.  That's a dime a million.  I'm saying, show me one UFO advocate who has said, "To be honest, I don't really like the idea of UFOs."  Show me one biologist who has said, "The Loch Ness Monster?  I assure you the evidence for its existence is most definitely there; but frankly, the entire subject rather bores me.  I have asked my university to approve my grant to study the mealy bug instead, those little creatures, now they really are something."  Show me one cryptozoologist who has said, "Yes, unfortunately, I captured Bigfoot but I'm not looking forward to all that re-classifying.  It's just so much paperwork." I know you're thinking this comparison isn't fair.  Scientists wouldn't be looking for paranormal stuff if they weren't interested in it.  But think about all those physicists in the turn of the century that we've read about who really hated quantum physics.  It's messy, anti-intuitive and almost impossible to understand. But - reluctantly - they accepted it. My examples are written for laughs, but consider the following:  Is there a scientist who is a steadfast atheist, searching for ghosts? Andy Kaiser clean 7:40 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/13/the-loch-ness-monster-versus-the-lake-michigan-monster-a-mythical-battle/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/13/the-loch-ness-monster-versus-the-lake-michigan-monster-a-mythical-battle/#comments Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:00:58 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=163 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/13/the-loch-ness-monster-versus-the-lake-michigan-monster-a-mythical-battle/feed/ 7 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1248 - What follows is an analysis of the Lake Michigan Monster. But before jumping into this amazing tale, let's start with a better-known legend, that of the Loch Ness Monster. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1248 What follows is an analysis of the Lake Michigan Monster. But before jumping into this amazing tale, let's start with a better-known legend, that of the Loch Ness Monster. I'm not sure how popular it is in other parts of the world, but in the United States the Loch Ness Monster is a permanent part of our culture. Existing solely in folklore and a few grainy pictures, the Loch Ness Monster is an animal of unknown species, hiding somewhere in the dark waters of Loch Ness, a deep lake in Scotland. Nicknamed "Nessie" by people with too much time on their hands, it exists in pop culture as one of the most well-known and entertaining legends of mythical creatures. For me, its popularity lies somewhere between Bigfoot and Scooby Doo: You know, where if you saw it on TV, you'd probably watch it for a while before getting lunch. The Loch Ness Monster has never been proven to exist, and is most likely a tale that grew exponentially in its telling. Photos abound. The most popular photo (usually called the "Surgeon's photo") was taken in 1934. In 1994, the image was revealed as a hoax. The picture of the monster's head, long neck and body rising majestically out of the water was found to be a toy submarine attached to a sculpted neck and head. In addition, researchers uncovered an uncropped version of the original image: When you look at that version, you get a better idea of the size of the "monster". Analysis reveals it to be only a couple feet long. Also interesting is the new view you get, compared to the greatly zoomed-in original. Cropping so close removes detail that normally gives measurable perspective and size. Okay, you argue, fine. One picture of the Loch Ness Monster was probably faked. But there's a mountain of data out there! What about eyewitness accounts? What about the sonar readings showing that something's down there? How can we discount everything? I'll tell you why: because none of that evidence is conclusive. Eyewitness accounts are nice. But they don't prove anything. How do we know those eyewitnesses weren't lying or exaggerating? Or, let's give those people the benefit of the doubt. Say they're all perfectly honest and well-intentioned. How do we know they weren't simply mistaking what they saw? Supposed "evidence" like sonar readings or grainy photos and film falls into this same category. The probability of a hoax or misidentification is far higher than finding a previously unknown species doing the backstroke around a lake. So what does it take to convince the stereotypical skeptic? To that I say: "Poop". That's right, "poop". There should be plenty, available either in analysis of the lake water, or hundreds of feet down, just outside the monster's bedroom. But whatever you're looking for, your goal is to produce physical evidence. Yes, animal spoor. A corpse, or any bit of the monster itself, with a little DNA attached. Something that would allow for scientific analysis and classification in the animal kingdom. The Loch Ness Monster does exist, but only in imagination and myth. Like Bigfoot, a lack of any verifiable physical evidence is a madly waving red flag. With this in mind, let's switch focus to Lake Michigan. Lake Michigan is a huge freshwater lake on the west coast of the state of Michigan, in the north-northeast United States. Its maximum depth is over 900 feet. It covers over 22,000 square miles. For comparison, Loch Ness's maximum depth is over 700 feet, and covers over 21 square miles. Yes, that's right - Lake Michigan kicks cryptozoological butt. In there, you could hide almost anything. Case in point: I'd like to introduce you to the Lake Michigan Monster. Or, as we'll affectionately call her, "Mishy". There I was, admiring the beautiful Michigan coastline, when I saw something far out in the water. It was indeed the Lake Michigan Monster! "Mishy" surfaced with a rush of water streaming off her body. Andy Kaiser clean 8:05 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/11/04/apophenia-definition-and-analysis/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/11/04/apophenia-definition-and-analysis/#comments Sun, 04 Nov 2007 05:11:10 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/11/04/apophenia-definition-and-analysis/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/11/04/apophenia-definition-and-analysis/feed/ 0 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/#comments Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:53:21 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/10/16/whats-the-harm-in-believing-reasons-for-skeptical-thought-and-critical-thinking/feed/ 2 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/21/kicking-bigfoot-the-patterson-film-and-mk-davis-stabilization-enhancements/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/21/kicking-bigfoot-the-patterson-film-and-mk-davis-stabilization-enhancements/#comments Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:05:49 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/21/kicking-bigfoot-the-patterson-film-and-mk-davis-stabilization-enhancements/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/21/kicking-bigfoot-the-patterson-film-and-mk-davis-stabilization-enhancements/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 111 - Some people believe in Bigfoot, Yeti or Sasquatch: A frightening, prehistoric, half-gorilla-half-man, it lives in heavily forested mountainous areas like the Colorado Rockies. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 111 Some people believe in Bigfoot, Yeti or Sasquatch: A frightening, prehistoric, half-gorilla-half-man, it lives in heavily forested mountainous areas like the Colorado Rockies. Apparently wide-ranging and stinkier than... Andy Kaiser clean