http://www.dbskeptic.com Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:54:54 +0000 en-us hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 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/politics/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/08/13/the-veil-of-ignorance-dont-confuse-tools-with-the-buildings-they-create/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/08/13/the-veil-of-ignorance-dont-confuse-tools-with-the-buildings-they-create/#comments Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:54:54 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=2052 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/08/13/the-veil-of-ignorance-dont-confuse-tools-with-the-buildings-they-create/feed/ 1 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1413 - The "veil of ignorance" is a thought experiment: Imagine you have to design a society. You have to decide if slavery will be permitted or not. Are women supposed to stay at home? Are they allowed to work? By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1413 The "veil of ignorance" is a thought experiment: Imagine you have to design a society. You have to decide if slavery will be permitted or not. Are women supposed to stay at home? Are they allowed to work? Or must they do a bit of both? How high are income taxes? How are they applied? After you design your society, you become one of the positions in that society. Here’s the kicker: you aren’t allowed to choose your position. You get one at random. So you could end up male or female, rich or poor, black or white, slave or owner, scientist or secretary. Since you don’t know what position you will occupy, you are said to be designing this society from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’. How would you design such a society? What would it look like? You could end up as a coal miner or a CEO. Will the CEO be heavily taxed to subsidize the coal miner’s healthcare? Most people are risk-averse: they would rather have a million dollars guaranteed rather than a 50% chance of having 2 million dollars and a 50% chance of having nothing. This is fairly logical: with the first million you will buy what’s important: a house, a decent car, a retirement fund, et cetera. The second million will get you a fancier car, a holiday house and maybe some nice suits but the happiness (in economic terms, the utility) you get out of the second million is less than the happiness you get out of the first million. (Mathematically, let’s say the first million gets you a utility of 50, while the second million gets you a utility of 40. If you just take the million your utility is 50. Winning gives you a utility of 90, while losing gets you zero. Therefore, if you take the gamble, you have an expected utility of (.5 x 90) + (.5 x 0) = 45. Thus taking the gamble will, on average, give a lower overall utility and less happiness.) John Rawls, the philosopher who invented the concept of the veil of ignorance, concluded that because people are risk-averse, they would construct a society where everyone is equal rather than one where there are rich as well as poor people. Since this is the kind of society that we would choose if we didn’t know our positions, this is the kind of society which we must try to create in the real world. Right? To use the example above, you’d want to hedge your bets and tax the CEO if you weren’t sure if you’d become him. Rawls took this idea one step further. He argued that people would want a society where there is equality of outcome: everyone ends up in the same place, regardless of intelligence, talent or strength, because even these things are randomly distributed at birth. You might be born stupid, weak or talentless. Wouldn’t you want to hedge your bets against that affecting you? This equality of outcome hasn’t really caught on in a big way. Even egalitarians accept you’d need some degree of inequality to convince people to put in a decade of work to become a doctor instead of a jazz musician. Even so, Rawls’ conclusions about an equal society being a just one are very influential. These conclusions have been subject to a variety of criticisms. Are people really that risk-averse? What about those thousands of ‘actors’ who end up doing bit roles for tiny amounts of money their entire lives so they have a one-in-ten-thousand shot at becoming Tom Cruise? And how do you decide the best ratio of security versus liberty? Let’s focus on one criticism, that of Rawls’ society where a fixed amount of wealth must be distributed. Everything else being equal, a person would prefer a society where incomes were $10, $4 and $4 to one where the distributions were $3, $3, $3 because in the first example all incomes are higher in all cases. To simplify the analysis, assume that all people are risk-averse, and we’ll use the Veil of Ignorance as our tool of choice. But rather than designing a society, let’s say that the person behind the Veil is designing a civilization. Andy Kaiser clean 8:34 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/01/ieds-and-the-futility-of-increased-armor/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/01/ieds-and-the-futility-of-increased-armor/#comments Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:43:33 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1601 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/01/ieds-and-the-futility-of-increased-armor/feed/ 2 James Lochbaum By James Lochbaum Article ID: 1343 - For the United States, there is probably no other weapon as symbolic of today’s conflicts as the Improvised Explosive Device, or IED. Up until 2007, IEDs were responsible for 63% of U.S. By James Lochbaum Article ID: 1343 For the United States, there is probably no other weapon as symbolic of today’s conflicts as the Improvised Explosive Device, or IED. Up until 2007, IEDs were responsible for 63% of U.S. casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom (1).  They have also been implemented by belligerents in Afghanistan, a place previously devoid of these weapons. To counter IEDs, the U.S. and other coalition forces have turned to traditional Third Generation Warfare strategies.  New Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (or MRAPs) are designed and put into production, existing vehicles are upgraded with additional armor plating, troops are issued more ballistic vests and trauma plates, and electronic jammers are installed. While training and doctrine have been altered, the response to these devices has mainly been to field more heavily armored hardware. This approach seems to work. In 2004, when specially-designed MRAPs were first used by the U.S. Marine Corps, they reported no casualties in over 300 IED attacks involving the new vehicles (2).  But, the success of this "up-armor" approach has been severely distorted.  It is seen as a strategy for victory, when really it only treats a symptom of the conflicts we face. The IEDs are a symptom - and not the root cause - of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  An IED is simply a way for an insurgent or guerilla to attack a mechanized, first-world military. U.S. and NATO forces are vulnerable to IED attacks because of their mechanized nature, and their heavy logistics footprints.  (A logistics footprint refers to the amount of logistic support required in proportion to the size of the actual fighting force.) This is a vulnerability for developed nations involved in counter-insurgency (COIN) operations. Opponents in these types of conflicts rarely attack the "warfighter" directly. For example, the U.S. fields one of the world's most effective Main Battle tanks, the M1 Abrams. An insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan will have a hard time matching the firepower or armor that an Abrams brings to the fight, although an alarming number of tanks are being taken out of action by IEDs (4). A clever opponent can neutralize the tank's combat power by defeating its logistics footprint. How? The Abrams burns about 12 gallons of fuel an hour just with the engine idling. When moving, its gas mileage is measured in feet, not miles (3). For a company of tanks to conduct operations (that’s about 12 tanks), they must be supplied with at least 144 gallons of fuel per hour just to idle. Fuel must obviously be transported to the same place as the tanks. Fuel is just one resource required by the tank. We haven’t even mentioned spare parts, ammunition, lodgings and supplies for the crew. An opponent that seeks to neutralize the tank's combat effectiveness should strike its fuel supply (or any one of a dozen other logistics trains that delivers necessary supplies). This is where the “up-armor” doctrine begins to surface. As enemies attack the logistics train, the U.S. reaction has been to consistently apply more armor and more defensive systems to existing equipment, and to implement new, heavily armored vehicles. What has never taken place is a good hard look at what those logistics vehicles are delivering and why they are needed. Let's go back to the example of the tank. The Abrams Main Battle Tank has incredibly tough armor, a powerful main gun (105/120mm), and sophisticated optics and gear that allows it to do all kinds of ridiculous things that would have made it a Soviet General’s nightmare. But, the ability to engage targets with a gyroscopically stabilized main gun while moving isn't as effective when those targets are blending with the local population. This particular tank has severe limitations in the battle-spaces in which it’s currently employed. Yet, despite this, the U.S. Army deployed over 1,100 of the vehicles in Operation Iraqi Freedom (4). Andy Kaiser clean 9:02 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/25/enemies-closer-why-we-should-relocate-terror-suspects-to-the-united-states/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/25/enemies-closer-why-we-should-relocate-terror-suspects-to-the-united-states/#comments Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:23:25 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1587 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/25/enemies-closer-why-we-should-relocate-terror-suspects-to-the-united-states/feed/ 0 James Lochbaum By James Lochbaum Article ID: 1342 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is a Naval base established at the end of the Spanish-American War. It has since become a sort of frontier outpost in a country that, while not openly hostile, is certainly not friendly. By James Lochbaum Article ID: 1342 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is a Naval base established at the end of the Spanish-American War. It has since become a sort of frontier outpost in a country that, while not openly hostile, is certainly not friendly.  Bagra... Andy Kaiser clean 11:26 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/24/modeling-population-and-technology-why-havent-you-starved-to-death/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/24/modeling-population-and-technology-why-havent-you-starved-to-death/#comments Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:38:12 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1539 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/24/modeling-population-and-technology-why-havent-you-starved-to-death/feed/ 8 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1338 - Of all the interesting, insightful models produced in the last two or three hundred years of economics existence (I’m not including the models of financial markets: those are neither interesting nor insightful) few hav... By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1338 Of all the interesting, insightful models produced in the last two or three hundred years of economics existence (I’m not including the models of financial markets: those are neither interesting nor insightful) few h... Andy Kaiser clean 8:58 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/19/ice-cubes-cornflakes-inflation-and-what-caused-the-sub-prime-lending-crisis-why-theories-are-so-hard-to-get-right/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/19/ice-cubes-cornflakes-inflation-and-what-caused-the-sub-prime-lending-crisis-why-theories-are-so-hard-to-get-right/#comments Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:51:30 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1380 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/19/ice-cubes-cornflakes-inflation-and-what-caused-the-sub-prime-lending-crisis-why-theories-are-so-hard-to-get-right/feed/ 3 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1331 - The Phillips Curve is possibly the biggest blow-up in economics that ever happened. Economists - and just about every class of social scientists - are frequently (and rightly) accused of being so infatuated with a theo... By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1331 The Phillips Curve is possibly the biggest blow-up in economics that ever happened. Economists - and just about every class of social scientists - are frequently (and rightly) accused of being so infatuated with a theory, that they ignore data if it doesn't fit in with their model. The Phillips Curve is a wonderful example of rigorous empiricism. In 1958, A.W. Phillips discovered a striking relationship between inflation and unemployment: periods of high inflation coincided with periods of low employment. Subsequent studies found this result held true across countries and time periods. This led to the belief that there was a "trade-off" between employment and inflation which could be exploited by policy makers: a government could reduce unemployment if it was willing to increase inflation and vice-versa. The theory behind the data was fairly simple: if unemployment was low, businessses found it hard to hire workers and to increase wages. Higher wages causes goods to be more expensive to produce, so firms increase prices, and this causes inflation. Conversely, if the government caused inflation, there would be a gap in which wages are low in comparison with the price of goods. This is because the workers have not yet negotiated higher wages to compensate for higher prices. During this period, businesses take advantage of low wages by hiring more workers and stepping up production, reducing unemployment. Higher inflation means increased production and lower unemployment. The empirical evidence and theory were flawless. Policies based on the Phillips Curve enjoyed some initial success. So why is it that in the 1970s the Phillips Curve collapsed, and the world saw "stagflation": a bizarre situation which combined reduced production with inflation? An answer came from American economist Milton Friedman: low unemployment, he explained, is the result of unanticipated inflation. If the government started intentionally causing inflation, inflation becomes regular and predictable. If it is predictable, employees started negotiating contracts in which wages increased in tune with inflation and there is no point at which wages are "cheap". This is an incredibly subtle difference. Note that the explanation hasn't changed: the relationship is still the result of wages not keeping up with prices. The only difference is that the second uses a more sophisticated system than the first. To illustrate what happened, consider the following example (used by Landsburg in his excellent book The Armchair Economist): "Imagine an economist noticed that people purchased two boxes of cereal per week. Excited, he publishes a paper on the subject and it comes to the governments' attention. The government - for whatever reason - decides that people should eat four boxes of cereal per week. People already buy two boxes, so if the government sends them [an additional] two boxes every week - yay! - they will eat four boxes a week!" But that's not how it plays in real life. After getting the two boxes, this won't suddenly change consumer habits to four boxes - they'll instead stick with two. Since the government just gave them two, they'll buy no boxes at all! These are the perils of not including  people's behavior when formulating an idea. But it's even worse when we get a theory wrong. Imagine two economists bumped into the "two boxes a week" fact. One says, "People will always buy two boxes of cereal per week," while the other says, "People will always eat two boxes of cereal per week." How can you tell which one of them is right? From the data, you can't.  But once you change the rules of the game - by sending them boxes - you can. The first theory implies they will continue buying two boxes per week while the second predicts they will buy none at all. The second will be proven right. Similarly, in 1958, if you had two theories which stated, "Inflation reduces unemployment, Andy Kaiser clean 11:04 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/21/can-safety-regulations-kill-you-how-safe-are-seabelts-and-seatbelt-laws/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/21/can-safety-regulations-kill-you-how-safe-are-seabelts-and-seatbelt-laws/#comments Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:39:44 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1145 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/21/can-safety-regulations-kill-you-how-safe-are-seabelts-and-seatbelt-laws/feed/ 13 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1327 - Seatbelts save lives, right? - They secure people to the vehicle so that if an accident occurs, passengers are prevented from being thrown around and hitting interiors of the car and breaking their necks. By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1327 Seatbelts save lives, right? They secure people to the vehicle so that if an accident occurs, passengers are prevented from being thrown around and hitting interiors of the car and breaking their necks. They preve... Andy Kaiser clean 9:21 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/22/anti-republican-sentiment-and-not-barack-obama-gave-the-democrats-the-presidency/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/22/anti-republican-sentiment-and-not-barack-obama-gave-the-democrats-the-presidency/#comments Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:43:27 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=741 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/22/anti-republican-sentiment-and-not-barack-obama-gave-the-democrats-the-presidency/feed/ 7 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 139 - Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. He won by an impressive margin. But a question is worth asking: why did he win? - Finding the cause is an unusually difficult task: people are e... By Navin Kumar Article ID: 139 Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. He won by an impressive margin. But a question is worth asking: why did he win? Finding the cause is an unusually difficult task: people are emotionally invested in Obama and really, really want to believe that he won because of his message of hope and change. But as economists and social scientists, it's our job to separate the wheat from the chaff.  But how? Surveys are useless: if you simply ask someone why they voted for Obama, they may choose the most comforting answer (like "I want to heal America's racial divide") instead of the most honest one (like "I think Sarah Palin's a bimbo"). So you need a source that's objective and non-partisan. Fortunately there is one: money. Even if you want Obama to win, if you were asked to put your money on him in a bet, you'd start asking yourself: do I think he's actually going to win? That's where intrade.com comes in. Intrade is an online "futures market" which is a rather fancy name for what is essentially a gambling parlor. How it works is this: an event (like "Obama.President.2008") is selling for - say - 48. This means the market believes that there is a 48% chance of the event happening. If you think the likelihood is higher: buy the contract. If you think the likelihood is lower: sell the contract. Thus the prices move up and down - just like a stock exchange. Since these are serious people playing with real money, they don't care whether of not Obama is better than McCain: they only care which one going to win. So looking at these numbers - and seeing what happens to them when certain events take place - tells us a lot about why the public went for Obama. He won with 52.9% of the popular vote and 349 electoral votes. In the United States, that's arguably a landslide victory. Obama wasn't always poised to win: at the beginning of 2008, his Intrade price was running under 15%, one third of Hillary Clinton's 45%. The total odds for the Democratic Party were over 60%. This basically means that it was far more likely that a democrat - but not necessarily Obama - was likely to be the next President of the United States. This might be an emotional damper for those who believe that Obama was essential to the Democratic Party's revival: without him, the Democrats were actually doing quite well. In fact, since 2004, the odds of the Republicans winning in 2008 never crossed 50%. By the time Obama won the Democratic nomination, his Intrade price was 60% - exactly the same as the Democratic Party was at the beginning of the year. So what happened after that? There was a very brief period where his Intrade price fell below 50%: that was just after John McCain selected Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Called the "Palin Bounce", the choice briefly pulled Obama below 50%. But by the time the elections came around, his price was at 85. What caused that? In three words: the financial crisis. People quickly blamed - and voted against - Bush and the Republicans. Voters were primarily anti-Republican and pro-Democrat. They were not specifically for Obama. Other suitable Democrats would have won the election. Obama might be a great guy, he may bring about the change he's promised, but he didn't win because of his "fresh" treatment of Washington politics. Hillary Clinton's ratings were soaring before Obama took center stage. Obama won because a majority of Americans voted against Bush and the Republicans. Obama's unique message is just icing on the political cake. Andy Kaiser clean 6:21 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/18/drm-is-failure-in-action/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/18/drm-is-failure-in-action/#comments Mon, 19 Jan 2009 03:57:54 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=615 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/18/drm-is-failure-in-action/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 133 - I was born in 1975. The media of my childhood consisted of cassette tapes and VHS tapes. Only years later did I get to play with CDs and DVDs. I was also born during that magical time when one could still find a functio... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 133 I was born in 1975. The media of my childhood consisted of cassette tapes and VHS tapes. Only years later did I get to play with CDs and DVDs. I was also born during that magical time when one could still find a functioning 8-track cassette player, or cumbersome 8-inch reel-to-reel tape players. Convenient they were not. But with any of them you could still easily break copyright law. This certainly isn't just within my generation. My dad has told me stories from his college days, when he would illegally record someone's music on to his analog reel-to-reel tape recorder. Copyright violations have always been possible, even easy, but not until CDs brought us digital audio was copyright theft so fast. A copy and paste technique is all that's needed to give my music to you. Today, we can email music, download bittorrent collections, acquire illegal movies and software in minutes or even seconds. This speed advantage is a major reason why certain agencies are so upset. In particular are their legal representatives, the MPAA and the RIAA (these are the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America). DRM stands for "digital rights management". In the old days, this was called "copy protection". DRM is copy protection for digital products. It's often a software restriction or a type of encryption. It's intended to prevent the unauthorized copying of the music on your iPod, the movies in your DVD collection, the ebooks in your ebook reader, the programs on your computer, and any other digital media you've purchased. The big problem is that DRM doesn't work. Every mass-distributed DRM scheme has been compromised - every single one. If you want to copy one of your "uncopyable" DVDs or other media, yes, there are plenty of tools to do so. DRM hurts the consumer: it penalizes people who have legitimately purchased their media. And since DRM is compromised so easily and quickly, those who want to break the law can still easily do so. If this is a deterrent, it's a remarkably ineffectual one. You may accuse me of taking the side of the consumer because I don't stand to lose anything from having people steal copywritten material. Actually, I do stand to lose. I have multiple websites that make money from the content they provide. I've written some fiction ebooks and sell those online. And I have no DRM or limited-use mechanism in place. I made this decision intentionally, for three reasons: 1) Today's technology is beyond the point where DRM is practical. Content protection schemes inconvenience those who legitimately have a product, and are just a tiny speed bump to those who want an illegal copy. 2) The Internet has changed the availability and presentation of media, and copying (legally or illegally) is commonplace. The days of visiting a library to access a rare book are fading into the past. The previously rare books are now online for everyone to see. Everything is coming online. Everything is getting easier and easier to access. 3) The cost of digital media should be very low, and is therefore less likely to be pirated. Take ebooks as an example: when you purchase a traditional book, a part of that cost is for the creation of the book itself. The book has to be physically printed, bound, warehoused and distributed. This is a majority percentage of a book's price tag. Ebooks have a very low (or zero) cost for physical media. Yes, the artist and their representatives should get paid for their efforts. One reason piracy happens is because the cost of an object is perceived as unfair, and not worth the price. The actual production cost of digital media is very, very low. The final prices should reflect that. The intent of DRM - protecting the interests of copyright holders - is a noble idea. But it's also archaic and easily circumvented. Unfortunately, it will take time for those in power to recognize this. Andy Kaiser clean 8:35 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/30/party-politics-and-the-false-dilemma-logical-fallacy/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/30/party-politics-and-the-false-dilemma-logical-fallacy/#comments Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:40:39 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=499 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/30/party-politics-and-the-false-dilemma-logical-fallacy/feed/ 10 Joshua Walker By Joshua Walker Article ID: 1262 - I'm an American. Just a few weeks ago, the United States elected a new President for 2009. This is the first election that I decided to forgo party politics - I voted for the person I think was best for the job. By Joshua Walker Article ID: 1262 I'm an American. Just a few weeks ago, the United States elected a new President for 2009. This is the first election that I decided to forgo party politics - I voted for the person I think was best for the job. I voted based upon my political principles, instead of just voting "against" the "other guy". During this process, I've grown angrier and more frustrated at the "false dilemma" logical fallacy that is so prevalent in American politics. What is a false dilemma? A false dilemma is a logical fallacy where someone states that "either X is true or Y is true". The problem is that X and Y might both be false or both true.  In fact, there might be claims A, B, L, and Z that are also true and related to the topic.  Now, it is possible that X and Y might be the only options and that if one is true the other is false; we should, however, be very careful with such claims and determine if X and Y are really the only options. Republican or Democrat: You decide I am constantly astounded by those who claim a differing political ideology, such as Libertarianism or Constitutionalism, yet always vote for the two major parties.  The Republicans are usually considered conservatives and the Democrats are usually considered liberals, but even those ideologies have splintered into sub-ideologies, such as the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals.  Sometimes these new ideologies are directly contrary to their parent.  Yet even with these ever-evolving political philosophies, the individual is expected to sacrifice their ideals to the current party puppet- ...I mean party "candidate". Americans are constantly flooded with propaganda telling them that there are only two choices and that the third parties have no chance at winning an election.  This becomes its own self-fulfilling prophecy.  If a man thinks he's going to die tomorrow, he'll find a way to make it happen, or die trying.  If a majority believes that voting for a third party candidate is useless, then the prophecy will fulfill itself.  If we all want change, but choose to vote for party sycophants simply because we are told to do so, then we are merely puppets and not free people. The example of false dilemma propaganda that inspired me to write this article came from this news article at Yahoo.com.  It begins by quoting a person saying that voting third party would be throwing their vote away.  Since this person is - of course - just like us, then we also should not throw our vote away on a third party.  Or is that more than a quote, and a recommendation from the article's author?  Later in the article, an "expert" is brought in to tell us that none of the third party candidates "resonate" with the American people, even though people constantly complain about the poor choice of candidates and the "vote for the lesser evil" strategy.  There are figures and statistics dissuading us from opposing the political power structure because no third party candidate has ever won high political office. Unfortunately, repeating this fact helps to ensure continued failure of the third party candidates. The major parties place themselves on opposite sides of every issue, even though many political positions have more than two sides.  Take, for example, the abortion debate.  You are either pro-life or pro-abortion.  Taking a position that the federal government has no authority in this issue and that it should be left to the states is never considered.  Consider the ANWR drilling controversy.  You're either for or against it.  You can't say that it's irrelevant because the government has banned alternative fuel options for years and more drilling is only a band-aid on an amputation.  The issues are always turned into yes or no options. This lets the parties take opposite sides and argue pointlessly, while ignoring any inconvenient facts. Take responsibility and free your mind Logical fallacies are dangerous. Andy Kaiser clean 7:42 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/a-skeptical-analysis-of-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/a-skeptical-analysis-of-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:54:40 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=492 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/a-skeptical-analysis-of-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes/feed/ 27 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1261 - The phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" has been around for a long time. It's used with phrases like "there are no atheists in a crashing plane" or "there are no libertarians during a financial crisis". By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1261 The phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" has been around for a long time. It's used with phrases like "there are no atheists in a crashing plane" or "there are no libertarians during a financial crisis". It's a way of saying that even those who claim to be very principled forget their principles during an emergency. More narrowly, it's a way of asserting that atheists do actually believe in God and are simply in denial. This supposes that during times of great stress - like when you've just parachuted into Landmine County - religious belief rises to the surface and blasts away all "pretensions". What's the rebuttal to "there are no atheists in foxholes"? There is no logical rebuttal to this claim. Why? Because it's not an argument. "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an assertion. It's like saying "X is equal to 6.78". It's either true or it isn't. But in the interests of being thorough, let's give the phrase more dignity than it deserves and raise it to the level of a theory. If a person presents such a theory, he is expected to present some kind of empirical data or experiment to back it up. In this case, there is no empirical evidence. A possible experiment could involve recording the religious orientation of outgoing soldiers, and then asking the returning atheists a question like the following: While in your foxhole, did you ever have a moment when you decided that God exists? a) Yes. b) No. c) I was too busy trying not to get decapitated to think about it. No one has ever conducted this kind of survey. If someone claims "there are no atheists in foxholes", the only proper retort to this bigoted sentence is "Yes, there are." If it's such faulty reasoning, why do people claim there are no atheists in foxholes? Theists believe that atheists live in denial because a theist's belief in God is based largely on faith, rather than reasoning or empirical evidence. They feel God's presence, and can't understand how others don't. So they conclude that other people do in fact feel him but are lying due to some ulterior motive. Psychologists call this "projection" (although the term may not be technically right: projection deals with unwanted qualities and most theists would reject the idea of theism being unwanted). A selfish person sees everyone else as being selfish. A liar sees dishonesty everywhere. And a religious person cannot believe other people can be so spiritually blind. They assume that everyone is the same as them, despite what others claim. With this understanding, it's easier to see how so many people can believe an assertion without evidence. Of course, the atheist-in-foxholes phrase is irrelevant to the question of whether a god exists or not. If there are atheists in foxholes, a theist could argue that it's just an example of divinely-created free will. On the other hand, simply beliving in something doesn't make it true. Do wars convert warriors into believers? Yes, but not the way theists intend. Anecdotal evidence (which, it should be warned, is unreliable) suggests that battlefield conversions do happen, but in the opposite direction: faced with the horror of war, soldiers start to wonder if a kind, benevolent, all-powerful God would allow something like this to happen. Specifically, "either there is no God, or He's a bastard". Andrew Cline - in his blog "About.com Guide to Atheism since 1998" - received a letter from a US Marine who said: "Not that this would be admitted or last after combat is over, but even the marines praying every night when we were in the rear weren't pleading for god's help in combat. They were acting just like atheists, ducking and covering, shooting back; trying to save themselves. Never once did I see someone stop and pray for help. They use religion to get them through day to day, but when it hits the fan so to speak, they don't take chances relying on god." Andy Kaiser clean 10:25 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/02/evolutionary-science-and-creationism-a-skeptical-response-to-duane-gishs-creation-scientists-answer-their-critics/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/02/evolutionary-science-and-creationism-a-skeptical-response-to-duane-gishs-creation-scientists-answer-their-critics/#comments Sun, 02 Nov 2008 05:39:24 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=455 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/02/evolutionary-science-and-creationism-a-skeptical-response-to-duane-gishs-creation-scientists-answer-their-critics/feed/ 2 Matthew Green By Matthew Green Article ID: 1258 - Controversy over creation and evolution persists. For most secularists, the battle was won long ago. It began with the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species and the ensuing debates between Darwin's defenders and ... By Matthew Green Article ID: 1258 Controversy over creation and evolution persists. For most secularists, the battle was won long ago. It began with the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species and the ensuing debates between Darwin's defenders and his opponents. Creationism persists today for a simple reason: fundamentalism persists today. Creationism is nothing more than Christian apologetics attempting to validate the historical inerrancy of the creation accounts of the Hebrew Bible's Book of Genesis. Creation "scientists" such as the late Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Jonathan Sarfati, and others use whatever "facts" to support Genesis, while rationalizing away anything to the contrary as a result of sloppy thinking or dishonest ulterior motives. They say that skeptics have more to do with "misotheism" (hatred of gods) or "compromise" than with honest scientific objectivity. These creationists believe that skepticism or disbelief is more from a desire to avoid a "relationship" with Jesus Christ and an existential involvement with the gospel. These pathetic attempts to construct a "science" out of creationism are attempts to present Christianity as intellectually respectable to the modern world. This ensures that the gospel isn't dismissed out of hand by a more educated public. What it all comes down to is evangelism. Apologists are doing what they can to make the Bible look scientifically inerrant so they can have an easier time convincing people to become Christians. This article shows that: 1) Creationists use Karl Popper's universally accepted concept of "falsifiability" as a valid criterion for what constitutes a scientific theory. 2) Creationists do not seem to realize that evolution meets this criterion. 3) Creationists cannot pass this criterion on theological grounds because it is inconsistent with the nature of the Christian God. Karl Popper's criterion of "falsifiability" Karl Popper was a science philosopher who proposed the criterion of "falsifiability" as a necessary ingredient of science. Falsifiability means that that an assertion can be proven false by observation or experiment. This is the biggest criterion used to demarcate authentic science from pseudoscience. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about Popper's criterion of "falsifiability": "It is easy, [Popper] argues, to obtain evidence in favour of virtually any theory, and he consequently holds that such ‘corroboration' ... should count scientifically only if it is the positive result of a ... prediction, which might conceivably have been false. For Popper, a theory is scientific only if it is refutable... Every genuine test of a scientific theory, then, is logically an attempt to refute or to falsify it, and one genuine counter-instance falsifies the whole theory. ...In a word, an exception, far from ‘proving' a rule, conclusively refutes it. Every genuine scientific theory then, in Popper's view, is prohibitive, in the sense that it forbids ... particular events or occurrences. As such it can be tested and falsified, but never logically verified. Thus Popper stresses that it should not be inferred from the fact that a theory has withstood [testing and has been verified]; rather we should recognize that such a theory has received a high measure of corroboration and [is] the best available theory until it is finally falsified ... or is superseded by a better theory." So the hallmark of a genuine scientific theory is "falsifiability". It has to be capable of being refuted or falsified in order to truly qualify as a scientific theory. A theory is scientific only if it is refutable. This can be an observation, an experiment, or any other empirical test that can decisively refute it. Theories cannot be verified but they can be refuted and the failure of experiments, observations, or any other empirical test gives scientists greater confidence that the hypothesis or theory is, in fact, true. Andy Kaiser clean 21:02 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/19/political-science-and-skepticism-politics-needs-critical-thought/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/19/political-science-and-skepticism-politics-needs-critical-thought/#comments Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:27:51 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=401 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/19/political-science-and-skepticism-politics-needs-critical-thought/feed/ 5 Jason Y By Jason Y Article ID: 1256 - When someone thinks of the word "skeptic" or thinks about the movement in general, they get ideas about exposing Bigfoot hunters and cracking down on pseudoscience.  Although issues like these are a part of the skepticism ... By Jason Y Article ID: 1256 When someone thinks of the word "skeptic" or thinks about the movement in general, they get ideas about exposing Bigfoot hunters and cracking down on pseudoscience.  Although issues like these are a part of the skepticis... Andy Kaiser clean 8:59 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/14/the-undecided-voter-an-appeal-to-rational-voting/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/14/the-undecided-voter-an-appeal-to-rational-voting/#comments Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:52:53 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=391 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/14/the-undecided-voter-an-appeal-to-rational-voting/feed/ 8 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1255 - Approximately one month from the writing of this article, the United States is going to have a major election. We're getting a new President! And the campaigns on all sides have overspent and probably overpromised. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1255 Approximately one month from the writing of this article, the United States is going to have a major election. We're getting a new President! And the campaigns on all sides have overspent and probably overpromised. S... Andy Kaiser clean 7:45 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/#comments Mon, 06 Oct 2008 05:11:57 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=339 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/06/illegal-drugs-and-the-drug-war/feed/ 13 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1253 - A large proportion of taxpayer money pays for a failed war on drugs. We are the proverbial ostrich, burying its head in the sand, pretending that if we can't see a problem then it doesn't exist. By M Parrott Article ID: 1253 A large proportion of taxpayer money pays for a failed war on drugs. We are the proverbial ostrich, burying its head in the sand, pretending that if we can't see a problem then it doesn't exist. The war on drugs has been lost. A large proportion of crime is due to drugs. No, let me rephrase that: a large proportion of crime is due to drugs being illegal. It is estimated that three-fifths of Americans have used illegal drugs. Barack Obama has admitted to having inhaled cannabis. The quoted conversation can be summarized like this: "Mr. Obama, have you ever taken drugs?" "Yes, I smoked cannabis at college." "Did you inhale?" "That's the point." Here is a short clip with an interview relating to Obama's cannabis use: Does that make Presidential candidate Barack Obama a criminal? Does that make the Rolling Stones criminals? Of course not. If everyone who took drugs is a criminal, then sixty percent of Americans belong in jail. And on the subject of drugs and crimes, let's talk about how we could get rid of over fifty percent of crimes. A large proportion of crimes are drug-related. These include drug trafficking, prostitution, gang wars, and human smuggling. Now imagine we legalized drugs and made them federally-regulated and taxed. What if currently-illegal drugs were sold alongside tobacco and alcohol? Drug dealers would have to get new jobs. People would be able to afford drugs and wouldn't have to resort to such drastic measures as stealing to fulfil their addictions. Prostitutes would no longer have to pay their pimps to get a hit that they so dearly need. No one would be killed in a drug war, because drug wars would be obsolete. There'd be fewer gang wars. And those gangs that exist from drugs profits would have to disband. There. By legalising, taxing and regulating a few drugs, we'd get rid of thousands of criminals. Don't think the government is above taxing something they'd describe as dangerous: look at alcohol and tobacco. The British government claims they want everyone to quit smoking, and that smokers are a burden on the National Health Service. In reality, smokers pretty much pay for the NHS, at £5.00 a pack. £4.50 of that price is tax. Is this the kind of income the government is going to give up? Let's talk about the potential uses for money gained by taxing these now-legal drugs. One would be creating safer places for people to get their hits. With proper access to sterilised needles, the spread of HIV, hepatitis and many other blood-borne diseases would decrease. The drugs would be regulated and monitored, and would no longer be cut with brick dust and other such highly dangerous substances. This would reduce deaths, since a proportion of drug-related deaths is due to what the drugs are cut with. The idea that drug users are dangerous is baloney. Ecstasy makes people happily hug each other. Diamorphine (also known as heroin) is a painkiller. The majority of these drugs have side effects that don't make people dangerous. And even those that do, like lysergic acid dythalamide (that's LSD), the users are more of a danger to themselves than to others. Some say that people who don't use drugs don't use them because they're illegal. And that drug related road accidents would dramatically increase. Wrong. First, if you don't use drugs now, would you if they became legal? Of course not. You're an intelligent person that knows most drugs are addictive and unhealthy. As for the theory that accidents would increase; we'd have to make it illegal to take drugs and drive. Use the same initiative that we currently have on drunk-driving. Legalization may have another unforeseen benefit: There would be a decrease in drug users. Drug addicts would be on the right side of the law and wouldn't be prosecuted for getting addiction treatment. The present system ensures that addicts stay addicted because they can't seek help. Andy Kaiser clean 7:30 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/04/religulous-review-bill-mahers-brutal-and-intelligent-take-on-religion/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/04/religulous-review-bill-mahers-brutal-and-intelligent-take-on-religion/#comments Sat, 04 Oct 2008 08:56:40 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=320 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/04/religulous-review-bill-mahers-brutal-and-intelligent-take-on-religion/feed/ 16 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1252 - Before we get to the good stuff, you should know that this review of Religulous contains spoilers. The spoilers give away the main topics addressed by Bill Maher. If you don't want to know them yet, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1252 Before we get to the good stuff, you should know that this review of Religulous contains spoilers. The spoilers give away the main topics addressed by Bill Maher. If you don't want to know them yet, go see the movie first. If you're considering seeing the movie and want more information, or you want someone else's take on it, keep reading. Special thanks goes to the Center for Inquiry's Michigan chapter, who brought Religulous to West Michigan. Without their efforts, I may not have seen this movie. Religulous begins with Bill Maher talking about the Bible's Book of Revelations, a terrifying, end-of-the-world scenario preached by Biblical literalists. We get a lot of humor, and Religulous stays funny throughout much of its running time. Maher intersperses witty remarks with political and religious commentary, much like his stand-up act. But here you realize he's making a very directed, laser-focused point: religion is bad. Some quotes from him include: "[Religion is] selling an invisible product." "It's just so shamelessly invented." After his entertaining intro, we get to the main focus of the movie. Here, Bill takes on various aspects of religion, with both interviews and informal talks directly to the camera. While I don't have all the topics listed here, these are the majority, and are what Religulous spends the most time discussing: Pascal's Wager This concept says, "You should worship God, because what if you're wrong. If God exists, and you worship him, then you're safe. If He exists and you don't worship him, you've just written a one-way ticket to an everlasting pitchfork-infested sauna." There are many problems with Pascal's Wager. How do you know which God is the right one? So many religions have so many conflicting tenants, you can't know which one is true. What if God doesn't exist, and you waste your whole life worshipping a nonexistent being? Or worse, what if you've spent your life subjugating and abusing others based on religious-driven morals? Pascal's Wager is one of those questions that at first sounds witty and interesting, until you examine it logically and realize it's flawed logic. Biblical Inaccuracies The Catholic Bible is huge. From Old Testament to New, it's jammed packed with stories, morals, punishments and contradictions. Religulous spends time addressing many of these. Instead of listing them here (as even the Internet has a limited amount of space), I'll instead recommend a book: A great source of Biblical inaccuracies, problems, contradictions and abuses can be found in the book, Ken's Guide to the Bible. It's best to read Ken's Guide with an actual Bible nearby. Otherwise, you may not believe some of what you read - there are a lot of horrible things in the Bible that rarely get mentioned in Sunday's sermon. TV Preachers TV preachers bring in massive amounts of money. It's easy - they ask their viewers for contributions, and the checks and credit card numbers come pouring in. This seems like a violation of Jesus' teachings, who seemingly was a man teaching simple living and criticizing the rich. How can a television preacher reconcile his incredible material wealth while still claiming to live by Jesus' example? The Church and Homosexuality You might not know the Westboro Baptist Church by name, but you've probably heard about them. These are the people who loudly protest funerals of soldiers and other high-profile deaths. They're known for their motto, "God hates fags". Religulous uses them and others to expose the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic Church on how homosexuality is a conscious choice and a sin. Particularly interesting is a conversation Bill has with the head of Exchange Ministries, a religious non-profit specializing in converting gays away from homosexuality. Miracles Bill addresses the stupidity of various kinds of miracles. There are the obvious, in your face miracles, Andy Kaiser clean 21:11 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/06/the-future-of-skepticism/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/06/the-future-of-skepticism/#comments Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:16:21 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=155 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/09/06/the-future-of-skepticism/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1247 - Things are getting worse. - Across the world, we've got so-called complementary and alternative medicine infiltrating legitimate healthcare and medical treatments. The United States government seems more interested in ... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1247 Things are getting worse. Across the world, we've got so-called complementary and alternative medicine infiltrating legitimate healthcare and medical treatments. The United States government seems more interested in supporting Christianity than supporting religious choice. There are attacks on preventative sciences, like Jenny McCarthy and others insisting their understanding of vaccination technology trumps that of any medical doctor. While I could argue that skepticism is making progress in places, like against the fringe beliefs of cryptozoology, astrology and Intelligent Design, it's even easier to argue that we're losing the battle. Logic and common sense are failing and falling, supported by the beliefs of a credulous society. We are losing. What's a skeptic to do? I fully expect that things will get worse. Yet, despite this gloomy outlook, I'm not worried. Let's do a little scrying of our own, a little fortune-telling and future-prediction. The difference between this and reading tea-leaves is that mine is an educated guess based on probabilities and human nature. Think about a possible future for healthcare. Let's assume the worst for the skeptical community. Let's assume we live in a world where people believe vaccinations cause autism and don't actually protect against disease. What will happen? As fewer people become immunized, herd immunity will break down. Entire communities will again become susceptible. We will see outbreaks and epidemics of preventable diseases like measles, mumps and rubella. We'll see previously-eradicated diseases like polio and leprosy resurface and spread through populations. Many people will get sick. Many people will die. The human response will be to analyze and respond. Doctors and biologists and groups like the Center for Disease Control will again stress the importance of immunizations. This goes far beyond the current polite and low-publicity efforts. We'll get massive ad campaigns, increased TV coverage and a flood of data supporting and explaining the science behind immunizations. The information has always been out there for those interested in finding it, but in this Sick New World, immunization science will be shoved down our throats. People will immunize because they actually understand the process, the risks, and the benefits. This scenario specifically addresses the anti-vaccination problem. But the long-term results are applicable across the board, from alternative-medicine to Scientology. If left unchecked, eventually enough people will get abused, hurt and killed. There will be an inevitable backlash as people come to their senses. As skeptics and critical thinkers, our job is to make sure this imagined world, if it does come to pass, passes quickly. If we can prevent it from happening, even better. If we can't prevent it, nature will do the job for us, though the results will be horrifying and deadly. Our job as skeptics will be to ensure this happens sooner rather than later. Our first obligation is to take care of our family, friends and those closest to us. Then work to educate the wider community and the world at large. The above example addresses healthcare. But a lack of critical thinking causes plenty of other problems in our society. Scammers will always be around unless we increase people's exposure to critical thinking. There will always be people trying to take advantage of others, and there will always be people ready to believe lies. We can lessen the damage with education and activism. Religion is another issue. At its best, it's a good cause that exists for the wrong reasons. At its worst, we get intolerance, persecution and death. Contributing to religion's existence are blind belief in tradition, reliance on unjustified moral laws, and the very human trait of being scared of the dark. Critical thinking and a desire for knowledge can help define what religion really is, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/07/private-military-companies-civilian-contractors-and-the-global-war-on-terror/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/07/private-military-companies-civilian-contractors-and-the-global-war-on-terror/#comments Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:49:24 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=104 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/07/private-military-companies-civilian-contractors-and-the-global-war-on-terror/feed/ 6 James Lochbaum By James Lochbaum Article ID: 1243 - Recently, civilians working for Private Military Companies (hereafter called "PMCs") have attracted a lot of attention from many western media outlets.  In the wake of the deaths of four security contractors (from t... By James Lochbaum Article ID: 1243 Recently, civilians working for Private Military Companies (hereafter called "PMCs") have attracted a lot of attention from many western media outlets.  In the wake of the deaths of four security contractors (from the US-based Blackwater Worldwide in Fallujah in 2004) more attention has been paid to these people than ever.  PMCs are companies that take on jobs such as personal protection, convoy security, security consulting, and others that are traditionally performed by the military. Much criticism has been aimed at PMCs in the past few years.  Many detractors say PMCs are unnecessary and an affront to the armed forces of nation states because they are seen as being above the law.  The critics often equate them with mercenaries, a term that has come to have very negative connotations.  The fact of the matter is that PMCs are a force to be reckoned with and are here to stay. The term "Private Military Company" is so broad and encompasses such a large spectrum of companies, that lumping those companies together is unfair and inaccurate.  While the fighters employed by oil companies operating in Colombia may qualify as "mercenaries", the employees of well established companies like the British-based ArmorGroup (which is actually registered by the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior) certainly don't seem to deserve the label.  In this respect they are similar to the militaries of nation states. Due to their privately owned nature, PMCs are criticized as being accountable to no one.  While it is true they don't have national leaders directly responsible for their actions, their contracts have very specific conditions that must be met and a company with any serious breach of contract can expect to face consequences.  Also, there is legislation governing the behavior of PMCs operating in war zones. This legislation includes the Military Commissions Act and the recent amendment to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.  Both these documents have severe consequences for PMCs engaging in offensive military operations or violating the laws of the Geneva Convention.  While it is true that these companies are not accountable to the same authorities and do not have the same internal policing methods as forces belonging to nations, they are by no means without responsibility. Another issue concerning the use of PMCs is their relationship with the state by which they are employed.  PMCs work on negotiated contracts for specific payments, they are not on a pay role like other employees of the state.  Working on the right contracts at the right time can be extremely lucrative. Firms like Blackwater Worldwide (which relies on no-bid contracts with the US Government for most of its income) have become quite adept at negotiating and taking just the right jobs.  However, in the end it is the customer which sets the contract criteria.  So when multi-million dollar contracts are handed out to a PMC the responsibility for this "pay gap" rests with the customer, not the PMC. PMCs are by no means a new phenomenon.  Look at history: the state-sponsored militaries we take for granted in the 21st century are the new phenomena.  While the term PMC is relatively new, the jobs performed are not.  The ancient Chinese, Persians, and Romans all relied extensively on mercenaries within their militaries.  The Italian city-states of the renaissance used mercenaries extensively and the modern military lexicon owes much to these Italian mercenaries.  Words like captain, company, and colonel all trace their heritage back to the mercenary companies of Italy.  The British Empire used what was perhaps the world's largest PMC, the East India Company, to regulate their holdings throughout the world.  Today's concept of state militaries has only been around since the early 19th Century when Napoleonic France used the strategy of levée en masse. One often overlooked aspect of PMC is that of sheer necessity. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/11/intelligent-design-in-michigan/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/11/intelligent-design-in-michigan/#comments Thu, 12 Jun 2008 04:33:58 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=89 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/11/intelligent-design-in-michigan/feed/ 4 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1231 - Intelligent Design has come to Michigan. Michigan is my home state, so this gives me motivation to get off my big fat brain and do some research. And I have a child who will be entering the Michigan school system soon. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1231 Intelligent Design has come to Michigan. Michigan is my home state, so this gives me motivation to get off my big fat brain and do some research. And I have a child who will be entering the Michigan school system soon. That gives me motivation to write. According to Michigan House Bill 6027 - sponsored by Republican John Moolenaar - Michigan is now the recipient of a so-called "academic freedom". campaign. This bill uses language recommended by the religiously-motivated Discovery Institute.  Here's the text of the original Michigan bill 6027. It's subtitled with "academic freedom to teach evidence regarding controversial scientific subjects". Here's recommended bill text from the Discovery Institute. Compare the two and you'll find connections, including word-for-word similarities. The bill attempts to open the science classroom for contrasting opinions. This is termed "academic freedom", so presumably those who have a dissenting opinion on how the world works can have a chance to say it, and those teachers with dissenting opinions on how the world works can have a chance to teach it. A criticism raised by proponents of such language is something like this: "Teach the controversy. Why would you oppose academic freedom?" I agree. Teach it. But since that specific controversy is religion-based, put it where it belongs, in religion class. By all means, teach creationism, or Intelligent Design, or whatever it's currently called. And do it in a religious studies classroom. But if you're sitting in a science class, the only religious education you should get is an explanation of why it doesn't belong there. Science is a body of knowledge, and a process. It's based on testable theories and observable evidence. A science class teaches the scientific method, how to postulate and test theories, and how to critically examine evidence. Religion does not do these things. Religion is not part of a science education. If Intelligent Design proponents truly believe that their case stands up to scientific scrutiny, what do you think is the honest way to present it: Option 1: Force school boards to teach these beliefs Option 2: Publish the case in a legitimately scientific way, and convince other scientists with data and evidence Option 1 is what ID proponents use today. Science, unfortunately, demands Option 2. If you want to play in the scientific sandbox, you've got to play by the rules. Granted, option 2 is not used by proponents, because it can't be. When you start examining such things from a scientific viewpoint, the proposition gets reclassified as a religion. Intelligent Design proponents can't fight their battle head-on. Instead of trying to prove their own point, they would rather subvert science and sneak their way into a school curriculum. They want to legitimize themselves in the science classroom without following any of the scientific method. Intelligent Design is a theory that can't be tested. This is not science. It doesn't belong in a science classroom. Unless we take the argument to its logical conclusion, and start teaching so called "alternative" beliefs everywhere. When you teach astronomy, don't forget to teach astrology. When you teach biology, don't forget to teach phrenology. When you teach geology, don't forget to teach Young Earth creationism. And the big reverse whammo: when you teach religion, don't forget to teach atheism! Hey, ID proponent, if it's so important to insist on teaching the controversy in science, you wouldn't mind if we taught about religious controversy, right? Even forget about atheism: I've got 1.5 billion Muslims that would like representation in your Christian studies class, so they can present their alternative viewpoint. Hopefully you can see what topics don't belong in what classroom, and why. This brings us back to Michigan. My home state is currently known for its horrible economy and depressing auto industry. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/15/allegance-and-flag-burning/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/15/allegance-and-flag-burning/#comments Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:09:44 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/15/allegance-and-flag-burning/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/15/allegance-and-flag-burning/feed/ 2 M Parrott by M Parrott Article ID: 1219 "On my honour, I promise that I will do my best, to do my duty to God and to the Queen" - Boy Scout promise, United Kingdom "I ... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen... by M Parrott Article ID: 1219 "On my honour, I promise that I will do my best, to do my duty to God and to the Queen" - Boy Scout promise, United Kingdom "I ... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God." - Oath of Allegiance for MPs on induction to British parliament "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." - Pledge of Allegiance, United States Each one of these promises allegiance to the state or head of state. That's the first problem with allegiance: who you promise your allegiance to. Allegiance in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Allegiance has brought about civil war, parliamentary change and many other things. But the problem comes when you swear allegiance - unchangeable allegiance. What if that system or person becomes corrupt? Then you have a dilemma. What do you do? You stop your allegiance. But you've sworn unchangeable allegiance, so how is it that you can now break your oath? Because you know they're wrong. You know that the allegiance is not to the person, or the government, but to the idea. That makes the difference. Why swear allegiance to a person or governmental system when in actual fact you are only attached to their ideas, and ideas change? Imagine this scenario: you've just sworn allegiance to your government and they decide they want to kill half of your country. Do you stick to that allegiance? NO! Allegiance is made for two reasons. One, personal gain, often found in business. Two, societal gain. If that person or system changes so it no longer benefits you, you'll no longer stand by that allegiance. Maybe it's better to have allegiance to an idea, or better yet, people. This brings us to patriotism. Patriotism seemingly flows from the British media's mainstream attention of the supposed patriotic American society. This is from the fear created by supposed foreign threats (even though 7/7 had British bombers). British patriots want an oath of allegiance sworn on the British flag, similar to that of the pledge of allegiance in the USA. This would entail unquestionable following of any government policy or whatever the government decided upon. "Unquestioning"? Doesn't that seem a bit stupid to you? To blindly follow your government, without doubt, is stupid. It defies the freedoms your country is based upon. America is based upon the liberty won when the Founding Fathers questioned the rule of the British. Modern England is based upon Oliver Cromwell and others questioning the prerogative of Charles I and rebelling, later chopping off Charles's head. The basis of Western society (not just America and Britain) is questioning your government. To say you shouldn't question your government is stupid. What about having allegiance to an item, or a symbol? See the video below where Penn & Teller do an act in their show where they burn an American flag. Penn says a very important thing: "What if we were to burn the flag not in disgust, not in protest of anything, but in celebration of the very freedoms that flag symbolizes." Allegiance to a symbol is stupid. Allegiance should be given to what that symbol represents, the freedoms and the rights. The freedoms and rights are given to you so you can burn that flag. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/04/christopher-hitchens-debates-peter-hitchens/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/04/christopher-hitchens-debates-peter-hitchens/#comments Fri, 04 Apr 2008 05:16:41 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/04/christopher-hitchens-debates-peter-hitchens/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/04/christopher-hitchens-debates-peter-hitchens/feed/ 23 Andy Kaiser by Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1218 - [The Hitchens vs. Hitchens video is available. Scroll down to find it.] - Watching a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens is fascinating on so many levels. They are both very good speakers and debaters, by Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1218 [The Hitchens vs. Hitchens video is available. Scroll down to find it.] Watching a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens is fascinating on so many levels. They are both very good speakers and debaters, so the oratory mastery is impressive on its own, and the technique is fun to watch.  The topics discussed are easily inflammatory: just ask anyone, "How do you feel about the Iraq war?" Or, "How does God affect your life?" You'll receive very heartfelt responses. Finally, as you may assume upon reading their last names, Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens are indeed related. They're brothers. What's interesting about their relationship is that it's not what you'd expect. Or, at least not what I expected upon seeing them debate for the first time. To specify: 1) this was the first time I'd seen either one debate any one else, and 2) this was the first time Peter and Christopher have publicly debated each other in the United States. Let me set your expectations with a little third-party information. What would you expect if you saw the following ads about the debate: "One-on-one for the first time ever, brothers will clash" - From Grand Valley State University's ad. (GVSU was the host for the debate.) "Hitchens Brothers: Anatomy of a Row" - An article from The Independent You may think this sets expectations for a heated - perhaps angry and shouting - debate. After  attending the debate itself, I'm glad to report that there was no bloodshed, no torn clothes, nor any physical violence. While the debate did at times involve angry, emotional words, the outcome was on a balanced give-and-take debate. Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens have a history of being alienated for years, with only a recent reconciliation. That behavior, at least, met my expectations. The brothers are both excellent and well-focused speakers. There was no camaraderie during the debate, no emotional winks towards the other. No sign of a brotherly relationship. There was, actually, more signs of antagonism, more "polite impoliteness"  than usual. Since I haven't seen either Hitchens debate until now, I was unable to tell if that was just the way they normally carry their debates, or if - being related - they were pushing each others' emotional buttons. Christopher seemed to be the better composed of the two. If he was aggravated by any part of the debate, he rarely showed it, whereas Peter became exasperated at a few points. When the moderator asked him for comment after a particularly heated exchange, he gestured dismissively and exclaimed, "Why? It's futile!" (To Peter's credit, Christopher had evaded Peter's direct question, was talking over Peter at that point, and the moderator hadn't done anything.) That's not to dismiss Peter Hitchens' debate skills or the presentation of his content. He was the right-leaning conservative in this debate. Based on audience responses to debate points (clapping and cheering), I'd say the strong majority - perhaps eighty percent - were liberal (and perhaps atheist), like Christopher. Far less were conservative (and perhaps religious), like Peter. The forum was a college-sponsored event, and GVSU students were given many free tickets. The audience makeup ranged from young college age on up. College students certainly didn't dominate, though. It was a good mixture of ages. When I arrived at the venue - a large, ornate Catholic church, one of many beautiful buildings in downtown Grand Rapids, Michigan - I heard from an event coordinator that they were booked up way beyond expectations. There were over 1100 people attending.  Many were Christopher Hitchens fans. A college student setting behind me excitedly told her seatmate, "I heard about this an hour ago, but when I heard Christopher Hitchens was here I had to be here too!" So Christopher Hitchens had more fans. He had his books available for purchase, and autographs afterward. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/31/punk-skepticism-a-perfect-mix-of-skeptic-and-rebel/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/31/punk-skepticism-a-perfect-mix-of-skeptic-and-rebel/#comments Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:16:06 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/31/punk-skepticism-a-perfect-mix-of-skeptic-and-rebel/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/31/punk-skepticism-a-perfect-mix-of-skeptic-and-rebel/feed/ 2 Anonymous by Anonymous Article ID: 1215 - Skepticism is a philosophical commitment to doubt. However, to doubt without end is of no use. - Committed skeptics include Harry Houdini, Penn and Teller, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, James Randi, Christopher Hitchens, by Anonymous Article ID: 1215 Skepticism is a philosophical commitment to doubt. However, to doubt without end is of no use. Committed skeptics include Harry Houdini, Penn and Teller, Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, James Randi, Christopher Hitchens, and many other intellectual giants. My doubts began not with the profound words of astronomers, nor by studying stage magic. My doubts began with rage. Holy rage which drives teenagers to truancy and smoking. In my case, it drew me to countless mohawks and hair colors. It drew me to body piercing and tattoos, it drew me to loud defiant music like the Dead Kennedys, Slayer, Marilyn Manson, Black Flag, The Misfits, Danzig, and later to industrial music. I doubted society and its presumptions. I saw through the lies school told me. I saw that teachers who were teaching me didn't give a damn about what they taught. I saw through the pretend benevolence of authority figures, especially the police and school administration. I saw through the ridiculous exaggerations of Reagan's "Just Say No!" campaign. I saw through the lies of commercialism, and was painfully aware that if I was spending money, someone had engineered my purchase through advertising. I saw through conventional religion. Even my attempts to be a Christian later in life were rife with heresies and ideas that conflicted with the status quo. But I still fell for a lot of crap. I fell for alternative medicine, the new age movement, ridiculous theories about JFK's assassination, and finally Christianity. Why was I so gullible when I was so committed to rebellion? Indeed, there is no greater rebel than the skeptic. So why are youth movements like punk, goth, industrial, hip-hop, and metal so devoid of skeptics? I guess that we felt so judged by the world, we wanted to be open minded. We heard nonsense not from our enemies in uniforms and ties, but from our friends. It was our friends forecasting horoscopes, it was our friends doing the tarot reading, it was our friends with the hip young bible study. So we bought it. At least I did. I think that a time of a new era in punk must arise. Perhaps a few co-conspirators could engineer it. The era of the skeptical punk, the dangerous angry youth who is as perceptive in seeing a fraud as she is in seeing the world as a conformist facade. That she - this heroic uber-mensch, punk skeptic - will demand scientific evidence for all claims that are not readily self-evident! When she is born, then revolution could be the next step. The passion of punk with the mind of the skeptic would be an unstoppable revolt against the easy victimhood that the public falls into due to its own inertia. If I had something to pray for, I would pray for this. But since prayer is little more than talking to oneself I can instead act. The punk skeptic is here in me. Am I alone? Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/19/skeptics-atheists-and-meme-theory/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/19/skeptics-atheists-and-meme-theory/#comments Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:04:07 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/19/skeptics-atheists-and-meme-theory/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/19/skeptics-atheists-and-meme-theory/feed/ 3 Rodrigo Neely By Rodrigo Neely Article ID: 1213 - "Naysayer!" - "Why do you want to take away people's beliefs?!" - "You're just narrow minded!" - "You give off bad vibes!" - The above are all accusations any skeptic at work can expect to hear. In fact, By Rodrigo Neely Article ID: 1213 "Naysayer!" "Why do you want to take away people's beliefs?!" "You're just narrow minded!" "You give off bad vibes!" The above are all accusations any skeptic at work can expect to hear. In fact, I suggest that if you are a skeptic and you have not heard these accusations, you are not doing your job. There is a vast network of skeptical organizations. Every major city in the US must have one, and smaller cities would find themselves well supported to start one. In addition to the giants such as the James Randi Educational Foundation, and Center for Inquiry, smaller groups litter the globe. If you are enraged and frustrated by the prevalence of pseudoscience in our society, then there are plenty of ways for you to get involved in skeptical activism. In fact, skeptical activism can be as simple as talking about the website you are on right now. Once you engage the world as a skeptic, there are many issues that will become extremely prevalent. If you are already an active skeptic, read this and know these challenges are being addressed by us all. Atheism is going to come up. Like it or not, if you are a skeptic and you socialize with other skeptics, you will encounter atheists. I have yet to meet a skeptic activist in person who is neither atheist nor agnostic. But I have seen them on the internet, like a rare species right out of cryptozoology. Yet, we as skeptics do not know what to do with atheism. It's like the communist specter from Carl Marx, but instead of brewing among the workers, its brewing among the skeptics. Many of us are atheists, and we think that there is too much religion in the world, and it's intellectually dishonest to doubt ghosts while faithfully embracing with the "Holy Ghost". Many skeptics think embracing atheism as integral to skepticism makes us ineffective consumer advocates. Atheism carries a terrible stigma in society. Most people report they could not elect an otherwise qualified atheist president. This is scary. Perhaps it is better that skepticism stay in the atheist closet. If you thought atheism was hard to get around, wait until you deal with the academy. What is the academy? Universities. As a skeptic, you will have to deal with college professors, their egos, social ineptitudes, tendencies to bore people, and somehow try to get somewhere with them. James Randi immortalized this sentiment by saying, "Some kinds of stupidity, you have to have a PhD to achieve." Yet, it is the academy we ultimately defend. At least the scientific academy, because we work towards the public embracing science as the way to tell what is true. The academy yields fruit for us. One delicious apple from the tree of knowledge is Susan Blackmore's meme theory. Susan Blackmore did not coin meme theory; this was done by Richard Dawkins. But one need only read the comments in Blackmore's book The Meme Machine in order to realize she has Dawkins' blessing. Meme theory simply states that spreading ideas behave a lot like genes. In behaving like genes, ideas which are socially spread will evolve. That's right - evolve - just like lung fish and viruses. And the speed of meme evolution can be ridiculously fast. Still unclear? Think of a game of "telephone", and how the message radically changes from one end of the game to another. This is meme theory at work. It gets really interesting if you start to add competing messages to the game of telephone, and some messages die out as triumphant memes infect human hosts. This is a falsifiable scientific theory. As skeptics, I suggest we must become Dr. Blackmore's research assistants as we begin to deal with our issues in the context of meme theory. Is atheism something we shouldn't discuss in skeptical activism? Can atheism - a strong meme - be in an environment in which it is triumphant? If we start thinking of things this way, we could find our ideas spreading faster and better. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/religious-censorship-and-free-speech/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/religious-censorship-and-free-speech/#comments Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:44:31 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/religious-censorship-and-free-speech/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/religious-censorship-and-free-speech/feed/ 1 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/01/06/the-danger-of-religion-in-politics/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/01/06/the-danger-of-religion-in-politics/#comments Mon, 07 Jan 2008 02:53:03 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/01/06/the-danger-of-religion-in-politics/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/01/06/the-danger-of-religion-in-politics/feed/ 9 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