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/pop-culture/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/06/01/the-myth-of-computer-security/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/06/01/the-myth-of-computer-security/#comments Tue, 01 Jun 2010 05:09:23 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=2019 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/06/01/the-myth-of-computer-security/feed/ 28 Andy Kaiser by Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1411 - "The computer: an extension of the human intellect. ...soon, the ultimate tool will become the ultimate enemy." - Tron (1982) Greetings, programs! - Let me tell you about a myth, a story, by Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1411 "The computer: an extension of the human intellect. ...soon, the ultimate tool will become the ultimate enemy." - Tron (1982) Greetings, programs! Let me tell you about a myth, a story, a fable that’s been concocted and perpetuated by certain groups in the media. It’s a story about how – with proper protection – your computer is immune to cyber attacks, viruses and other malware. That’s the story but it’s not true. I’m talking about the myth of computer security. There’s no conspiracy here, just unprepared software. Microsoft and various security companies are doing their best against the bad guys, who are attacking faster and more creatively than the good guys can keep up. The days of the independent lone hacker are gone. They’re still around, of course, but the brunt of the malware industry is focused at a much higher level, where the bad guys are multinational groups, or are sponsored by enemy governments, or are run by organized crime syndicates. So yes, there is a war. And the good guys are not winning. With increased complexity comes increased chance of failure The problem is that the methods of computer attack are so advanced, we need extremely complex software to protect against them. It’s so complex that security software sometimes causes more problems than it’s worth. In May of 2010, the “Sunbelt Vipre Enterprise” antivirus software released updated versions of their malware protection, which they do multiple times per day. However, the update versions 6272, 6273 and 6274 caused the PC CPU to max out, essentially making the computer inoperable. The fix was to kill the Vipre process long enough to install the quickly-released patch, often requiring a system reboot. That’s not too bad, right? It could be worse. It could be, for example, like what happened in April 2010 with the McAfee VirusScan Enterprise product’s recent update version 5958. That update mistakenly identified a critical system process as being a virus. The result is that affected computers would crash and bluescreen and would no longer boot. The fix usually required a few minutes of physical access to the PC. Some unlucky users had to reinstall Windows. I’m picking on these companies because they were recently in the news at the time I wrote this article. I can easily blame other antivirus products as well. In fact, I love McAfee VirusScan Enterprise – I’ve personally recommended it to and set it up for many of my clients. Same with Sunbelt’s Vipre Enterprise – in fact, that’s my employer’s current software of choice. They’re good products. But the very nature of what they’re meant to fix makes them complex, more invasive and unstable. [Author's edit: Many readers took the above to mean that I endorse or recommend all versions of McAfee. Not true. I hate the preinstalled and retail McAfee junk. But the corporate-level, partner-resold McAfee software – "McAfee VirusScan Enterprise" is a good product, and is something a home user would never see. This is the only McAfee product I like. Unlike their bloated, ugly home versions, VSE is lightweight, has a tiny footprint, is super-functional and customizable, and is easily managed. My goal in writing this section was not to recommend any AV package over another, but just to illustrate that no solution works really well, and all are open to self-inflicted damage.] Remember that in the above cases with Vipre and McAfee, I’m not talking about single PCs in someone’s home. I’m talking about centralized networks of hundreds or thousands of computers. How would you like to be an IT admin that day, when you realize that one thousand of the computers you are responsible for are completely out of commission? Phishing and user tricks The previous examples are just problems where our protection fails us. But there is yet another class of malware, the kind that either tricks the user into installing it, Andy Kaiser clean 14:18 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/02/01/mental-percolations-on-the-league-of-scientists/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/02/01/mental-percolations-on-the-league-of-scientists/#comments Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:04:32 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1877 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/02/01/mental-percolations-on-the-league-of-scientists/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 144 - As some of you know, I'm writing the first book in what will hopefully be a young adult mystery series called "The League of Scientists". It takes place in the "real world" - it's not fantasy or science fiction. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 144 As some of you know, I'm writing the first book in what will hopefully be a young adult mystery series called "The League of Scientists". It takes place in the "real world" - it's not fantasy or science fiction. It's about the adventures of friends who use critical thinking and applied science to solve seemingly-supernatural mysteries. It's already been accepted by "Science, Naturally!", a traditional book publisher, but it's not yet available in stores. It should be available in late 2010 or early 2011. Here's the latest: Things have gone very well with the book, of which the full title is "The League of Scientists and the Ghost in the Water". While I'm sure future efforts will be faster, it took me quite a while to write it, even when I don't have the length of a standard adult book. My comparatively short 35,000 words still took a lot of keypresses. I've been meeting with the cover artist on a weekly basis to design and approve the artwork. After more than 70 hours of work (which includes conceptual designs as well as the actual final oil paining), we're pretty much done. The book itself has its own website at LeagueOfScientists.com, but some of you may have seen it elsewhere. You can follow it on Facebook and Twitter, and of course here on Digital Bits Skeptic. I've also had it mentioned and introduced on the "Swift Blog" of the James Randi Educational Foundation. I'm very lucky to have the JREF's continued interest and promotion. Special thanks to outgoing President Phil Plait and the Randi.org editor Brandon Thorp. I also have a surprise. You know how some books have a "famous person's quote" on the book jacket? Mine will have one of these, too. And the person I've got to do the promotion... well, let's just say that most everyone in the skeptical community - and many outside of it - have heard of him. This skeptical celebrity is... ...going to remain a surprise for just a little longer. I can't say who it is right now. While he's already committed to getting me a review and a quote, I don't yet have it in my greedy electronic hands. Heck, worst case is that he may not actually like the book! So, I'll let you know after I have the review. Believe me, the Digital Bits Skeptic audience will be the first to know. Your only hint is that this person is not female. That cuts the field by quite a bit. Record your guesses, good luck, and I'll let you know later if you guessed right. What's next? If there's anyone interested in the nuts and bolts of the publishing process, speak up and I'll give some detail. But to keep things simple, I'll just say that, for the most part, the book is completely done, and what's next is the actual draft revision, proofing, and then publicity and publication. And, yes, I've already started writing The League of Scientists #2. That's right - you heard it here first! The current beta title for this work in progress is "The League of Scientists and the Magician's War". I'm still in the outlining stage right now - because these books are mysteries, I can't just start writing them without a general direction of where I'm going. I, just like you, have to figure out the mystery, only I have to know "whodunnit" a little bit sooner than you. So, the first book - "The Ghost in the Water" - is pretty much done and will hopefully be available within a year, assuming the publisher keeps to their schedule. Book #2 - who knows? Depending on how life's treating me, I can be a really pessimistic guy. In this case, I think my personality flaw is appropriate: if I keep my expectations low, no matter what happens with the book, I'll be happy with the results. Hopefully you will be, too. Andy Kaiser clean 3:19 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/13/water-on-the-moon/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/13/water-on-the-moon/#comments Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:19:29 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1701 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/13/water-on-the-moon/feed/ 4 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1348 - On October 9, 2009, NASA's LCROSS mission (Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite) slammed a "Centaur" rocket into the moon, into a dark, ancient crater named "Cabeus". After a silent explosion of moon guts, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1348 On October 9, 2009, NASA's LCROSS mission (Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite) slammed a "Centaur" rocket into the moon, into a dark, ancient crater named "Cabeus". After a silent explosion of moon guts, the rocket was destroyed. The resulting ejecta was huge, measuring six miles across. NASA then surveyed that moon plume, and found water. Even in the tiny section of the plume that the instruments could survey, they found about 27 gallons of water! H2O! Translucent gold! By Earth standards, the moon is still extremely dry, about as dry as a desert. But, even a desert can still hold enough water to support life. NASA's LCROSS mission is the first indicator of significant amounts of water in Earth's neighborhood. A critical person might say, "so what?" This is not the first discovery of water in outer space, or even on the moon. Other planets and moons contain ice, and perhaps liquid water, though we don't yet know how much of what states there are. The discovery of water on the moon is still very significant. Here's why: 1) Knowledge: We add to the current store of scientific knowledge. It puts another piece in the puzzle of how the Universe works, how the moon formed, and ultimately helps us to improve the human condition. 2) Alien life: It provides additional evidence to the notion that life could exist outside of Earth. For those who believe life originated on Earth through a natural process, having a higher abundance of life-making ingredients increases the chances of there being alien life. What do we need for life? From our current understanding, we need water, carbon, and an energy source. Carbon is everywhere. We know that water is remarkably abundant. Energy sources abound (we're not just talking about the sun). Get the right catalyst in place, and so-called miracles can happen. 3) Moon bases: When we get to the moon, we could "live off the land". There are two significant aspects: Humans who live there could drink the local water. They could also move around the moon with vehicles powered by a hydrogen/oxygen fuel source, all extracted from available water. And, there's another use for the oxygen: breathing! Fuel, water and life support are very expensive items to transport from the Earth to the moon. Having them already in place will make a moon base far easier to create and maintain. 4) Human life in off-world colonies: You don't think a moon base is important? Well, it is. Right now, we Earthlings are horribly susceptible to complete extinction. Our entire species could easily be wiped out. Take your pick of any horrible natural disaster. Just ask the dinosaurs why they didn't do anything about the fire from the sky, the killer rock that, so many millions of years ago, destroyed them all. There are also more embarrassing (but just as effective) ways to die, by killing off our own kind, something which we humans are perversely good at. In order to survive, we must spread the human species from off this planet. Here's a video, courtesy NASA, of the LCROSS mission and resulting lunar impact by the "Centaur" rocket. You can't actually see the rocket hit the moon, but it's still interesting to see the process to get the rocket to the moon itself: The discovery of water on the moon is powerful, no doubt. Don't just shuffle it aside as needless fact-gathering. This advance is just as important for scientific cheerleading as it is for powering future technology and off-planet living. This discovery doesn't just tell us more about our celestial neighborhood. It also gives us the ability to not only know our place in the Universe, but to change it. I can think of no better way to end this article than with this quote by Carl Sagan: "The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars." For those who really like the audio version of that quote, here's the full video: Andy Kaiser clean 7:00 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/06/facilitated-communication-and-rom-houben/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/06/facilitated-communication-and-rom-houben/#comments Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:57:21 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1683 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/06/facilitated-communication-and-rom-houben/feed/ 2 Sandra L Hubscher By Sandra L Hubscher Article ID: 1347 Editor’s note: The author submitted this article with the following private message. It’s important enough that, with the author’s permission, I’m posting it here: “I enjoyed writing this article in that I enjoy wr... By Sandra L Hubscher Article ID: 1347 Editor’s note: The author submitted this article with the following private message. It’s important enough that, with the author’s permission, I’m posting it here: “I enjoyed writing this article in that I enjoy writing, but other than that, really I hated it. The subject is so irredeemably sad, and filled with anguish for so many, that I wouldn't want to write something like this again anytime soon. It's hard to imagine facing these parents and telling them these things. I know they've probably all heard it before and none of them will likely take the time to read this, but even if they've been slapped a hundred times before by this information, the 101st isn't much lessened.” Update 03/02/2010: Months after the sensational news of Rom Houben’s ‘awakening’ via facilitated communication (FC) from a decades-long, traumatic brain injury-induced silence, there has come a retraction from his physician, Steven Laureys. After rigorous testing involving a number of facilitators and their clients, including Mr. Houben and his facilitator Linda Wouters, Dr. Laureys has declared: “We did not have all the facts before. To me, it's enough to say that this method [FC] doesn't work.” Three facilitators and their clients were involved in the testing, which was carried out by Dr. Laureys and others, including a Belgian skeptics group. In Mr. Houben’s case, he was shown or heard a list of 15 objects without his facilitator being present. When the facilitator was readmitted and Mr. Houben was asked to list the objects, there was not a single success. It is important to note, as Belgian Skeptics pointed out, that this was not a test of Mr. Houben, but rather of the method of communication others have imposed on him. Mr. Houben’s brain scans reveal activity very much like that of an uninjured brain and many, including Dr. Laureys, continue to have hope that they will find a method for him to reach out and ‘speak’ to the world. In November of 2009, a sensational story appeared out of Belgium: Rom Houben, a man who as a result of a catastrophic car accident had been in a persistent vegetative state for more than twenty years, was re-diagnosed as being fully conscious, indeed conscious for the whole twenty-plus years! Furthermore, he was now communicating to the world by typing on a large touch screen, giving words to the years of imprisonment in his own body. The story twinges our imagination wonderfully and terrifyingly - entrapment in plain sight, helplessness, rescue and reunion – hope to all of those in dire circumstances. Immediate to the story’s release, another narrative developed among skeptics – unwitting deceit and good intentions gone awry. While the diagnosis by Steven Laureys, Houben’s neurologist, is best left to fellow neurologists, the technique of facilitated communication, the method used on Houben to bring his ‘words’ out of him by typing, is a well-studied and understood phenomenon,  and is, unfortunately, a fraud. Facilitated communication, first developed in Australia in the 1970’s, has now spread worldwide and purportedly allows those with disorders like cerebral palsy, severe mental retardation, autism and others, to undertake the otherwise impossible task of communication. How does this work? A facilitator holds the hand or arm of the impaired person or client, supposedly giving the strength and steadiness necessary for the client to type with a single finger, one letter at a time. A video of Houben, including his facilitated communication, can be seen here: While it is possible that Houben’s facilitator is willfully perpetrating a heartless con, it is more likely in this case, and in all uses of facilitated communication, that the facilitator’s actions are attributable to the ideomotor effect. Familiar to anyone who’s seen a Ouija board in action, the ideomotor effect is defined as purposeful movement by a person not consciously aware of his movement. Andy Kaiser clean 8:59 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 player. 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/2009/11/08/the-league-of-scientists/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/08/the-league-of-scientists/#comments Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:47:52 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1615 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/08/the-league-of-scientists/feed/ 3 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1344 - Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. - The majority of people who visit Digital Bits Skeptic are - you’ll be shocked to know – mostly skeptics. Many of us here have related interests in critical thinking, in science, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1344 Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. The majority of people who visit Digital Bits Skeptic are - you’ll be shocked to know – mostly skeptics. Many of us here have related interests in critical thinking, in science, and in wondering about how the world works. This is just a guess, but it’s an educated one; these topics often go hand-in-hand. It is with this shared interest that I’d like to introduce you to my latest project, a book called “The League of Scientists”. If the book is successful, we’ll take it to a series. The full title for this first book is “The League of Scientists and the Ghost in the Water”. The League of Scientists stars several science-minded young adults. They use their knowledge along with skepticism and critical thinking to solve seemingly-supernatural mysteries. Kinda like what a lot of skeptics do, isn’t it? This is a “real” book – it’s not from a print-on-demand company or a vanity press. It’s been accepted by a traditional book publisher (Science, Naturally!), and I’m working with an editor to finish, edit and get it published. You’ll eventually be able to find it in big bookstores near you, and of course at the usual online places. I’m telling you about The League of Scientists because investigating our world and exploring mysteries with science and critical thought is important to a lot of skeptics. It is to me – that’s why I’m writing the book. (And knowing a little bit about the publishing industry, believe me, it's not for the money.) If you’d like to know more, visit LeagueOfScientists.com. The book isn’t available yet – the writing, editing, promotion and publishing process takes a while, particularly for a new, unproven writer like me – but, I wanted to get the word out to start driving interest. The sooner the better, because, well, it’s a lot of work and it takes a while. If you have kids, and if they like science and mysteries, go to LeagueOfScientists.com, visit the “Info” page, and sign up for email updates. I’ll let you know as I make progress on the book, and you’ll of course be notified when it’s available for purchase. If you are a young adult, and want to know more – anything from questions on the publishing process to The League of Scientists characters and story - let me know. This is my first experience working with a book publisher, but I’m happy to share what I know. And I'll share more League of Scientists updates as they occur. Stay tuned. Andy Kaiser clean 4:50 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/2009/09/20/global-warming-and-climate-change-why-theyre-so-hard-to-get-right/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/20/global-warming-and-climate-change-why-theyre-so-hard-to-get-right/#comments Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:15:35 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1515 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/20/global-warming-and-climate-change-why-theyre-so-hard-to-get-right/feed/ 15 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1337 - 1.8 trillion US dollars. That's the cost that Climate Change will inflict upon the United States by 2100 . But there is a problem with the 2008 NRDC report that generated this figure: it’s based on 2008 technology. By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1337 1.8 trillion US dollars. That's the cost that Climate Change will inflict upon the United States by 2100 . But there is a problem with the 2008 NRDC report that generated this figure: it’s based on 2008 technology. One of the oldest problems facing long-term forecasters is that no one can tell what technology is around the corner. In his 1968 book "The population bomb", Paul Ehrlich predicted, "In the 1970s and 1980s . . . hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” Oddly enough, 1968 was also the year in which the phrase “Green Revolution” was coined. What people frequently fail to notice is that the scientific controversy around Global Warming is (or, anyway, ought to be) as much social as it is physical. The global temperature going up by a few degrees is not a problem in itself – problems occur because we get an increase in the use of air-conditioning, more expensive electricity, the rising demand for water, et cetera. If possible, I want to avoid debating this physical science and focus on the social aspects. By “social aspects”, I mean how humans react to climate change, especially when there are also changes in technology. To see why this is a problem, lets look at the NRDC report. At one point, the NRDC looks at energy consumption and concludes that by 2100, “climate change will increase the retail cost of electricity by $167 billion and will lead to $31 billion in annual purchases of air conditioning units”. However, the increase in the cost of electricity is calculated by looking at the impact of higher temperatures on power generation plants with the technology that is being used now. If global warming (and energy prices) turn out to be as large problems as is projected, it wouldn’t be very surprising to see cheaper, more efficient air conditioning units hit the market. Indeed, the increasing efficiency of air conditioners is responsible for the fact that the amount of electricity consumed by AC units remains steady (as a fraction of the total electricity consumed by homes) even though the number of air conditioners bought has gone up dramatically. The same logic can be extended over the other sectors where the NRDC claims there will substantial damage: agriculture, for example. The NRDC claims that although the crops won’t be too badly affected in the first half of the century, the second half of the century (after temperature increases beyond six degrees Fahrenheit) will see crop yields fall dramatically. To see what’s wrong with this projection, put yourself in the shoes of a 1958 agriculturalist and try to guess what the global yield will be in 2008. (This puts Paul Ehrlich's 1968 predictions into a different - and more error-prone - perspective.) The NRDC seems to have forgotten that by 2050, hardier, heat resistant crops will be developed, especially if companies believe that a huge market for them is around the corner. To be fair, the NRDC does wonder about “the speed and accuracy of the farmer’s response to changing conditions…in view of the large year-to-year variations, it seems unrealistic to expect rapid, accurate adaptation.” Although this lack of savvy on the part of farmers is questionable, the loss of crops is not the real cost. Instead, the bigger picture must include the cost of adaptation. The ability of forecasters to predict the reactions of humans is terrible, and this includes those forecasters who have a strong incentive to be right. In a move that has since become a standard case study in economic textbooks, OPEC cut oil production in the mid 1970s in order to increase prices and make more profits. They succeeded for a while with the price of petrol quadrupling in many parts of the world. However, by 1980 prices had fallen back to their pre-crisis levels. When oil prices hit the roof, people began to look for ways around it. Andy Kaiser clean 8:27 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/06/episode-100-big-round-numbers-false-modesty-and-a-big-false-interview-with-james-randi/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/06/episode-100-big-round-numbers-false-modesty-and-a-big-false-interview-with-james-randi/#comments Mon, 07 Sep 2009 02:35:06 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1468 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/06/episode-100-big-round-numbers-false-modesty-and-a-big-false-interview-with-james-randi/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1335 - This is it, everyone! Digital Bits Skeptic episode 100! And to start things off, I’d like to make the following point: - A 100th episode means nothing. - That’s right – I’m going to be skeptical about myself. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1335 This is it, everyone! Digital Bits Skeptic episode 100! And to start things off, I’d like to make the following point: A 100th episode means nothing. That’s right – I’m going to be skeptical about myself. About Digital Bits Skeptic. About big round numbers.  What does 100 mean to me?  Does the fact that I’ve kicked out 100 episodes mean anything? I answer with all the passion at my disposal: I say, “No! It means nothing!” Yes, I can see celebrating a person living 100 years. That’s a huge accomplishment for any human, and, while 99 and 101 are also to be celebrated, 100 puts that long life in perspective. Whenever any human can add an extra digit to their tally of years, they’ve gotta be doing something right. (Or, in the case of superior genetics, they had something right done to them.) I can see celebrating an institution that’s lasted for 100 years. Say, for example, 100 years of a political movement. Or a country’s existence. Yes, of course you’re free from the shackles of whomever, and you’re out from under the tyrannical heel of those you rebelled against. That’s a lot more legitimate than a podcast. I’m sure that during the year 100 AD, they really whooped it up. In fact, let’s check the source of all knowledge: Wikipedia tells us the following things happened in 100 AD: 1) The Chinese invented the wheelbarrow. Somebody had to be the practical culture. 2) The Christian Gospel of John was written. You’d think it’d be many years earlier, but I guess not. 3) In India, a bunch of really, really good friends got together to compile the Kama sutra. Strange…  I see nothing about anyone celebrating the change from 99 AD to 100. Maybe people had other things to distract them, like the Kama sutra. Let’s get our critical thinking caps on for a moment. What does 100 mean? First of all, I didn’t really hit 100 episodes. I’m technically at 101, because the first podcast I did has an episode number of ‘0’, not '1'. I know, I know... it's not the smartest thing I've done. But I have a computer science background, and it made sense to me. What about the articles? Some of you may remember the Digital Bits Skeptic of 2007, when I wasn’t even podcasting. Even after I started podcasting, not all articles were converted into an audio version. In fact, at the time of this writing, there are 116 articles available! Finally, I simply don't want to brag how Digital Bits Skeptic hit episode 100. I feel too self-serving. I feel too egotistical. I feel lame. But who am I to say such things? I’m just an electronic nobody, shouting from an unusually dark and funny-smelling corner of the Internet. You won’t take my word for it. So let’s get someone here who has the authority, the personality of grandeur, to make an impression on you. Let me say hello to one of the skeptical kings of this era. Hello, James Randi. RANDI: I'm James Randi. ANDY: Um, yes. Hello, Randi. So, what do you think about Digital Bits Skeptic, and this 100-episode anniversary? RANDI: Our language skills should be carefully controlled and restrained. Used with great care. Meanings are often confused. ANDY: I agree! Very much. We've got to be careful in our communications, so that fans understand the exact meaning of what we're trying to say. So, about my podcast, Digital Bits Skeptic. RANDI: Yes! ANDY: My philosophy is that 100 episodes really isn't a big deal. You certainly have a long, incredible career. An "amazing" career, right? RANDI: No. That term is so overused. I hope that you feel thoroughly scolded. ANDY: I do. Sorry. But taking your own life into perspective, at what point do you think things are worth celebrating? For example, how long would I have to be podcasting, before it's impressive? RANDI: Thirty years. ANDY: Th... Thirty years?! RANDI: Absolutely. ANDY: So, everything I've done so far... The work I've done to get to this point. Is this at all significant? RANDI: No, Andy Kaiser clean 9:59 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/12/in-defense-of-oprah-winfrey/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/12/in-defense-of-oprah-winfrey/#comments Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:57:00 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1364 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/12/in-defense-of-oprah-winfrey/feed/ 5 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1330 - Oprah Winfrey was nothing more to me than an unseen TV show. I knew she was there, but never wanted to watch. Why would I? Her show was usually about clothes and cooking and redecorating and various "women's issues" th... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1330 Oprah Winfrey was nothing more to me than an unseen TV show. I knew she was there, but never wanted to watch. Why would I? Her show was usually about clothes and cooking and redecorating and various "women's issues" that I just didn't care about. I didn't have time for all that. I was a MAN. I had to get things DONE. No time for what I saw as fluff. I had important video games to play. Then years later, like some people do, I married a girl. My wife changed my viewpoint on many things, including how I felt about Oprah Winfrey. When I first realized my wife watched Oprah, I gave a long-suffering mental sigh. But, I figured I'd treat her Oprah-watching with the same respect she treated my video game playing: it would be tolerated, but never spoken about. But as I overheard a few things and learned some facts, my viewpoint changed. Oprah is a very good person. In 2007, Oprah spent $40 million to build the "Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls" in South Africa. She did this to provide educational opportunities to gifted girls who may not normally have a chance to succeed. In 2006, she raised money to help people recover from Hurricane Katrina. She got over $11 million in donations, and personally donated $10 million. In 1998, she started "Oprah's Angel Network", a charity designed to improve the lives of the underprivileged.  As of this writing, the charity has raised more than $51 million. And none of it is wasted - any overhead like administrative costs is personally covered by Oprah. 100% of donations actually get to those who need them. She's known to be an extremely philanthropic celebrity, if not the most philanthropic. I'm telling you these facts to show that Oprah herself personally cares about people, and she's willing to spend major chunks of her time and money to help others.  I'm telling you this to make clear what I believe about her personality - that whatever she might believe or promote, she's not malicious. Now we come to the situation today. It was my wife that alerted me as to the events. She said, "I just read this really cool Newsweek article about Oprah. I think you might be interested." The June 8, 2009 article was a long feature story on Oprah, detailing the medical quackery she's had on her show, from ineffective New Age scams  to dangerous anti-vaccination medical advice popularized in multiple interviews with Jenny McCarthy. It pulled no punches. The piece was titled, "Crazy Talk: Oprah, Wacky Cures and You". Then, just a few hours later, the skeptical community virtually exploded in glee. The big skeptical names brought out their big cannons, and fired. People in and outside of the skeptical community wrote their own "open letter to Oprah", expressing well-reasoned arguments as to why Oprah shouldn't be doing what she's doing, essentially bolstering and supporting the Newsweek article. So Oprah got slammed by the mass media. Hard. And don't get me wrong - she should be held accountable for popularizing such claims. Particularly when those claims go against the consensus of the medical community. Particularly if those claims could cause harm to others, either by intention or negligence. Particularly when Oprah is so influential. But in the press that followed the Newsweek article, people seemed to really hate Oprah herself. In my Inbox right now, I have an email from someone with the self-righteous subject line, "Oprah gets what is coming to her".  Reader's Digest magazine followed up with an article, "The Trouble With Celebrity Science". You'll find plenty of not-so-polite opinion pieces. Some are intelligent. Some have titles like "Oprah is an idiot" and "Oprah fails at everything". Well, Oprah is not an idiot. She doesn't "fail at everything". This is clear. A smart person can be uncritical and taken in by ideas they hope are true. A good example is Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes. Andy Kaiser clean 9:54 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/2009/06/12/the-ideomotor-effect/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/12/the-ideomotor-effect/#comments Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:25:50 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1126 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/12/the-ideomotor-effect/feed/ 7 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1326 - The ideomotor effect is a psychological accident that spans many new age traditions, séances, and other "woo-woo" practises. I must emphasise that these practises aren't faked intentionally. By M Parrott Article ID: 1326 The ideomotor effect is a psychological accident that spans many new age traditions, séances, and other "woo-woo" practises. I must emphasise that these practises aren't faked intentionally. People delude themselves into believing they are true. Examples of the ideomotor effect cover a wide range of supernatural games, from Victorian-era séances to examining the most harmoniously-vibrating new age crystal. The ideomotor effect and the Ouija board Ah, yes, one of the most popular séance tools! Today, Ouija boards are usually perceived more as a joke and a fun party game. We all know the basic principal and layout of the most common Ouija boards - you've got a flat board with letters of the alphabet printed on it: You've got a "planchette", which is a small pointing device that can be slid around the board. Participants put their hands on the planchette and concentrate on a particular problem, question or spirit communication. The planchette will then start to move towards particular letters or symbols on the Ouija board, giving you a response to your question. If you want to test this out as we go, it would be a great exercise and far superior to me just talking to you: 1) Get 26 small sheets of paper. Write the letters A-Z on the pieces. 2) Get a large table and remove any coverings (like tablecloths). 3) Place all the cards face up in a circle so it looks somewhat like the picture you see here. Candles are optional. 4) Get a strong wine glass (preferably one without wine inside). Turn it upside down and place it in the centre of the cards. And there you have a homemade Ouija board. The next steps work better if you have more than one person, however you can try it alone if you want to tempt the Powers of Darkness all by yourself. Turn one letter over so it's face down. Place two fingers on the wine glass. Concentrate. Focus on believing that the wine glass WILL definitely move towards that one letter turned upside down. Don't move your hand intentionally, but if the glass moves move with it. Keep concentrating. It will move if you concentrate. And it'll speed up towards the letter and when it gets there it will stop at the letter. Now that may not have worked for all of you, but it will have worked for some. I also apologise if the wine glass shot off the table and smashed. If so, that just means you are really easy to manipulate. Now you may be wondering how that worked and why the glass moved. You know for a fact you didn't move the glass. So how did it move? Through a genuine spirit! Nah, just messing with you. The movement happens because of the ideomotor effect. The ideomotor is the mechanism which makes your reflexes kick in when your knee is tapped gently with a doctor's hammer. But in this case what happens is, due to you focusing so much mental power on something, your body makes it physically happen. You may not think you are doing it, but you are, and the more you are convinced it is going to happen, the faster it happens. Which is why a Ouija board "works" better for people who use one more often. What evidence do I have for this? Easy: find a medium who will do the Ouija board blind-folded. Blindfold them, and then without telling them, turn the Ouija board around. As the "Ouijing" commences, the medium will move the planchette to the locations that they think the letters are, as if the board was rotated correctly. This shows the Ouija board is all in the user's mind, and that it isn't some spiritual communion. Ouija boards aren't the only evidence of the ideomotor effect in new age superstitions. Dowsing Dowsing is traditionally thought of as the process of finding underground water or oil using Y-shaped sticks or wire. To a large extent, this is the process. But dowsing has widened its spectrum of effect. A few years ago, I saw a dowser trying to find human remains on a British Archaeology programme called "Time Team". Andy Kaiser clean 11:07 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/31/lotteries-a-suckers-game-or-a-rational-choice/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/31/lotteries-a-suckers-game-or-a-rational-choice/#comments Sun, 31 May 2009 16:55:13 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1077 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/31/lotteries-a-suckers-game-or-a-rational-choice/feed/ 12 David Annis By David Annis Article ID: 1323 - I enjoy playing the lottery. But I often hear it described as a tax on those who can't calculate the odds.  I think that view is wrong for four reasons. - The first reason that the lottery is worth paying money for is ... By David Annis Article ID: 1323 I enjoy playing the lottery. But I often hear it described as a tax on those who can't calculate the odds.  I think that view is wrong for four reasons. The first reason that the lottery is worth paying money for is because of the highly positive-skewed outcome. The premise of the argument that lotteries are a tax on the stupid, that paying for something with a negative expected financial return is one that its proponents apply only to the lottery.  Many things we buy are bad deals: movie theater popcorn is far more expensive than anywhere else, yet we don't think of movie theater popcorn as a tax on those not smart enough to feed themselves at home. One could argue that lottery tickets - unlike popcorn - return only monetary rewards. However, lottery tickets are not the only thing that we buy which pay back money and have negative expected return.   Every year I pay for homeowner's insurance, knowing that the odds are stacked against me. In fact, homeowners would be better off investing their insurance payments and taking their chances.  Since most homeowners realize that part of every dollar sent to the insurance company goes to administration and corporate profits, why do they continue to pay for it?  It's because humans have a large aversion for highly negatively skewed outcomes (like the small probability that your house burns to the ground) and a strong desire for highly positively skewed outcomes (like winning the lottery jackpot). Those who rail against the lottery seldom rail against homeowners insurance, despite the fact that it too has a negative expected return.  If I can pay a premium for a set of outcomes that eliminated a negative skew, why can't I pay a premium for a highly positively-skewed outcome? The second reason that the lottery is worth paying for is entertainment value. Playing the lottery can be as entertaining as a movie, at a fraction of the price.  Thinking about the gifts I'll get my wife, the college libraries I'll endow to ensure my kids get into a good school, and the new car I'll buy gives me great pleasure. The third reasons are civic duty and charitable giving. Lottery revenues are often used to fund education, a worthy goal.  I donate regularly to the schools through various fundraisers and through the Okemos Education Foundation.  The value of the tax deduction I get is less than the typical 50% of revenues that are used for prizes in a lottery.  Why shouldn't I give through the lottery as well? Finally, the fourth reason is that the lottery is sometimes a good deal. Let's take as an example Michigan's Lotto 47. In this game six numbers between 1 and 47 are randomly selected. The goal is to match three or more of these six numbers.  Tickets cost $1 USD and prizes and odds are detailed below. Numbers Matched Odds Prize Value 6 1 in 10,737,573 Jackpot 5 1 in 43,649 $2,500 $0.057 4 1 in 873 $100 $0.115 3 1 in 50 $5 $0.10 Ignoring the jackpot for now, we get roughly 26% of every dollar back in prizes.  So, when the jackpot reaches a level that returns more than 74 cents per dollar we would be wise to invest.  That occurs when the present value of the jackpot reaches $7,945,804.02.  We need to adjust the advertised jackpot for two things; to adjust the prize to the present value of the annuity payments and the chance that we split the prize with another lucky winner. As a rule of thumb, the present value of a lottery annuity is roughly half the total value of the payments, so the break-even prize if you were guaranteed not to split the prize would be $16,000,000. Calculating the odds of splitting the prize is difficult, because the number of bets varies over time and is related to the size of the prize.  We can, however, approximate the odds of splitting the prize.  In 2008, total sales of Lotto 47 tickets were  64,129,000 or  616,625 per drawing. Andy Kaiser clean 8:03 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/17/the-meaning-of-life-and-podcasting/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/17/the-meaning-of-life-and-podcasting/#comments Sun, 17 May 2009 17:29:42 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1039 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/17/the-meaning-of-life-and-podcasting/feed/ 11 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1321 - I have no idea how I first started listening to the deò's Shadow podcast. But there I was. A skeptic. A secular humanist. An atheist. And I was listening to and enjoying a podcast that targeted pagans. Pagans! By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1321 I have no idea how I first started listening to the deò's Shadow podcast. But there I was. A skeptic. A secular humanist. An atheist. And I was listening to and enjoying a podcast that targeted pagans. Pagans! Nature-communing, naked-fire-dancing, tarot-card-reading, Winter Solstice-celebrating pagans! Many pagans believe in multiple gods and the supernatural. Many secular humanists don't. On paper, I'm the opposite of a pagan. But I listened. I listened to this podcast that lectured in depth about things I thought were nonsense. But that was okay. I liked deò's Shadow for two reasons. First, the hosts (husband and wife team deò and Mandy) were talented and charismatic. Second, the show was (for lack of a better description) kinda skeptical. Yes, they focused heavily on pagan-centric stuff that rubbed my hackles in a way I didn't want rubbed. But they also supported issues important to skeptics. Some you may know, like Kirk Cameron's odd assumption that the physical design of the banana proves the existence of God. Or a criticism of "The Secret", an Oprah-advertized self-help guide that's just cuckoo. Or how to profess a liberal belief system in a land populated by fundamentalists. As the podcasts went on, many topics and conversations crossed from pagan ley lines into skeptical latitudes. In fact, the second-to-last podcast of deò's Shadow was titled "Skepticism, Science and Scientology". A short time later, the podcast stopped. No more episodes. With a bit of research, I found why. deò and Mandy said: "Making deòs Shadow was usually a joy, and as the show grew more popular, we had many opportunities for new experiences which helped us to grow as people. One of the interesting side-effects of such growth is that one can end up growing out of that which induces the growth. We've moved on from Paganism and are now practicing atheists." Cool. Good for them, you know? Not because they came over to a philosophy I support, but that they were willing to significantly change their lives based on what they believed, even though it would mean the loss of some very important things. That conversion took intelligence, research, and self-confidence. It was a thinking change. I respect that, whether you're moving to my philosophy or away from it. This next sentence might sound like a violent derailing of the topic, but trust me: Let me tell you about my philosophy of life. Andy's meaning of life Everyone asks, "Why are we here? What's the point of life?" No one really knows for sure, so we have to make an intelligent guess as to the answer. Here's what I've come up with so far: Produce, create and use what ability you have to improve the world and the lives of those around you. Leave something good behind. Help others. Teach others. Raise good kids. Or, say, as a completely random example, try to produce a critical-thinking podcast to the best of one's ability. Someday I'll die. When I'm gone, I want something left. Yes, my genes will be around in my children, my family and friends will have memories and stories. But I'm talking more. I'm also talking about the horrible alternative of having done nothing at all. If I do nothing, I've rejected our evolutionary imperitive to further the species. Or in a more personal take, I've wasted the biggest opportunity any of us ever gets. This concept is best explained in one of my favorite books, "The Circus of Dr. Lao", by Charles Finney. In the book, a woman thinks it would be fun to go to a fortune teller and have him predict her future. Little does she know, the fortune teller is gifted - and cursed - because his fortunes and predictions are always 100% accurate. This is what he tells her: "Tomorrow will be like today, and the day after tomorrow will be like the day before yesterday. I see your remaining days each as quiet, tedious collections of hours. You will not travel anywhere. You will think no new thoughts. Andy Kaiser clean 11:33 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/10/the-swine-flu-crisis/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/10/the-swine-flu-crisis/#comments Mon, 11 May 2009 02:07:30 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1002 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/10/the-swine-flu-crisis/feed/ 9 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1320 - The news lately has been buzzing about the swine flu. Excuse me, I mean the "H1N1 virus". Or the "2009 H1N1 influenza virus". Or the "H1N1 swine flu". - You know what? I'm going to forego the medical designation and ju... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1320 The news lately has been buzzing about the swine flu. Excuse me, I mean the "H1N1 virus". Or the "2009 H1N1 influenza virus". Or the "H1N1 swine flu". You know what? I'm going to forego the medical designation and... Andy Kaiser clean 15:22 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/03/anti-depressants-and-the-placebo-effect/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/03/anti-depressants-and-the-placebo-effect/#comments Mon, 04 May 2009 02:09:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=988 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/03/anti-depressants-and-the-placebo-effect/feed/ 15 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1319 - It's a growing trend to believe that a pill can cure anything. Any aches, any pains, any sores. It's a big reason why people are still looking for a pill to make you thin. While I think we have become far too reliant on ... By M Parrott Article ID: 1319 It's a growing trend to believe that a pill can cure anything. Any aches, any pains, any sores. It's a big reason why people are still looking for a pill to make you thin. While I think we have become far too reliant on pills, I'm not saying to scrap all drugs. They save lives, they save the economy money and they stop your pain. However, there is a specific type of drug that I have a problem with - the anti-psychotic. Or, to be even more specific, the anti-depressant. There are at least seventy-three anti-depressants on the market. For something that is supposed to "cure" depression, that's a lot of drugs. Let me explain where this idea comes from, that a drug will cure a psychological disorder. It relies upon a theory called the "monoamine hypothesis". This theory suggests that depression is caused by low levels of three neuro-chemicals from a group called monoamine neurotransmitters in the central nervous system. In bi-polar patients, the subject's levels of monoamine neuro-chemicals will fluctuate depending on whether they are in a depressed or manic state (low levels for depression, high for mania). What evidence do we have for this effect? Urine. No, honestly, urine. When studying the urine of people with depression we find they have low levels of by-products of dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin. Autopsies show that those who commit suicide have these same low levels. It therefore seems plausible that depression is caused by low levels of the three neuro-transmitters. However, correlation does not equal causation: there are no ill effects when artificially inducing low-levels of these three neuro-chemicals. The participants do not become depressed. This suggests that low-levels of serotonin, noradrenalin and dopamine do not cause depression. If this is the case, then the whole idea of anti-depressant drugs is a fallacy. What about the drugs themselves? Proponents of the monoamine hypothesis argue that anti-depressants work, therefore proving that the theory is correct. However, this justification by circular reasoning doesn't fly. More on that later. Let me first outline what anti-depressants are. There are four main types; SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitors), MAOIs (monoamine oxidase inhibitors), SNRIs (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) and TCAs (tricyclic antidepressants). Medical doctor Arif Khan (1979-1999) tested the effectiveness of three substances; Sertraline hydrochloride (an SSRI), St John's Wort (a plant from which most anti-depressants are made) and sugar pills (a placebo). The effectiveness test came back with a surprising result: sertraline hydrochloride was effective 25% of the time, St John's Wort was at 24% and sugar pills were at 35%. Actual anti-depressant drugs were less effective than a placebo. That's depressing. More research supporting these results is by Professor Irving Kirsch et al. (1998, 2002 and 2008), who showed that anti-depressants do not have enough statistical significance in comparison to placebos. Another point is that TCAs are also used to treat ADHD. You should treat ADHD with depressants, and yet TCAs - anti-depressants - are used to treat depression. I question any group of drugs used as depressants and anti-depressants at the same time. After studying these drugs and the monoamine hypothesis, it appears that the lack of serotonin, noradrenalin and dopamine is a psychological disorder manifesting itself in a physiological symptom. For example, we don't say that Tourette syndrome is caused by sudden inappropriate language, but that Tourette syndrome causes the inappropriate statements. Some argue that if anti-depressant drugs are placebos, at least they seem to do something. This is not a good plan. We should instead pursue other treatments for depression, rather than assuming one little tablet can cure such a complex thing as a psychological disorder. Andy Kaiser clean 6:47 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/2009/04/05/sugar-acid-and-teeth/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/05/sugar-acid-and-teeth/#comments Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:24:21 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=922 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/05/sugar-acid-and-teeth/feed/ 25 Andy Kaiser,Diane Johnson By Andy Kaiser Expert analysis by Diane Johnson Article ID: 1315 - I like to multitask. When I listen to other podcasts, I'm not simply staring at my computer speaker or glazing over as my headphones talk to me. I do other things. I browse the web. By Andy Kaiser Expert analysis by Diane Johnson Article ID: 1315 I like to multitask. When I listen to other podcasts, I'm not simply staring at my computer speaker or glazing over as my headphones talk to me. I do other things. I browse the web. I drive my car. I may eat, and, as what logically follows, drink. And it's that last one - drinking - that's today's topic. I'm a member of the Skeptoid mailing list. (Skeptoid is a podcast created by Brian Dunning. For those who aren't aware of it, I strongly recommend you check it out.) There was an interesting discussion on the mailing list. This assertion appeared: "Diet Pepsi is okay [in terms of overall health], but Diet Coke is bad." As we discussed the issue, others brought up a point: What about tooth decay and really sugary soda pop, like Coke and Pepsi? We know that pop is acidic. It's probably bad for your teeth. And it's loaded with sugar, which contributes to tooth decay. A dentist chimed in to the conversation, saying that in her experience, Mountain Dew is absolutely the worst drink in terms of tooth decay. In her practice, this seems to be the drink of choice for those with enamel wear and decay. But correlation, as they say, does not imply causation: just because two things appear related doesn't mean one thing caused the other thing. So the questions remained: What drinks are the worst for your teeth? Instead of using guesses and personal anecdotes, is there a way to objectively measure how bad a drink is for your teeth? Before we continue, I'll ask you this question, and we'll answer it later on in this article. Think about your answer, and see if it matches my test results. Here's the question: What type of drink do you think is the worst for your teeth? Your choices include pop, coffee, juice, milk, tea, sports drinks and yes, alcohol, including various beers, wines and liquors. After you pick the genre of liquid, can you pick the type or even brand? For example, we've already stated pop is bad for your teeth. Do you agree with the previous Mountain Dew assessment? What about Coke products? Or Pepsi versus Cherry Pepsi? And are all these really worse than milk, juice or alcohol? Think about your answer. I'll have the results for you soon. That's the intent of this article, to find a way to rate the "badness" of drinks in terms of tooth decay. So I ran to the store and purchased dozens of popular drinks. Juices, pop, coffee drinks, sports drinks, milk and a variety of alcohol. I then ran home, eager to test all these liquids. And... I realized I had no idea what to do next. This is where it helps to know people who are smarter then you. The doctor I mentioned earlier is Dr. Diane Johnson, DDS. Johnson is full-time practicing orthodontist and has been in private practice since 1986. Her undergraduate degree is a BS in Biomedical Engineering from Northwestern University, her DDS is from Northwestern University Dental School, and her MS is in Orthodontics from the University of Illinois. She reviews for the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. Dr. Johnson says: "We deal with the harmful effects of dietary choices every day, and since the largest part of our patient population is teenagers, we see a lot of pop consumption. ...my first bit of advice would be to never drink pop! You'll probably have headaches for 2-3 days while you are withdrawing from the caffeine. Yes, caffeine is extremely physically addictive; one of the ways - like nicotine in cigarettes - that companies make sure you come back for more of their product. To mitigate the effects of pop consumption, only consume it with meals.  Brush soon after eating or drinking anything besides water (including milk or juices). Chewing gum with xylitol will inhibit plaque bacteria (Trident makes one, but you have to look specifically for the one with xylitol).  This will help with the sugar part, Andy Kaiser clean 17:06 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/29/how-to-be-a-psychic/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/29/how-to-be-a-psychic/#comments Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:13:06 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=903 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/29/how-to-be-a-psychic/feed/ 2 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1314 It is my belief that self-proclaimed psychic Uri Gellar has been deluding people for several decades by bending spoons, stopping watches, changing the movement of compasses and making predictions as to what is on a piece o... By M Parrott Article ID: 1314 It is my belief that self-proclaimed psychic Uri Gellar has been deluding people for several decades by bending spoons, stopping watches, changing the movement of compasses and making predictions as to what is on a piece of paper. I am a magician and I can replicate each one of these. Contained in this article are various videos of Geller failing or unintentionally revealing his secrets. I will also - to a degree - tell you how he does these tricks. Please understand I can't tell you everything, as magic must have its secrets. Let's start with the easiest: how to magically stop a running watch. How to stop and start a running watch Do this trick with two warnings: you may damage a watch with this technique, requiring a trip to a watchmaker for repair. Also make sure your target watch is not a Rolex, as they often will not restart. Get an analogue watch and a magnet. Whack the magnet on the back of the watch and it'll stop.  Easy, right? Nothing too hard, apart from palming the magnet. And you can even get around that requirement, since magicians like to make things as easy as possible. There are magnetic rings. Geller also supposedly starts "broken" watches. Here is one technique: grab a watch that hasn't worked for years. Warm it in your hands. By that warming process, a few broken watches will start to work. Admittedly not all, but some of them. How to magically move a compass This one is easy. And I even have a video for this one. One way is to use a magnetic ring like before. Another is to use a magnetic fake thumb. You know how a compass works, and you know how a magnet would change it. I have a video for you: Well... That seems a bit weird. For legal reasons I can't say he cheated as Geller tends to sue people. However if you look you can see him putting something on his thumb, or it appears that he does. Also the final (successful) attempt is the only one where you cannot see his thumb, so he may be trying to hide something. Notice the word "may". I can't say anything for sure. There is also another technique that Mr. Geller could use. In his earlier clips of this trick you will note that you can see his thumb all the time. However, you could easily repeat this effect by placing strong magnets under your shirt. Spoon bending The magic community has plenty of material on these effects. Far more impressive cutlery bends too, like forks! It's easy, though not all metal will bend. Some are easier than others. But the general idea behind any metal bend is the same, be it spoons, forks, coins, keys, it all comes down to the same thing, and that is misdirection. If you have no knowledge of basic magic principles then you have no idea what I am on about. So let me explain. Misdirection is the art of, surprisingly, misdirecting people. A simple but very effective way of doing this is by talking and asking questions. If you ask someone a random question, that person - for a split second - will stop concentrating on you, and that's your opportunity to do anything. Corinda (writer of the mentalist bible "13 Steps to Mentalism") alludes that - using misdirection - you should be able to bring in a chocolate-covered elephant being ridden by trumpet-playing pigmies without anyone noticing. Actually, Corinda didn't say exactly that. I'm exaggerating to make my point. But the principle still remains. Go up to someone, show them a normal spoon. Take it back, ask them a question, while they're thinking about your question, bend the spoon. Watch in amazement as they later see that the spoon is bent. Well... It's not that simple. There is also the use of "ratcheting". This is the technique of making something look like it's bending, when it's been bent already. Cover the bend, then place two fingers on the spoon and start rubbing. With a bit of practise you can make it look like it is bending in your fingers. Spoon bending example and explanation: Andy Kaiser clean 11:04 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/2009/02/14/orgone-chips-review-new-age-versus-the-scientific-method/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/14/orgone-chips-review-new-age-versus-the-scientific-method/#comments Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:46:35 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=706 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/14/orgone-chips-review-new-age-versus-the-scientific-method/feed/ 11 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser - - Article ID: 138 - Orgone is a magical energy force that's inside and outside our bodies. You can think of orgone as the Chinese culture's "chi" or any generic "life force energy". It permeates us and everything around us. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 138 Orgone is a magical energy force that's inside and outside our bodies. You can think of orgone as the Chinese culture's "chi" or any generic "life force energy". It permeates us and everything around us. Using ... Andy Kaiser clean 17:47 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/2009/01/10/getting-dirty-with-bacteria-panic-and-unjustified-sterilization/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/10/getting-dirty-with-bacteria-panic-and-unjustified-sterilization/#comments Sat, 10 Jan 2009 21:16:27 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=608 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/10/getting-dirty-with-bacteria-panic-and-unjustified-sterilization/feed/ 4 David Annis By David Annis Article ID: 132 - Recently I was watching The Today Show.  During one segment, they cultured swabs from what looked like clean kitchens and bathrooms.  I watched as they swabbed sinks, microwave ovens, and toilets. By David Annis Article ID: 132 Recently I was watching The Today Show.  During one segment, they cultured swabs from what looked like clean kitchens and bathrooms.  I watched as they swabbed sinks, microwave ovens, and toilets.  Imagine my shock when they found all sorts of bacteria.  I was even more horrified when I found out that the kitchen was the worst offender, both in their specific example and in the rest of the world. Horrified, I rushed home and began researching what I needed to do to protect myself.  A little research on the web revealed a study that found "nearly half of all kitchen sinks harbor high levels of potentially dangerous bacteria."  My house is dirtier than most as a result of three young boys that have priorities other than cleanliness.  Convinced that we were doomed, I ran to my car so that I could shop for Lysol, Clorox, and an autoclave. As I drove I began to have misgivings.  To protect myself from dangerous, potentially disease-causing bacteria I'd need to either stop kissing my wife or simply sterilize her mouth.  I knew this was true because we once plated our breath to settle a bet.  She's got bacteria in her mouth.  (As an aside, I can assure you with a high level of certainty that calling your future wife "dog breath" is far more dangerous than giving her a kiss, despite my study having an N of only 1.) The study of bacteria in homes was sponsored by Lysol ® brand products, makers of cleaners and disinfectants.  Now there is a funder with a financial interest in the study's outcome.  I also realized that if nearly 90% of sponges and 48% of sinks are swarming with bacteria, we should all be sick and dying or those bacteria rarely cause harm. Nevertheless, I was determined to try to make my house bacteria free.  I knew that NASA scrubbed spacecraft free of all life before sending them off to Mars, lest we find that life on Mars was only a bacterial contaminant brought by Earthly spacecraft.  Perhaps I could use their methods.  Unfortunately, a New York Times article that I read not long ago began "Researchers have found a surprising diversity of hardy bacteria in a seemingly unlikely place - the so-called sterile clean rooms where NASA assembles its spacecraft and prepares them for launching." So, it looks like I will not achieve a sterile environment in my kitchen, whether or not I use Lysol ® products.  In fact, I found that if the hygiene hypothesis is correct and increased exposure to "infectious agents, symbiotic microorganisms (e.g. gut flora), and parasites" helps a child's immune system, then providing a sterile environment for my kids would be detrimental to their health. There has also been concern about the use of anti-bacterial products in the home contributing to the development of drug resistant organisms though at least one study found no effect over a period of one year. Don't get me wrong, I recognize that food-related illness is a serious problem, causing about 76 million illnesses a year in the U.S.   Bacteria can and do cause disease, but consider the numbers we're dealing with: You yourself have more bacteria in your body than you do human cells.  I'll wash my hands and my sink. But I refuse to lie awake at night, frightened by the fact that neither my hands nor my sink will ever be sterile. Andy Kaiser clean 5:38 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/#comments Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:28:33 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=530 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/22/in-defense-of-murderous-humans-animals-at-steak/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1265 - "Puppies." Even the word is cute. With just a few very oddball exceptions, you'd agree with me that puppies are adorable. But at what point do people stop using the term "man's best friend", By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1265 "Puppies." Even the word is cute. With just a few very oddball exceptions, you'd agree with me that puppies are adorable. But at what point do people stop using the term "man's best friend", and start saying "pass the salt"? I'm talking about the inherent differences between humans and every other animal on the planet. After all, as the smart, tool-using, big-brained creatures we are, do we not have an imperative to nurture and care for all the other animals on the planet? No. Not when animal rights are compared to humankind's safety, science or even hunger. In my own country - the United States - eating dog meat is considered taboo. We're just too emotionally close to our pets. Elsewhere, dogs are eaten and bred as a food supply: this occurs in China, Indonesia, Korea and Vietnam. Other countries eat dog meat more covertly, in more remote locations, or are used as a food supply in times of famine. These countries include France, Germany, India, Nigeria, the Philippines, Switzerland, and near the Arctic and Antarctic. In times of desperation, the competition for life becomes a free-for-all. Stories like Jack London's "To Build a Fire" are understandable - if a man is freezing to death, of course he'll kill his trusty dog for its body heat. If a man is starving, he'll feed himself with whatever's available. This desire for life is so strong it's even visible between humans. For those who have sung and danced through the black comedy, "Cannibal: The Musical" or the 1993 movie "Alive", we know that people in extreme situations will ignore the most fundamental of taboos to stay living. Life or death situations are pretty easy to argue. But throw in some ambiguity and it gets tricky. When immediate death isn't part of the equation, at what point is it morally acceptable to kill an animal? I argue that it's allowed under these two situations: 1) It's morally acceptable for humans to eat most animals. We are omnivores. We are designed to eat meat, and we get certain nutrition from meat we can't easily get from other sources. 2) It's morally acceptable for humans to perform research and testing on animals if that effort has a chance of saving or improving human lives. Animal testing to further our scientific knowledge is an imperative. We would advance slower or not at all without animal testing, because the alternative with today's technology would be to test on humans. Even as I write these words, I don't like them. I believe they are true, but I don't enjoy having to pick what is clearly a lesser of two evils. However, I'm confident in the above because of this premise: All else being equal, any human life is worth more than any animal life. This idea may in fact be at the core of every animal rights issue. If someone has to suffer and die so that humans don't have to, then the animal must take this terrible burden. Why? Because someone has to - we don't yet have the technology to do otherwise. If we are altruistic to animals, humanity would suffer. In a rather brutal summary of the above themes, we end with this quote by comedian Nick Dipaolo: "If hooking a car battery up to a monkey's brain will help find the cure for AIDS and save somebody's life, I have two things to say... the red is positive and the black is negative." Andy Kaiser clean 5:58 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/15/christmas-traditions-revealed/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/15/christmas-traditions-revealed/#comments Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:56:42 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=519 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/15/christmas-traditions-revealed/feed/ 7 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1264 - It's the middle of December. In the northeast United States, snow blankets our houses, and ice and slush cover our roads. People curse and sweat as they shovel and salt and sand, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1264 It's the middle of December. In the northeast United States, snow blankets our houses, and ice and slush cover our roads. People curse and sweat as they shovel and salt and sand, all futile attempts to keep the frozen pestilence at bay. Our economy is sinking with the inevitably of the Titanic, yet retailers everywhere beg consumers to spend, spend and spend. To sum this up in two words, we say, "Merry Christmas". Or for the secular, there is the vague and meaningless "season's greetings". For the astronomically-inclined, "happy winter solstice". Or "Happy Birthday", for the followers of Christianity's "Jesus" and the Zoroastrian's "Mithra". Or, if we have any ancient Romans reading, "happy Saturnalia and Sol Invictus". Whether or not you're religious, you can't make it through this time of year without encountering the most famous seasonal mascot ever: Santa Claus. Originally called "Saint Nicholas" by the Dutch, the pronunciation sounded more like "Sint Nikolass". As the Dutch helped colonize America, the name was reshaped for non-Dutch tongues, and evolved into "Sinterklass", and finally into "Santa Claus". Santa's unique and warm-sounding name is nothing more than the byproduct of verbal evolution. I'm not out to be an evil skeptic and suck the joy out of the season (not intentionally, anyway). The idea for this article started with my wife and me, from a deep and meaningful conversation about Christmas. We had questions like, "why does Santa have to come down the chimney? Isn't that dirty and uncomfortable and just a bit dangerous for him and the reindeer?" Or, "what's this whole disgusting eggnog thing about, anyway? I hate that stuff." ...Okay, maybe it wasn't a deep conversation, but it was fun. I started researching various traditions of the Christmas season and the jolly, fat man behind it. Here is my examination of some of the more popular aspects of the Santa mythology and why we have certain Christmas traditions. The origin of the word "Christmas" "Christmas" is the word for the season (or at least it was the word until those pesky non-Catholics got involved). The word is just a combination of two words: "Christ" and "mass". The "Christes maesse" was just the Old English religious celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Over time, the two words of "Christes maesse" merged into "Christmas". The origin of Santa Claus and Saint Nicholas We've just covered the origin of Santa's name, so no need to repeat that here. But Santa the person actually did exist. "Saint Nicholas of Myra" was born in Turkey in the city of Patara somewhere around 280 AD. From an early age he was a dedicated Christian, and some sources say he was a monk or a bishop. Though he gave away money and presents as an anonymous benefactor, word somehow got out, and people loved him for his overly generous nature. The fourth-century Romans, for some reason, didn't like this. They held him in contempt of the Empire, and Nicholas was jailed and tortured. Emperor Constantine later freed Nicholas. Nicholas then gave away all his wealth and traveled Europe, giving help to the needy. Saint Nicholas' feast day is also the day of his death, December 6. In 1087 AD, a delegation of well-meaning Italian sailors broke in to Nicholas' tomb and stole its contents. From this tomb they took relics and other goodies, and moved them to Bari, Italy. They are there today in a building called "Basilica di San Nicola", or the "Basilica of Saint Nicholas": Yes, kids, how's that for morbid: you can actually visit the reliquary and tomb of Santa Claus. Even today, it's a very popular pilgrimage destination. Pilgrims think that the incense additive myrrh is magically secreted by Santa's relics. Those who are anointed by this myrrh supposedly experience wondrous miracles of healing. In 1822, Clement Moore published a poem called "A visit from Saint Nicholas". Andy Kaiser clean 13:09 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/08/funny-underused-crude-knowledge-a-vulgar-examination-of-profanity/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/08/funny-underused-crude-knowledge-a-vulgar-examination-of-profanity/#comments Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:35:04 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=507 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/08/funny-underused-crude-knowledge-a-vulgar-examination-of-profanity/feed/ 8 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1263 - [An editor's note to parents and teachers: This article contains words considered offensive to a large portion of the sixteenth century English-speaking world. Proceed with caution.] - Profanity is an interesting subject, By M Parrott Article ID: 1263 [An editor's note to parents and teachers: This article contains words considered offensive to a large portion of the sixteenth century English-speaking world. Proceed with caution.] Profanity is an interesting subject, particularly in today's over-sensitive culture. Some say that profanity is a big problem. They claim it can ruin a child's upbringing and destroy innocence and purity. You know what I say to these people? "Balderdash! Piffle! Poppycock and poop!" Profanities are just words. A phonetic collection meant to communicate a recognizable concept. Just like what you read now is no more than a collection of squiggles to create "letters". These so called "letters" create words. But what are they really? Nothing. Just something made up by humanity by the very first communications major. It's also a philosophy thing. With the same reasoning, we can deduce that a chair is not a chair, but a series of electrons, protons and neutrons that form something we recognise as a chair. So how is profanity any different? Some linguists theorise vulgar words have harsher sounds. For example the letters "ck" in - well, you know, the really bad one - make the word harsh and abrupt. By this theory we should also be offended by the word "duck". But this is far from the case! You never overhear anyone saying, "So the guy says, ‘duck her? I hardly know her!'" No, it just doesn't happen (unless you live in some weird area with an even weirder sense of humour). So the phoenetics idea too is bunkum. Perhaps a word can be judged by its meaning. This is another theory for why profanities are classed as profanity. Since sexuality is often shameful, words with sexual meanings are classed as profane. That's utter bosh and most certainly tosh! They're just synonyms. One terrible word means nothing more than sex. Another one means no more than poop. Yet they're so offensive! Does this make sense? How can one word's meaning be so offensive while non-offensive synonyms mean the exact same thing? Some words change levels of offensiveness over time. "Humbug" is a prime example. Ehrich Weiss (also known as Harry Houdini) used to label so-called "psychics" as "humbugers" because this word was shocking and offensive at the time. It's very similar in intention to a certain TV show starring Penn and Teller whose name we will abbreviate to "B.S.". So what has changed since the era of "humbugers"? I'll tell you: Pipsqueak! Nada! If profanity like "humbug" is so offensive, why does it change in meaning a century later, while the truly offensive words never change? Those seem to be a permanent fixture of the English language, whereas mere profanity changes along with a culture. Have you ever been called a "ninnyhammer"? A "blaggard"? Or (my personal favourite) "wanksplash"? I think not. These are all era-dependant. Take today's profanity: I give it at most 150 years, after which these terrible words will sound as silly as today's "humbug". Look to the teachings of the great George Carlin. Examine closely his "seven dirty words" (which, perhaps ironically, won't be quoted on this family-friendly site). Carlin's list is already changing: would you really classify numbers two and seven as profanity (you know the words: **** and ****)? ...Apparently the Digital Bits Skeptic decency filter does, but I don't, and I think many would agree with me. And Carlin's list is only thirty-six years old. Why, if these words were so offensive, are they quickly becoming non-offensive? George Carlin did teach us that these "profanities" are no more than words. But they are useful words - They truly punctuate your point. A quick experiment for you: Say the sentence, "That's awful." Now throw in an expletive of your choice. Isn't that so much better? Here's some food for thought: do you honestly really care about such words? Do you truly despise profanity? What is it about an individual word that offends you so much? Andy Kaiser clean 7:15 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/2008/11/17/more-original-versions-of-classic-fairy-tales/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/17/more-original-versions-of-classic-fairy-tales/#comments Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:59:08 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=477 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/17/more-original-versions-of-classic-fairy-tales/feed/ 30 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1260 - [This article is a companion piece to "Original meanings of classic fairy tales".] - Fee! Fie! Foe! Fum! I smell the blood of an Englishman. Be he live, or be he dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1260 [This article is a companion piece to "Original meanings of classic fairy tales".] Fee! Fie! Foe! Fum! I smell the blood of an Englishman. Be he live, or be he dead, I'll grind his bones to make my bread. It's a cool speech. But when you think about its literal meaning and the murderous intent of the giant ogre in "Jack and the Beanstalk", you know - even as a child - that some fairy tales have strong undercurrents of gore and violence. You can confirm this by examining classic fairy tales and learning their original versions. Many of today's fairy tales have been retooled to save our children from terrible stuff like blood, guts, sex, and unplanned pregnancies. Unfortunately, that means the original lessons of many fairy tales have been mangled or lost entirely. Parents and teachers, this is a warning. Here be sex, gore, and worse: the potential destruction of fun childhood bedtime stories. The original story of Jack and the Beanstalk and Jack and His Bargains An interesting aspect of this story is that Jack's adventure with the beanstalk was not his only tale. There were many stories in what is called the "Jack cycle". "Jack and the Beanstalk" just happens to be the most popular one. One example from the Jack cycle is called "Jack and his Bargains". This story starts with Jack and his father, and can be thought of as a sequel to Jack and the Beanstalk. Jack is asked to sell the family cows for money. And like the Beanstalk story, he doesn't, but instead trades the cows for magical items. In this case, the items are a magical stick (which physically beats anyone once Jack activates it by saying, "up stick and at it"), a singing bee, and a fiddle which plays beautiful music. Jack uses these items to impress a local princess, after which they get married and have "baskets full of children". On to the beanstalk: in "Jack and the Beanstalk", Jack sells the family cow for magic seeds, as the cow (named "Milky White") no longer gives milk. These seeds are planted, and a giant beanstalk grows out of the ground and high into the sky. Jack climbs the beanstalk. At the top, nestled in the clouds, is a giant castle. A huge ogre lives in the castle. The ogre gives us the memorable line of "Fee! Fi! Fo! Fum!" Jack makes three trips, and each trip has a similar plot: he hides from the giant (twice in the giant ogre's oven, and once in a cooking pot), and steals the ogre's possessions (a bag of gold, a hen that lays golden eggs, and a golden harp). An fun twist is that the ogre is married. The ogress actually helps Jack hide from her husband, and she and Jack get along great together when the ogre isn't around. As Jack escapes after his third theft, the golden harp in his hands comes alive and starts screaming for help. The ogre chases after Jack. Jack descends the beanstalk with the ogre close above him. He calls for his mother to cut down the beanstalk with an axe. The mother gets the axe, but freezes - she can't do it. Jack drops to the ground, frantically chops down the beanstalk, and the ogre dies from the fall. I end up feeling sorry for the ogre husband and wife. They seem to have lived a pretty good life in the clouds, in their own castle, along with some pretty cool magical gadgets. And here comes Jack to ruin it all, with no moral justification for his repeated burglaries and his final murder of the ogre. The morals of the original Jack and the Beanstalk: Grow up and stop being an infant. You must be able to independently strike out alone to provide for a family. The killing of the giant by destroying the beanstalk is a nicely phallic representation of the need to supersede male influence, taking control of one's own life and rejecting superstition and magic. The original story of Beauty and the Beast The father is rich. There is no mother. The father has three sons and three daughters. The youngest daughter, the most attractive, Andy Kaiser clean 25:17 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/2008/10/27/original-versions-of-classic-fairy-tales/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/27/original-versions-of-classic-fairy-tales/#comments Mon, 27 Oct 2008 05:39:27 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=412 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/27/original-versions-of-classic-fairy-tales/feed/ 23 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1257 - [This article is a companion piece to "More original meanings of classic fairy tales".] "Oh Grandmother, what big ears you have!" "All the better to hear you with, my dear." "Oh Grandmother, what big eyes you have! By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1257 [This article is a companion piece to "More original meanings of classic fairy tales".] "Oh Grandmother, what big ears you have!" "All the better to hear you with, my dear." "Oh Grandmother, what big eyes you have!" "All the better to see you with, my dear." "Oh Grandmother, what big hands you have!" "All the better to grab you with, my dear." "Oh Grandmother, what big teeth you have!" "All the better to eat you with, my dear." Thus begins the true terror of Little Red Riding Hood. Do you know what happens in the original story? Find out, and this Halloween you may think twice when you see certain costumes. This Digital Bits Skeptic article keeps to the usual credo of skepticism and critical thinking. But since it's a Halloween special, it also gets pretty creepy. A quick alert to parents and teachers - this article doesn't have forbidden words, but revealing the dark nature of beloved childrens' fairy tales may be too much for young kids. It's almost Halloween. In less than five days, young children will dress up, put on makeup or a mask, and knock on strangers' doors, expecting oodles of free candy. And they get it. The kids are happy, the strangers are happy, everyone wins except dental insurance companies. When I was younger, the cool costumes were made from anyone from the Star Wars movies. I too donned the smelly, sweaty plastic mask, and trick-or-treated as Darth Vader. Being probably three feet tall made me a much less imposing figure. My friends all did the same. Movies and TV shows dictated our choices. A costumed resurgence occurred at the time Disney started remaking classic fairy tales, like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, and rereleasing older movies like Cinderella and Snow White. The Little Mermaid was big. Girls everywhere dressed up like Ariel and knew line-by-line the story of unrequited love eventually rewarded. Yet, this isn't the original story. Did you know that the original Little Mermaid story by Hans Christian Anderson ended with the Little Mermaid's death? She essentially committed suicide because she was unwilling to kill the prince, who was already married to someone else. It's not quite the happy Disney ending. Yet, I remember being a kid, being somehow more satisfied when I heard the "real" endings of fairy tales. It's like watching the TV-edited version of an R-rated movie. The R-rated version is invariably better, and was the director's original intent. Even though the original fairy tale storylines deal with nasty issues, they are truer than hiding behind a Disney-esque ending. They reflect the original violent themes of some fairy tales: that the world is a dangerous place, certain behavior is tolerated and some isn't, and some people are here to protect you, and some will hurt you. For those who really like to dig deep, fairy tales also involve heavy symbolism and psychology. The Hansel and Gretel story is an examination of children's emotional growth and eventual rejection of parental supervision. Many tales (like Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel, and Sleeping Beauty) have a heavily sexual tone, and explore sexual awakening and desire. Now that we've mentioned sex and violence, let's get to it and find about the original versions of classic fairy tales. The original story of The Three Little Pigs The Three Little Pigs is sanitized for today's children by telling the violence-packed story without the violence. We're left with a cautionary tale that shows how being smart is a good thing. The original has lost a lot. The original Three Little Pigs is a lot longer, as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't stick with blowing down houses. He does do that to get the first two little pigs. Those unfortunate morsels are quickly terrorized and eaten. The third pig - the smart one - is the holdout. Unable to blow down the third pig's house, the wolf tries guile. He tries to tempt the pig out of the house, Andy Kaiser clean 15:13 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/2008/10/04/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/2008/09/13/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. I'm not sure how popular it is in other parts ... 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/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/2008/08/23/the-problem-with-retrospective-studies-why-whats-good-for-you-changes/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/23/the-problem-with-retrospective-studies-why-whats-good-for-you-changes/#comments Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:08:10 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=106 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/23/the-problem-with-retrospective-studies-why-whats-good-for-you-changes/feed/ 1 David Annis By David Annis Article ID: 1245 - I often hear the complaint how scientists "change their minds" about what makes a healthy diet.  Why does that happen? - When studying human health, especially studies involving diet over an extended period of time, By David Annis Article ID: 1245 I often hear the complaint how scientists "change their minds" about what makes a healthy diet.  Why does that happen? When studying human health, especially studies involving diet over an extended period of time, it's difficult if not impossible to get subjects to agree to allow researchers to control what they eat and drink, so cohort studies are done. (A cohort study is a study of a group of people who share common characteristics over a period of time.) Furthermore, since retrospective studies are cheaper and quicker than prospective studies, studies are often retrospective. Studies done this way, however, have several problems.  The largest issue may be that correlation does not imply causation.  For example, a study at the Utah Health Sciences center found that the more diet soda in a person's diet, the more likely that person was to become overweight or obese.  "After adjusting for age, sex and ethnicity, Williams found that regular soft drinks were no longer significantly linked to the incidence of becoming overweight or obese, but diet soft drinks were." The media will pick up a press release about this study and report that diet soda can make you fat, but correlation does not imply causation.  For example, soft drink sales may be highly correlated with shark attacks, not because soft drinks cause sharks to attack, but because hot weather makes people buy soda and go swimming. Let's think about what may be going on in this case.  We understand that weight gain is caused by consuming more calories than you expend, and since diet soda has no calories, while it is correlated with weight gain, it does not cause the weight gain.  However, I would guess that soft drink consumption is highly correlated with consumption of fast food, which is highly caloric.  Of the people that consume a lot of fast food, those that are starting to experience weight gain are more likely to choose diet soda than those that haven't experienced weight gain.  So, diet soda consumption is probably highly correlated with people who have a slowing metabolism and a habit of eating fast food.  Perhaps, it is not the diet soda that is the problem, but the type of restaurant where large portions of diet soda often accompany the food. The next big issue with cohort studies is that they often look at hundreds or thousands of factors since it is not very efficient to run a large study, gather data, and analyze it to look at only one type of food.  Scientific studies, however, rely on statistical analysis to determine whether something is true.  Even if your estimated error is less than one percent, in a study examining thousands of items some will appear to have an effect even though they are just statistical aberrations.  These false positives are then reported, and when a new study fails to confirm them as true, the press reports a scientific "change of mind". Finally, when a cohort study is retrospective, the problem is compounded since retrospective studies often rely on memory.  If you developed lung cancer, asthma, emphysema or other respiratory problems, you may be biased when asked by a researcher about the number of cigarette packs you've smoked. Be careful with retrospective studies. Look at the detail. You might find that what was reported may not be what really happened. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/17/the-limits-of-evidence-based-medicine/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/17/the-limits-of-evidence-based-medicine/#comments Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:56:08 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=105 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/08/17/the-limits-of-evidence-based-medicine/feed/ 2 David Annis By David Annis Article ID: 1244 - For many years, doctors have been free to practice medicine in almost any way that they saw fit.  They could use drugs to treat conditions for which they were not approved and use any procedure on any patient from whom... By David Annis Article ID: 1244 For many years, doctors have been free to practice medicine in almost any way that they saw fit.  They could use drugs to treat conditions for which they were not approved and use any procedure on any patient from whom they obtained informed consent.  At times this led to doctors treating patients in a manner not supported by scientific research. Recently, there has been a vigorous movement to get doctors to practice "evidence-based medicine".  This movement advocates treating every disease based on the available scientific evidence about treatment efficacy and risk.  I have been a strong proponent of this; after all, how can I oppose those who espouse belief based merely on faith and then not support evidence-based medicine? However, I've lately been forced to rethink my position on evidence-based medicine.  It sounds good initially, but there are limitations to its real-world applications: The subjects in drug trials and other studies are seldom an exact match for the patients that a doctor is treating.  The trial may have been done using patients in a different age range and physical condition.  Most trials purposely exclude people with medical issues other than the one being studied. A treatment that was well tolerated in a patient population with a median age of 35 may not be appropriate for a 60 year old with renal insufficiency. Diagnostic categories are sometimes not exact.  For example, a patient may have some symptoms that are consistent with ADD and others that are consistent with Autistic Spectrum Disorder.  A doctor - forced by the insurance company to choose - may diagnose ADD, but still wish to treat for symptoms of Autism Spectrum Disorder. All evidence is not equally good.  Some studies are better designed than others, and sample sizes and levels of statistical significance vary.  There have been attempts to assign a level to each piece of evidence to indicate its quality, but there are still differences within a level. And levels can sometimes be misleading based on the rules used to classify the evidence. Even if the quality of the evidence is classified properly, evidence can be contradictory.  How many weaker studies are needed to overcome the results of a stronger study? The answer is subjective. The process of developing a set of evidence-based guidelines is not an entirely impartial and objective process. Insurance companies try to influence the process in a way that keeps costs low. Drug companies try to influence the process in a way that ensures their products are included in the standard protocol.  Those that evaluate the scientific evidence may have their own biases affecting the outcome. A good doctor looks at the specific individual in front of him, uses his knowledge of how the body works, the patient's specific constellation of diseases, the patient's physical and mental state, and decides on the course of treatment that is best for that individual.  Attempting to reduce that clinical judgment to a flow chart and checklist does a disservice to both the patient and the physician. I am certainly not advocating allowing doctors to treat pain with voodoo dolls and crystal power, but I do believe that we are in danger of allowing the pendulum to swing too far.  Physicians are highly educated professionals, dealing with highly complex, poorly understood systems, including the human mind and body, disease causing organisms, and the natural fauna that exists in and on all of us. They also have to process a continual stream of new information and new discoveries.  Reducing clinical care to a set of checklists and decision trees is a disservice to us all. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/07/08/a-field-trip-to-edgar-cayces-association-for-research-and-enlightenment/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/07/08/a-field-trip-to-edgar-cayces-association-for-research-and-enlightenment/#comments Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:19:12 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=98 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/07/08/a-field-trip-to-edgar-cayces-association-for-research-and-enlightenment/feed/ 10 Tammy Buchli By Tammy Buchli, Science & Reason in Hampton Roads Article ID: 1238 - When my local skeptic's organization (Science & Reason in Hampton Roads) announced a field trip to Edgar Cayce's Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, By Tammy Buchli, Science & Reason in Hampton Roads Article ID: 1238 When my local skeptic's organization (Science & Reason in Hampton Roads) announced a field trip to Edgar Cayce's Association for Research and Enlightenment in Virginia Beach, I was... Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/29/psychic-stagecraft-how-to-change-from-magician-to-miracle-worker/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/29/psychic-stagecraft-how-to-change-from-magician-to-miracle-worker/#comments Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:23:40 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=95 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/29/psychic-stagecraft-how-to-change-from-magician-to-miracle-worker/feed/ 3 Peter Booth By Peter Booth Article ID: 1235 - Mentalism is a form of performance magic that simulates the paranormal, most commonly mind-reading, predicting the future and psychokinesis.  Magicians get involved in skepticism because much of the time the so-called ... By Peter Booth Article ID: 1235 Mentalism is a form of performance magic that simulates the paranormal, most commonly mind-reading, predicting the future and psychokinesis.  Magicians get involved in skepticism because much of the time the so-calle... Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/04/the-ten-percent-of-the-brain-myth-a-fractional-truth/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/04/the-ten-percent-of-the-brain-myth-a-fractional-truth/#comments Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:16:11 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/04/the-ten-percent-of-the-brain-myth-a-fractional-truth/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/04/the-ten-percent-of-the-brain-myth-a-fractional-truth/feed/ 6 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1229 - In writing this article, I tried to use ten percent of my brain. I really did. But I got stuck pretty fast on the method of how to actually use only ten percent of my brain. There seem to be many ways to go about it. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1229 In writing this article, I tried to use ten percent of my brain. I really did. But I got stuck pretty fast on the method of how to actually use only ten percent of my brain. There seem to be many ways to go about it. For example, I could just think this article in my head, and only write down every tenth word. But the results would be incomprehensible. I could decrease my writing quality to 10% of its usual stellar technique. But that would be annoying for any future readers. I could remove 90% of my writing tools, and type this article using only one finger. But that would just slow me down significantly, when I'd be getting the same final result. Wait: I could encode the characters in this article into their base-10 ASCII equivalents. I'd then take the resulting numeric string and increase its value by a factor of 10, then convert the results back from ASCII into plain text. Mathematical perfection. Granted, it would be unreadable mathematical perfection. That's counterintuitive to the purpose of Digital Bits Skeptic, so maybe that's not the best idea. No, as much as I'd love the symbolism, I can't easily write this article using ten percent of my brain. Yet there are some who argue that's what everyone does all the time. Everyone, that is, apart from a few special gifted people. The first time I heard the myth of "you only use 10% of your brain" was when I was very young. Oddly, I was probably about ten. I had a respected family member fill me in. She said that the human potential had yet to be fully realized. Humans had dormant skills and talents. These super-cognitive powers were trapped in the brain, and using them required special training or a lot of luck. She said that there were a few people (she specifically mentioned Edison and Einstein) who used a little more of their brain, and they were able to really understand the world, and create and invent and make life better for all mankind. And, she said, these world-changing scientists only used "maybe twenty percent" of their brains. Wow! The implications were staggering. I thought, if I could use just twenty percent of my brain, I'd be up there with Einstein and Edison? Not bad. At school, I only paid attention half the time. If I paid attention full-time, then oh, baby: I'd be a genius. Of course, this analysis is pretty goofy. And it's meant to be. I'm trying to show how a tool (like the human brain) doesn't mesh with the idea of partial use. How do you use ten percent of a hammer? The concept doesn't make sense. Yet we hear it often in pop culture, from referencing revered geniuses like Einstein, or when self-help gurus claim psychic powers or life-changing self-help. Granted, a brain is far more complex than a hammer. Think of it instead as a collection of tools. But again, are the "10% believers" saying some tools are lying dormant and unused? If humans use only ten percent of their brains, what is the other unused ninety percent? What tools in the toolbox are never touched? Let's look at some detail. This article in Psychology Today gives several tips to improve brainpower. Note that none of them talk about anything earth-shattering, as is proper for tried and true techniques. These are established methods, from regular exercise to eating your beans. The theory of multiple intelligences is an educational theory by Howard Gardner. The theory disagrees with the definition claiming a person is either a genius or not, or a smart person or not. Gardner says that if a person is deficient in one cognitive area (for example, math), that person can be above average in another area (for example, music). This concept details how all humans have potential, but motivation and other factors determine if a person uses that skill. To use a personal story, I went to high school. One of my schoolmates was a pretty big guy - that's "big" as in tall and muscular. He was over six feet, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/#comments Fri, 30 May 2008 02:59:55 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/29/the-%e2%80%9cbullshido%e2%80%9d-of-martial-arts-and-no-touch-knockouts/feed/ 5 Science Reason & Rationality by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1228 - Do you want to learn how to knock out an opponent without touching them? How about learning the art of fighting ghosts with the power of "The Force"? Well, here's your chance! by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1228 Do you want to learn how to knock out an opponent without touching them? How about learning the art of fighting ghosts with the power of "The Force"? Well, here's your chance! Japan's Yanagi Ryuken can teach you now. He holds a 10th degree black belt in five traditional martial arts, and his system is based on martial arts like Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu and spiritual paths like Qigong. Yanagi Ryuken supposedly won over 200 Vale Tudo competitions (these are "anything goes" fights, involving unarmed combat and minimal rules). According to the author of the video below, you need 500,000 yen (about $5,000 USD) in order to get a chance to fight with Yanagi Ryuken. However, if you win the fight, Yanagi Ryuken will pay you back double: 1,000,000 yen ($10,000 USD)! Good deal, right? With such a confident offer and so many claimed achievements and victories, you might think there would be more written about this martial arts master. However, little more can be found. Now, watch for yourself the Jedi-like "Master" in action using the power of the "Force". Good promotional video to attract new gullible students to join the Dojo (martial arts school), don't you think? That's what I call effective Bullshido! In this video, we have a genuine martial artist and a probable skeptic, Iwakura Goh. He accepted Yanagi Ryuken's expensive and intimidating martial arts challenge. In the resulting fight, Yanagi Ryuken gets to prove his claims by facing a real opponent on live video and in front of a live audience. Let's see what happens... Let's watch that again from another angle: This video only proves that Yanagi Ryuken's invisible "power" or "chi" or "chi kung" or "qi gong" or whatever you want to call it, is nothing but a human fantasized delusion. It has always been the case that when such claims are critically examined under properly controlled and observable conditions; the seemingly paranormal feats of "chi masters" turn out to be nothing but ordinary feats of deception, magic tricks or illusions, and are more of a natural ability than anything unnatural, supernatural or mysterious. Go ahead; try it yourself on a blind and deaf person or on any nonhuman animal. Will anything supernatural happen? Note that amusing the victim doesn't count. Another source says that Yanagi Ryuken claimed that he is able to actually fight ghosts. Too bad Iwakura Goh wasn't a ghost. Maybe then, Yanagi Ryuken wouldn't have ended the fight laying on the floor bleeding. Maybe then, he wouldn't have looked like a delusional clown. There's a silver lining to this story. Yanagi Ryuken has now decided to retire and will no longer accept any more challenges. And just when I was going to contact him to accept his challenge and make some money out of it too. Maybe there will be someone else like him in the future. Who knows? If there's a down side to this story, is that's some of Yanagi Ryuken's students and other gullible individuals might still believe or make others believe in such nonsense. They could make a living through the stupidity of others, right? I'm sure they'll find some excuse for what happened to Yanagi Ryuken that day. They'll dismiss reality, and go on arguing that no-touch knockouts really do exist. "There's a sucker born every minute." -David Hannum Like some rapidly spreading mental virus, this delusion has now infected Western countries, including the United States of America. In this video, Tom Cameron demonstrates his no-touch knockout "power"  on the Fox News show, "The bottom line". Tom Cameron was trained by a so-called martial arts Grandmaster, George Dillman. Let's now see what excuses George Dillman himself gave when his claims didn't work on a research scientist, Luigi Garlaschelli in a National Geographic special, titled "Superhuman Power: Is It Real?" Now that you heard all the fantastic excuses from George Dillman, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/22/in-the-name-of-bob-google-and-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-gods-and-religions-that-matter/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/22/in-the-name-of-bob-google-and-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-gods-and-religions-that-matter/#comments Fri, 23 May 2008 04:41:37 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/22/in-the-name-of-bob-google-and-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-gods-and-religions-that-matter/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/22/in-the-name-of-bob-google-and-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-gods-and-religions-that-matter/feed/ 0 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1227 - The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - - Timeline May, 2005. The Kansas State Board of Education began its decision process in whether or not Intelligent Design would be taught in Kansas public schools. By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1227 The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Timeline May, 2005. The Kansas State Board of Education began its decision process in whether or not Intelligent Design would be taught in Kansas public schools. A young man named Bobby Henderson wrote them an open letter professing belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a creature who created the universe after a heavy bout of drinking. Henderson went on to demand that the Pastafarian Theory of Creation be taught along with Intelligent Design and Evolution: "I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence." Inventing fake religions in order to attack formal religions has become immensely popular, whether it's a Henderson-like attempt to showcase the logical fallacies of religious arguments, or for a few convoluted laughs, like Discordianism. Let's identify Bobby Henderson's approach: reductio ad absurdum. The principle is simple: take your opponent's conclusions (e.g. there must be an Intelligent Designer), find the underlying principle ("the world's complexity demands an Intelligent Designer") and derive a conclusion from that principle which is so absurd that it blasts to pieces that principle and, by extension, your opponents' conclusion: "why shouldn't the Intelligent Designer look like spaghetti and meatballs?" The Invisible Pink Unicorn In addition to Henderson's now-famous Pastafarianism, another popular parody religion with rich literature is that of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The IPU has its origins in the early Usenet forum alt.atheism, with records going back to 1990. She is extremely popular on internet discussion groups where she is invoked for humorous and argumentative purposes. The IPU concept expanded in 1994 by a group of college students who created a manifesto, from which we get this famous quotation: "Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them." Written by Steve Eley - self proclaimed "Chief Advocate and Spokesguy" of the IPU - this quotation is used in response to the theist argument that atheists too are exercising faith - faith in a non-god - and that since God's existence cannot be disproved, he must exist. In that case, reply the atheists, the IPU - whose existence cannot be disproved - must also exist, Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves! The Jedi Census A non-existent religion was recently the center of a massive practical joke: the Jedi census. Citizens of English-speaking countries were urged - through a massive email campaign - to register their religion in the census as "Jedi". Nearly half a million people did so in countries like Australia, New Zealand, England & Wales, Scotland and Canada, with percentages ranging from .7% to 1.5% of the population. In many countries, "Jedi" surpassed serious religions like Sikhism or Buddhism. Most disturbingly, fourteen New Zealanders registered themselves as "Sith". The Church of Google One web-based religion - the Church of Google - declares that Google is in fact God. As proof, it points out that Google is omniscient (all-knowing, since it indexes billions of webpages) and omnipresent (it exists and functions everywhere on earth with internet access). It answers prayers a lot more efficiently than any other deity: all you have to do is type in your problem and it will come up with hundreds of solutions in less than a tenth of a second. Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/28/sodascience-an-open-letter-to-the-thirsty/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/28/sodascience-an-open-letter-to-the-thirsty/#comments Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:18:18 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/28/sodascience-an-open-letter-to-the-thirsty/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/04/28/sodascience-an-open-letter-to-the-thirsty/feed/ 1 Andy Kaiser by Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1222 - Okay, Soda. You've made your points. We get it. We know how much you love yourself. You want us to worship you as The One True Carbonator. "I am the one true Soda. Pour no other refreshments before me. by Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1222 Okay, Soda. You've made your points. We get it. We know how much you love yourself. You want us to worship you as The One True Carbonator. "I am the one true Soda. Pour no other refreshments before me." You're missing a critical aspect: nothing you say makes any sense. I'm not talking about manipulating emotions. I know you think that you taste the best. You've got the right blend of chemicals in your divinely inspired secret formula. Your followers praise that taste without understanding what they're drinking. When you drop the emotions and actually look at your claims, you put a bad taste in my mouth. Here's why: Sodascience makes factually wrong claims I've seen your ads. Your fliers, your commercials, your proclamations are everywhere. If you drink this soda, you'll get all the chicks or dudes you want! Unlike some other sodas, you keep this vague - you don't say whether the reward is, to pick a random example, 72 eager virgins. But hey, I'm not picky, just precise. If you really were all you claim, I'd be praising your artificially-sweetened name right now. But why are the people in commercials the only people benefiting from soda? Whenever I drink you, sure, I get less thirsty. Nothing more.  I'm never surrounded by CGI adventures or mostly-naked, tanned and toned members of my preferred sex. Actually, one thing does happen - I get this irregular heartbeat for about two hours. Thanks for all that blessed caffeine. Speaking of heart arrhythmia, it's telling how you preach that the One True Soda is the cure for all ills, but you never address any of your known abuses. You ever see that Mythbusters episode where they tried to dissolve a tooth with your acidic holiness? Or would you rather I bring up childhood obesity, diabetes, or a certain little carcinogen named "benzene"? Sodascience redefines its name to hide its agenda When I was a kid, we didn't call you "soda". We called you "pop"! Yeah, I know this is partially a geographical distinction, partially cultural. You've always had multiple names. But recently, it seems, your proponents shy away from the word "pop", or "cola", or "tonic", or equally outdated names. Why? I understand the desire to keep with the times. But don't call yourself "soda" in an effort to hide the fact you're "pop". The name you use doesn't change what you are. If you think people don't notice, ask other people what to call you. You might be surprised at the answers. Covering your agenda behind a new name is cowardly, self-serving and amoral. It also means you've got something to hide. Sodascience is outdated, preaching laws dreamt up years ago Let's face it, you're old. You were created long ago by people living a completely different lifestyle. There is something to be said for antiquity, of course. But holding to tradition for tradition's sake? That's just silly. Face it - the first marketed soft drinks appeared in the 17th Century. Why must you continue to preach that ancient era's racism, xenophobia, and scary dental hygiene? Isn't it time to get with the program? Come on already, it's been over 400 years! Improve yourself. Evolve. Of course, you can't. It's part of your nature. Even the old-fashioned name "Pop" is from those old days of sexism and woman-bashing. Sodascience claims unproven miracles Early soft drinks were said to produce miracles. They were a cure-all for whatever ailed you. Poor health. Infection. Erectile dysfunction. Covetous neighbors. Covetous neighbors with erectile dysfunction. Whatever the problem was, you just sprinkled that carbonated elixir and watched your worries bubble away. The problem is, we never hear about these types of miracles today. Nope, we get claims that are always second hand, untestable or misunderstood. Come on now. If you're really going to claim miracles, give us something we can work with. And continually bringing up your secret formula, 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/2008/03/16/this-is-the-dawning-of-the-age-of-asparagus-fortune-telling-goes-green/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/16/this-is-the-dawning-of-the-age-of-asparagus-fortune-telling-goes-green/#comments Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:57:52 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/16/this-is-the-dawning-of-the-age-of-asparagus-fortune-telling-goes-green/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/16/this-is-the-dawning-of-the-age-of-asparagus-fortune-telling-goes-green/feed/ 1 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1212 - - Jemima Packington is an "asparamancer". This is a vegetable-in-cheek way to describe fortune-telling using greenery. In Packington's case, the greenery is asparagus: she can throw asparagus spears on the floor, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1212 Jemima Packington is an "asparamancer". This is a vegetable-in-cheek way to describe fortune-telling using greenery. In Packington's case, the greenery is asparagus: she can throw asparagus spears on the floor, or have you throw them yourself. By the resulting positioning, as well as her chlorophyllic intuition, she will tell your future. How does this process work? How does Packington know her "asparamancy" works? According to Jemima Packington's interview as reported by the BBC, she said she started her fortune telling "quite by chance" some years ago after some stalks fell on her floor and she made a prediction that came true. Now, the source material says she helps "promote Worcestershire and its asparagus-growing tradition." It doesn't qualify if this is just a goofy publicity stunt to promote asparagus (we all know asparagus needs it, what with the vicious broccoli competition), or if Jemima Packington truly believes in her skill. Regardless of her motivation, there is a serious point between this and similar future telling techniques. From entrail-reading to tarot cards, these fortune-telling techniques "work" because of the diviner's intuition and interpretive skill. Two points can be made about these types of readings: 1) The Weekend at Bernie's Effect This is nothing more than a very old concept becoming re-popularized. Take the example of Hollywood "writers": creatively stagnate and devoid of original ideas, they now love to remake movies. They think a previously-used movie storyline will be successful today because the original was lost to the mists of obscurity (often referred to as "the 1980s"). This "ancient knowledge" is considered special for no other reason than its age. If "the ancients" created it, that alone justifies the popular acceptance. Unfortunately for this essay, entrail-reading and tarot cards fall into the same category as "Weekend at Bernie's": they're old, sometimes funny, but ultimately a waste of your time and money. A movie about a dead guy with no rigor mortis is as odd as telling your future by throwing asparagus on the floor. 2) What's my name? Who's my daddy? (Apologies to The Zombies, because "Time of the Season" is an excellent song, and doesn't deserve to be referenced in a conversation about asparagostic fortune-telling.) Take the two questions above - your name and your lineage, both important and a critical part of your being - and submit them to a fortune-teller. Given zero background information about you, shouldn't a true psychic be able to provide these answers? Even if fortune-telling is inexact (and all "proof" seems to claim this), one still should be able to visit several fortune tellers and notice a significant trend towards divining the correct information. If they can't, then you're better off saving your pennies: flip them yourself to determine your fortune, rather than give them to a fortune-teller. It's argued that fortune-telling and divination is a search for the truth, and is nothing more than a meager human attempt to understand the mystery of life. It can also be argued that better results can be achieved from research and experimentation, not from spilling your asparagus. If you really want to involve vegetables in fortune-telling, try predicting when Hollywood will remake "Weekend at Bernie's". Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/astrology-is-the-forer-effect-in-action/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/astrology-is-the-forer-effect-in-action/#comments Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:22:40 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/astrology-is-the-forer-effect-in-action/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/11/astrology-is-the-forer-effect-in-action/feed/ 15 Science Reason & Rationality by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 129 - I think most people already know what astrology is. After all, it has been used by people everywhere since ancient times right up to the modern age. But how does astrology so successfully fool people i... by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 129 I think most people already know what astrology is. After all, it has been used by people everywhere since ancient times right up to the modern age. But how does astrology so successfully fool people into believing it's real? The answer is quite simple. Astrology creates something many people are not really aware of. It is called "illusion". Magicians have always used trickery to create illusions to convince others what he or she does is in fact real magic, real supernatural powers. Audiences are baffled because they can't explain what they just saw. That's what magic tricks are all about. Magic wouldn't be as impressive if everyone knew how it was done, would it? Some magic tricks exceed the expectation of an audience to the point they start to believe it couldn't have been just a simple trick. They insist it had to be some kind of black magic, demonic power, or divine force. This is the first mistake that people make: they transform a certain assumption into a certain belief. They assume or believe something IS, rather than inquire or investigate HOW something is. The use of critical thinking and evidence-based investigation over faith-based living and emotion-driven thinking is extremely important when it comes to accepting or rejecting fantastic claims. "What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite." ~ Bertrand Russell Understand that magicians do not selflessly perform magic tricks for your entertainment. They also want something else. It's called "money". If they want to stand out, magicians have to constantly come up with new tricks that are better and more believable than other magicians. So the tricks get more sophisticated and more amazing every time. Nevertheless, they are all still illusions to trick your mind. I've got no problem with magicians who make a living by entertaining others. But I do have a problem with magicians who call themselves legitimate psychics, astrologers, fortune tellers and prophets. There are two kinds of charlatans in this category. The first one knows exactly what they're doing. They've learned the tricks and use their skills to attain fame and fortune. The second one really believes that they have somehow attained special abilities or powers, and they want to help people through their "divine gifts." The first one takes advantage of others through more trickery and deceit. The second one is just as deluded as his or her supporting believers, who also become victims of the first one, who encourages the second one, and all believers to keep on living in the rabbit hole so that the first one would still have a business to run. See how important network marketing is? Now, let me show you how astrology works. First, consider the following as if it were given to you as a personality evaluation. Imagine I'm the astrologer and you're the customer: You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic. Rate this assessment from 0 to 5, Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/09/the-secret-movie-delusion/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/09/the-secret-movie-delusion/#comments Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:08:52 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/09/the-secret-movie-delusion/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/03/09/the-secret-movie-delusion/feed/ 9 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/18/book-review-of-the-secret-by-rhonda-byrne-a-skeptical-review-of-a-subjective-reality/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/18/book-review-of-the-secret-by-rhonda-byrne-a-skeptical-review-of-a-subjective-reality/#comments Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:54:18 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/18/book-review-of-the-secret-by-rhonda-byrne-a-skeptical-review-of-a-subjective-reality/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/18/book-review-of-the-secret-by-rhonda-byrne-a-skeptical-review-of-a-subjective-reality/feed/ 10 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 124 - Let's get this part out of the way now: - What is The Secret? What is Rhonda Byrne's philosophy? What is the Law of Attraction? - It's defined many times, in many different ways, by many different people in the book. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 124 Let's get this part out of the way now: What is The Secret? What is Rhonda Byrne's philosophy? What is the Law of Attraction? It's defined many times, in many different ways, by many different people in the book... Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/03/spider-bites-are-an-overrated-menace/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/03/spider-bites-are-an-overrated-menace/#comments Sun, 03 Feb 2008 05:37:26 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/03/spider-bites-are-an-overrated-menace/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/02/03/spider-bites-are-an-overrated-menace/feed/ 3 Tim Eisele By Tim Eisele Article ID: 123 - [Editor's note: Some of the external links in this article point to photos that may be disturbing to some.] - I’ve been noticing that when most people see a spider,the first thing they think is, “Is it venomous? By Tim Eisele Article ID: 123 [Editor's note: Some of the external links in this article point to photos that may be disturbing to some.] I’ve been noticing that when most people see a spider,the first thing they think is, “Is it venomous?” Pret... Andy Kaiser clean http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/01/30/oprah-plug-in-your-toaster-most-appliances-dont-use-energy-when-turned-off/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/01/30/oprah-plug-in-your-toaster-most-appliances-dont-use-energy-when-turned-off/#comments Wed, 30 Jan 2008 06:46:54 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/01/30/oprah-plug-in-your-toaster-most-appliances-dont-use-energy-when-turned-off/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/01/30/oprah-plug-in-your-toaster-most-appliances-dont-use-energy-when-turned-off/feed/ 37 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 122 - On April 20, 2007, Oprah had her Earth Day episode, “Going Green 101: Resources for your family”. - This was a show about energy savings and environmental friendliness. It included tips like using washable cloth napkins... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 122 On April 20, 2007, Oprah had her Earth Day episode, “Going Green 101: Resources for your family”. This was a show about energy savings and environmental friendliness. It included tips like using washable cloth napkins rather than throwing away paper napkins, and using compact florescent light bulbs (CFLs) rather than incandescents. These are good tips that certainly make sense in the long run for anyone concerned about saving electricity and improving the environment. However, several minutes were spent on the show talking about something I'd classify as misinformation, or to be more blunt, just plain wrong. This of course happens all the time with any media organization. No one can be expected to be 100% accurate, and when the media gets it wrong, consumers have an obligation to speak out. The alternative leads to shoddy journalism: we get reporting with no fact-checking, or unchecked sensationalist reporting. Making claims for the environment or consumer protection becomes even worse if the facts aren't even right, since misinformation will only spread. This article answers the following questions: Do household appliances use 40% of our electricity costs, even when turned off? Will changing to incandescent lights save $50 on an electric bill? How much electricity do household appliances use? How much money does my appliance cost to operate? The first two questions were specific issues raised during the show, and are cultural assumptions people spread without any fact checking. The last two questions are often asked when you learn the answers to the first two. In order to begin answering these questions, I needed two things: First, I needed to know how much electricity costs. Looking at my latest energy bill was the answer: I'm billed just over nine cents per kilowatt hour. For simplicity, I've rounded this up to ten cents per kilowatt hour. It costs me about $0.10 for every 1000 watts running for one hour. Second, I needed a way to measure the wattage that a particular device uses. My tool of choice was the Kill-O-Watt P4460 Electricity Usage Monitor. This is a small box that you plug into a wall socket. Then you plug a device into the Kill-O-Watt. Then the Kill-O-Watt will tell you, among other things, how many watts are being consumed, and how much money that device costs to power. With this information, we're set to address the first question: Do household appliances use 40% of our electricity costs, even when turned off? Here's dialog from the show: Simran Sethi (an environmental expert):  ...what we often have is we're drawing a lot of energy when we have products plugged in, appliances plugged in but not actually have them on. Oprah:  We all know that, right? That when the toasters plugged and the coffeemaker's plugged in, it's drawing energy even if you're not using it. Simran Sethi:  About forty percent of the power even though we're not using it. So we're spending all this money to power things that are on in the off position. Oprah: We did not know that. Isn't this a big lesson? Okay. This is great. Yeah, I’ve started doing that, unplugging the toaster, because it's drawing about forty. I didn't know it was forty percent. Simran Sethi: We call it vampire standby power. Oprah: And the TV and all the things that are plugged in are drawing energy. Simran Sethi:  Exactly. The case has been stated pretty clearly: Not only are appliances costing us 40% of our electric bill, but many devices use a considerable amount of energy even when turned off. Based on the context of the discussion, they're talking about small appliances like TVs and toasters, not refrigerators or ovens. So let's test. Armed with the Kill-O-Watt, I went around my house and measured the wattage consumption for most of my small appliances, including the ones mentioned above. Click the below links to download in full detail, or read on for the summary. Andy Kaiser clean 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/2007/09/25/the-big-list-of-critical-thinking-and-skeptical-resources/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/25/the-big-list-of-critical-thinking-and-skeptical-resources/#comments Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:03:24 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/25/the-big-list-of-critical-thinking-and-skeptical-forums-blogs-podcasts-magazines-websites-tv-shows-faces-and-reference-materials/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/09/25/the-big-list-of-critical-thinking-and-skeptical-resources/feed/ 1