http://www.dbskeptic.com Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community. Sun, 11 Sep 2011 01:30:05 +0000 en-us hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 Digital Bits Skeptic brings skepticism and critical thinking to a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture. Andy Kaiser clean Andy Kaiser skeptic@dbskeptic.com skeptic@dbskeptic.com (Andy Kaiser) 2009 Skepticism and critical thinking in a world of new age, religion and credulous pop culture skeptic, skepticism, critical thinking, new age, religion, pop culture, skeptical articles, critical thinking articles, philosophy http://www.dbskeptic.com/images/dbskeptic-logo-144.jpg http://www.dbskeptic.com/category/psychology/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/04/17/how-to-have-an-out-of-body-experience/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/04/17/how-to-have-an-out-of-body-experience/#comments Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:36:03 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1996 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/04/17/how-to-have-an-out-of-body-experience/feed/ 8 Kevin Bridges by Kevin Bridges Article ID: 1410 - What do you think of when you hear the words "out of body experience"? Perhaps you imagine an ill-fated victim of a car accident, a spirit floating inside an ambulance looking down at EMTs as they try frantically t... by Kevin Bridges Article ID: 1410 What do you think of when you hear the words "out of body experience"? Perhaps you imagine an ill-fated victim of a car accident, a spirit floating inside an ambulance looking down at EMTs as they try frantically to revive his broken, unconscious body. Explore the wilds of the Internet and you’ll get plenty of variations on the “out of body” theme. Plenty of people claim to have out-of-body experiences, saying "I've had one of those!” Or “I've had a dozen!” Or “I had one last night!" Did they all have traffic accidents? Do that many people fall off the roof trying to take down their Christmas lights? How accident-prone can a person be? No. Further study shows that many out-of-body experiences happened in the security of a person's own bed. It’s usually very late at night or in the wee hours of morning. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to debunk this one, does it? It's called having a dream!  Elementary, my dear Watson. However, a closer look at the experiences paints a different picture. The general scenario involves a body shaking and vibrating and then a sensation of floating up out of the body and being able to view one's own bedroom from a ceiling’s perspective. Personally, I've had more dreams about being naked at my old high school than I've had about floating around in my bedroom.  But every one of these people will tell you that the experience isn’t like a usual dream – there is no strange dreamlike logic and plotlines, and it doesn’t physically feel like a dream – it feels real. Then maybe it isn't a dream.  But if it’s not an actual out-of-body experience, what else could it be? For some of us, it's too improbable – too much of a stretch of logic - to think that these people not only have souls but that these souls sometimes go out to play.  But a closer look at the techniques to induce an out-of-body experience shows us just how this could happen without a supernatural element. Out of body techniques include instructions like this: 1) Lie down in a comfortable bed or kick back in a recliner. 2) Completely relax your whole body. 3) Enhance the relaxation with visualization techniques. For example, imagine yourself walking down some stairs, and with every step you descend, have your heart rate slow and your breathing grow deeper and slower. 4) Eventually you will fall into a self-induced trance. 5) During this process, say affirmations. Repeat to yourself: "The out-of-body experience is completely natural.  I will use this technique every night when I sleep. I am more than my physical body." 6) Using these techniques, your soul will rise away from your body, and your consciousness will follow. Anyone who’s heard the word “hypnosis” is right now cocking a skeptical eyebrow. Many excited people out there are learning self-hypnosis without realizing it. In the books and websites with instructions for getting out of your own skin, many teach the same techniques that others use to quit smoking or lose weight. The process to coax your soul from your body is the same one you can use to stop eating three desserts after dinner. With this in mind, let's again look at the out-of-body experience. Read a thick book about people’s souls flying around like thrown confetti. Spend an hour on a forum devoted to the topic. Then go lie in bed and repeat to yourself that you are going to have an out-of-body experience. What would you expect to happen?  I’d be surprised if someone doing this didn't have a supposed out-of-body experience. If the out-of-body experience isn't a dream, should we assume it’s reality? Not yet. There are other explanations available, possibilities that don’t presume the supernatural. We’d need to first rule those out before a supernatural explanation would make sense. Although now that I think about it, just because the out-of-body experience isn’t real doesn't mean I don’t want to try it. Andy Kaiser clean 8:13 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/17/five-habits-of-the-skeptical-mind/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/17/five-habits-of-the-skeptical-mind/#comments Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:15:16 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1847 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/17/five-habits-of-the-skeptical-mind/feed/ 9 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 142 - In my journey of skeptical thinking, I have gradually realized the quirks in human thinking that so often lead me astray. I want to share these habits of good skepticism so others may have a better chance of fi... By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 142 In my journey of skeptical thinking, I have gradually realized the quirks in human thinking that so often lead me astray. I want to share these habits of good skepticism so others may have a better chance of finding truth. 1) Your belief will not change reality I have noticed a tendency to gravitate towards beliefs which I want to be true. These beliefs don’t always match the facts, and are not borne out by sober investigation. We have a strange superstition that we seldom recognize: sometimes we think that choosing to believe something will actually make it true. Members of cults will often deny strong opposing evidence in order to keep their membership. UFO believers will often not abandon their beliefs even when confronted with more down-to-earth explanations that explain the facts just as well or better than the alien hypothesis. People think that simply choosing to believe something will make it true. Belief never makes anything true. 2) Look for the best overall explanation of the facts Some people advocate one position because there is some evidence in its favor. Others advocate an opposite position for the same reason – they see evidence to do so. Most of these disputes can be settled by asking a very basic question: when we consider all the data, each hypothesis, and the simplicity of each position, does one hypothesis stand out as stronger? Here’s an example: there is currently a debate in the scientific community over whether birds evolved from dinosaurs or from some other group of reptiles. While the dino-bird enthusiasts can cite an impressive list of feathered dinosaur fossils and similarities in bird and dinosaur anatomy, the dino-bird opponents undermine those links by citing a few small but significant differences between dinosaurs and birds. Another example is the creation-evolution controversy. Creationists often explain away the results of radiometric dating. They say that radiometric decay rates were faster in the past, without realizing that faster decay rates would have radioactively fried every living thing on Earth. A third example is the geologic column. Creationists say that even though sediments that form layers of rock would usually take millions of years, there was a great big flood that must have been responsible for creating it. When you view the debate this way, it really isn’t hard to see that the old Earth hypothesis simply and comfortably explains the facts, while the young Earth hypothesis offers strained and complicated explanations for the most straight-forward data. When we take a bird’s eye view of the issue and compare which explanation is the overall best explanation (in terms of simplicity, explanatory power, and so on) answering the question is simple. 3) Use authorities carefully If someone cites an expert in order to persuade you of something, be cautious. Does the quotation simply assert an opinion, or does it try and demonstrate the reasoning behind its assertion? Is the expert in question really an expert? Numerous creationists, such as Kent Hovind, claim to have credentials when in reality they do not. Is the expert’s opinion representative of his field? Anyone can find a certified medical doctor who will promote some quack healing treatment, and so it is always good to know if the expert’s opinion is considered fringe within his own field. 4) Don’t confuse a possibility with a probability People often try and prove things to an absolute certainty. Or they refuse to give up a belief until it’s disproven with absolute certainty. Very little human knowledge is literally 100% certain. Thinking in terms of absolutes can often be impractical, because a lot of human knowledge (besides conceptual knowledge such as ‘one plus one equals two’) relies on weighing a claim with the doubts we may have about it. Yes, technically it is possible that man never went to the moon, Andy Kaiser clean 7:53 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/#comments Sun, 16 Aug 2009 22:43:44 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1427 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/jesus-resurrection-and-mass-hallucinations/feed/ 23 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1334 - Abstract: This article is a rebuttal to Gary Habermas, who defends the Jesus’ resurrection appearances against the hypothesis that these appearances were simply hallucinations. By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1334 Abstract: This article is a rebuttal to Gary Habermas, who defends the Jesus’ resurrection appearances against the hypothesis that these appearances were simply hallucinations.  A plausible natural explanation... Andy Kaiser clean 15:42 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/02/synchronicities-and-%e2%80%9cthe-odds%e2%80%9d/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/02/synchronicities-and-%e2%80%9cthe-odds%e2%80%9d/#comments Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:41:27 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1412 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/02/synchronicities-and-%e2%80%9cthe-odds%e2%80%9d/feed/ 2 Kevin Bridges by Kevin Bridges Article ID: 1333 - A synchronicity is another word for coincidence.  The difference between the two is that, with a synchronicity, there is more to the event than mere coincidence.  Events in a synchronicity are said to be a part of ... by Kevin Bridges Article ID: 1333 A synchronicity is another word for coincidence.  The difference between the two is that, with a synchronicity, there is more to the event than mere coincidence.  Events in a synchronicity are said to be a part of ... Andy Kaiser clean 7:06 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 o... 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/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/#comments Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:50:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=894 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/22/a-shocking-lesson-in-human-nature/feed/ 12 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1313 - Hi everyone, this is Andy Kaiser. I'd like to share an interesting experience. I have a unique perspective on the Digital Bits Skeptic website, because I'm the administrator. I edit and post all articles. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1313 Hi everyone, this is Andy Kaiser. I'd like to share an interesting experience. I have a unique perspective on the Digital Bits Skeptic website, because I'm the administrator. I edit and post all articles. Some of those I write myself, and my articles interest me, no matter how odd they may seem to others. I also get to see all comments submitted by visitors. This gives me a very good feel for the readership. For the most part, Digital Bits Skeptic has... well, skeptical-minded readers. These are women and men with excellent critical thinking skills, people who enjoy weird and interesting puzzles, people who want to attack logical anomalies and find out why and how. Several months ago, I wrote and posted an article about "human static electricity generators". I wrote it for laughs, and poked fun at a pseudoscientific claim that didn't even take itself seriously. This was the case of Mavis Price, and an interview she gave to the UK newspaper the Daily Mail. Ms. Price is a woman whose body supposedly generates a massive amount of static electricity. Like a high-voltage ninja, this power gives her a "death-touch" to any electrical appliance. Computers and vacuum cleaners and television sets have all fallen victim to this static buildup. So I wrote a critical article about this, poking fun at the situation and offering many suggestions as to why Ms. Price may be misinterpreting her symptoms. And the strangest thing happened: the article received a few comments, as the articles usually do, but these comments were different. They were from people chiming in to support Ms. Price. Starting with comment number three, many of these people claimed they could generate their own static electricity, and, like Ms. Price, expressed their frustration at how this power is irritating and interferes with their daily life. Here are a few comments: Kathleen said, "A friend of mine is a psychologist and he used his galvanic skin resistance test machine on me and had never seen anything like what I made that machine do." Mac said, "But these days it's worse - metal shocks me, other people, plastic yes plastic..cloth...wood...i am freakin afraid to touch anything...i mean these are mean crackling visible shocks mini blue bolts or electricity...don't get me wrong if i could control it would be cool but i can't..." Brook said, "I am 37, and have purchased 26 VCR/DVD players in the last 48 months, I have shocked people on the other end of a phone line, and in the dark if I get close to a light switch you can visibly see the arc from my finger tip to the light switch before I touch it. I dim streetlights when I walk below them, and haven't been able to wear a watch since I was 13. It is real, it is financially cumbersome, and it freaks people out. Yes, I am using a computer to type this message, I've learned first to ground myself before touching any electrical equipment, and second it doesn't happen all of the time, it seems more common when I am angry, or deep in thought etc. I just wanted to respond because there are many people that are different in the world, this is just another (dis)ability." Other skeptics and I replied. We gave recommendations for properly testing this power, how to rule out natural causes, and indicated what a supernatural cause would imply. I contacted James Randi, and asked him if he'd encountered this phenomenon. Of course he had. His response was, "Yes, I've seen a few of them. Simply changing their footwear always 'cures' the problem." A simple proposal. But as the conversation extended into several dozen comments, I realized something: Those complaining about this ability didn't seem to care enough to troubleshoot it. And that's the real problem. If you think you have a static super-power, I'm begging you: please see a doctor. If the doctor does a test and says, "My god, I've never seen anything like this before!" ...don't just end it there! Andy Kaiser clean 6:58 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 ar... 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/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/2008/12/08/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.] - 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