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 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/08/13/the-veil-of-ignorance-dont-confuse-tools-with-the-buildings-they-create/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/08/13/the-veil-of-ignorance-dont-confuse-tools-with-the-buildings-they-create/#comments Sat, 14 Aug 2010 01:54:54 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=2052 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/08/13/the-veil-of-ignorance-dont-confuse-tools-with-the-buildings-they-create/feed/ 1 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1413 - The "veil of ignorance" is a thought experiment: Imagine you have to design a society. You have to decide if slavery will be permitted or not. Are women supposed to stay at home? Are they allowed to work? By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1413 The "veil of ignorance" is a thought experiment: Imagine you have to design a society. You have to decide if slavery will be permitted or not. Are women supposed to stay at home? Are they allowed to work? Or must they do a bit of both? How high are income taxes? How are they applied? After you design your society, you become one of the positions in that society. Here’s the kicker: you aren’t allowed to choose your position. You get one at random. So you could end up male or female, rich or poor, black or white, slave or owner, scientist or secretary. Since you don’t know what position you will occupy, you are said to be designing this society from behind a ‘veil of ignorance’. How would you design such a society? What would it look like? You could end up as a coal miner or a CEO. Will the CEO be heavily taxed to subsidize the coal miner’s healthcare? Most people are risk-averse: they would rather have a million dollars guaranteed rather than a 50% chance of having 2 million dollars and a 50% chance of having nothing. This is fairly logical: with the first million you will buy what’s important: a house, a decent car, a retirement fund, et cetera. The second million will get you a fancier car, a holiday house and maybe some nice suits but the happiness (in economic terms, the utility) you get out of the second million is less than the happiness you get out of the first million. (Mathematically, let’s say the first million gets you a utility of 50, while the second million gets you a utility of 40. If you just take the million your utility is 50. Winning gives you a utility of 90, while losing gets you zero. Therefore, if you take the gamble, you have an expected utility of (.5 x 90) + (.5 x 0) = 45. Thus taking the gamble will, on average, give a lower overall utility and less happiness.) John Rawls, the philosopher who invented the concept of the veil of ignorance, concluded that because people are risk-averse, they would construct a society where everyone is equal rather than one where there are rich as well as poor people. Since this is the kind of society that we would choose if we didn’t know our positions, this is the kind of society which we must try to create in the real world. Right? To use the example above, you’d want to hedge your bets and tax the CEO if you weren’t sure if you’d become him. Rawls took this idea one step further. He argued that people would want a society where there is equality of outcome: everyone ends up in the same place, regardless of intelligence, talent or strength, because even these things are randomly distributed at birth. You might be born stupid, weak or talentless. Wouldn’t you want to hedge your bets against that affecting you? This equality of outcome hasn’t really caught on in a big way. Even egalitarians accept you’d need some degree of inequality to convince people to put in a decade of work to become a doctor instead of a jazz musician. Even so, Rawls’ conclusions about an equal society being a just one are very influential. These conclusions have been subject to a variety of criticisms. Are people really that risk-averse? What about those thousands of ‘actors’ who end up doing bit roles for tiny amounts of money their entire lives so they have a one-in-ten-thousand shot at becoming Tom Cruise? And how do you decide the best ratio of security versus liberty? Let’s focus on one criticism, that of Rawls’ society where a fixed amount of wealth must be distributed. Everything else being equal, a person would prefer a society where incomes were $10, $4 and $4 to one where the distributions were $3, $3, $3 because in the first example all incomes are higher in all cases. To simplify the analysis, assume that all people are risk-averse, and we’ll use the Veil of Ignorance as our tool of choice. But rather than designing a society, let’s say that the person behind the Veil is designing a civilization. Andy Kaiser clean 8:34 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/07/22/research-methods-how-to-find-answers/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/07/22/research-methods-how-to-find-answers/#comments Thu, 22 Jul 2010 04:04:08 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=2035 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/07/22/research-methods-how-to-find-answers/feed/ 4 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1412 - Here’s how you can research the answer to (almost) any question you can think of, and how you can be reasonably certain that the answer is correct. - All research begins with questions. By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1412 Here’s how you can research the answer to (almost) any question you can think of, and how you can be reasonably certain that the answer is correct. All research begins with questions. Researching a topic me... Andy Kaiser clean 10:34 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/2010/04/17/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/ 5 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 to ... 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/2010/03/28/the-league-of-scientists-officially-knows-a-famous-person/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/28/the-league-of-scientists-officially-knows-a-famous-person/#comments Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:59:02 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1938 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/28/the-league-of-scientists-officially-knows-a-famous-person/feed/ 8 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 149 - You remember the book I'm writing, right? It's "The League of Scientists", about a group of science geeks who investigate supposedly supernatural mysteries. Well, the book publication process is moving along - we're now... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 149 You remember the book I'm writing, right? It's "The League of Scientists", about a group of science geeks who investigate supposedly supernatural mysteries. Well, the book publication process is moving along - we're now in the final stages of proofing, finalizing the internal artwork, planning advertising, and I've also started writing book #2. You'll be able to buy it soon - the release countdown is less than a year away. That's all fine, and it's old news to some of you. But I didn't want to write this article without giving you some other important information. I told you before that "The League of Scientists" book #1 will have a "skeptic celebrity" endorsement, a mini-review we could perhaps put on the book cover, website and other advertising copy. I've finally got it. It's in my hands. I have my book review from a Skeptic Celebrity. You wanna know who it is? Take a guess. My original clues: it is a man, he's appeared on TV (cable and nationally-broadcast), he has written books and has been interviewed by most high-profile skeptical podcasts. This person is not John Stossel, though this person and John share multiple weird similarities. I told you that the Digital Bits Skeptic audience would be the first to know, and I meant it. I'm putting this here, even before I update LeagueOfScientists.com! The skeptical celebrity for The League of Scientists is Joe Nickell. For those of you who don't know who Joe Nickell is, there's a lot to learn. Here's a portion of his bio: "Joe Nickell, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) - an international scientific organization - and an investigative columnist for Skeptical Inquirer magazine. He was formerly a professional stage magician and private investigator for a world-famous detective agency. Presently, he appears to be the world's only full-time, salaried professional paranormal investigator. Utilizing his varied background, Nickell has become widely known as an investigator of myths and mysteries, frauds, forgeries, and hoaxes. He has been called 'the modern Sherlock Holmes', 'the original ghost buster', and 'the real-life Scully' (from 'The X-Files' ). He has investigated scores of haunted-house cases, including the Amityville Horror and the Mackenzie House in Toronto, Canada. Nickell is the author (co-author or editor) of more than twenty books. He has appeared on numerous national TV shows, including CNBC's 'News with Brian Williams', 'Dateline NBC', 'TLC's Best Kept Secrets', 'Larry King Live', 'Oprah', 'Ricki Lake', 'Jerry Springer Show', 'Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious Universe', 'Unsolved Mysteries', 'Politically Incorrect', '20/20', A&E's 'The Unexplained', '48 Hours', and 'Exploring the Unknown', in addition to several documentaries on the Discovery Channel, History Channel, National Geographic Channel, and many others. Nickell has been profiled in the New Yorker magazine and on the Today show." That's just a small sampling from a very large data set. The man is smart, he knows his stuff, and he has helped change the world for the better. And yes - the reason for this article - he did read and review "The League of Scientists and the Ghost in the Water". Here's a portion of what he wrote: "This adventure of The League of Scientists is... a wonderful introduction to scientific detective work and critical thinking skills - all wrapped up in a delicious mystery! Although the exploits are shared with young readers, this seasoned detective looks forward to the League's next adventure." Joe Nickell Forensic, Historical, and Paranormal Investigator One of the reasons I specifically picked Joe to review my book was that, frankly, I really respect the guy and think he does an incredible job in a unique profession. Another reason was just as important: Joe Nickell is a real-life adult equivalent of the stars of my book. Like The League of Scientists, Andy Kaiser clean 7:34 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:50:12 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1971 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/14/what-it-means-to-be-scientifically-proven/feed/ 9 Science Reason & Rationality by Nick Josh Karean from Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 148 "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” - Carl Sagan, by Nick Josh Karean from Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 148 "We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.” - Carl Sagan, American Scientist (1934-1996) How many times have you heard someone claim that their products, theories or beliefs are "Scientifically Proven”? They often do this before completely taking over your brain and gaining absolute access into your wallet. Almost anyone can claim that their ideas are “scientifically proven” or “scientifically tested”. Judging by how gullible and ignorant most of us are, it really doesn’t take much for this claim to convince someone. What is science? So, how can you tell which claim is truly scientifically proven and which one is not? To understand, we first need a basic understanding of what science is, and how to ensure that those who claim to be “scientifically proven” have followed the required procedures to really deserve that title. Okay, let’s get to work. What exactly is science? Science is a method, a procedure, a technique by which we use to examine our surroundings and gain knowledge from them. With sometimes painstaking accuracy, science produces precise unbiased data. It’s not a belief system. Science is fact-based, not faith-based. For example, mathematics is a form of science: one plus two equals three. ‘One plus two’ is the method and ‘three’ is the answer derived from that method. The answer ‘three’ does not require your belief. It is a fact whether you believe in it or not. This factual approach is the best and the most reliable method for achieving accuracy. No matter how many times you repeat the process, it will produce the same results Expecting others to believe that one plus two equals four (without using any systematic scientific method to prove it) is not the right method of gaining knowledge and it is always prone to error. Another example of a factual approach is in the court of law. The court looks for evidence first before making a verdict. The judge and jury do not start with a conclusion – they develop one based on available evidence. “While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.” - Judge William Overton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (1939-1987) The scientific method The 10 Commandments of Science (inspired by science journalist “Potholer”) Thou shalt base thy conclusion on the evidence. Thou shalt measure objectively, not guess subjectively. Thou shalt back up thy statements with evidence. Just claiming something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. Thou shalt use large sample sets. Thy tests shall be double-blinded. Thy tests shall have observable controls. Thou shalt cite thy sources of information. Thy sources of information must be reliable, verifiable and backed up by evidence. Thy opinion is not a fact. Thou shalt not bear false witness. Don’t lie! Well, actually, the above are not really divine commandments, but they're a good basic guide to scientific observation. All scientific knowledge is based on two things: observation and logic. Thus, good research follows these rules to produce true scientific data and genuine knowledge. As we said earlier, such rules are applied in the court of law to preserve or uphold justice. The rules exist to ensure impartiality, fairness and the most truthful of results. Now that we’ve understood the basics of science, let’s go a little deeper to see what exactly is involved in this whole scientific procedure thing. We’ll create a scenario, apply the basics of the scientific method, and see what happens… 1. Andy Kaiser clean 16:42 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/02/anti-euthanasia-for-the-podcast/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/02/anti-euthanasia-for-the-podcast/#comments Wed, 03 Mar 2010 03:18:48 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1937 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/03/02/anti-euthanasia-for-the-podcast/feed/ 9 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 147 - Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. - Okay, okay, okay! I hear you! I hear you... and you, and you and you and - don't think I forgot - you! - I wrote the previous podcast intending to stop publication of the podcast itself. By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 147 Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. Okay, okay, okay! I hear you! I hear you... and you, and you and you and - don't think I forgot - you! I wrote the previous podcast intending to stop publication of the podcast itself. And, well... I'll just skip the detail and get to the point: I've changed my mind. I'm not going to stop the podcast. Why not? Because I learned a lesson. That lesson is: "just because you don't hear anyone doesn't mean you don't have fans". If you can't parse the triple negative, it's okay. I'm still not sure that sentence makes any sense. What I'm saying is that, since I never got feedback about the podcast before, I figured it didn't have many dedicated fans. Now, there's a more dangerous counterpoint to that lesson. Something like, "if you don't hear anyone, there may not be anyone there". Luckily, in my case, that version appears not to be true. The Digital Bits Skeptic podcast does have regular dedicated listeners. Listeners who like it enough to tell me they didn't want it shut down. They spoke up. And I heard them. The new plan: I'm going to do something similar to what Aiden said in the previous article comments. That is, I'll keep the podcast, and do everything I've been doing, but my publication times won't be weekly. I'm not sure what that schedule is yet, if it'll be regular or sporadic, but the podcast and articles will continue. Thanks again to everyone who gave feedback supporting the podcast. You know who you are. While I don't have room to thank everyone here and now, your feedback directly contributed to my keeping the podcast. For those who felt differently, I appreciate that information too. But, since I think I can still keep the podcast going with the revised publishing timeline, I'm going to try it. Stay tuned. Andy Kaiser clean 4:29 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/02/22/digital-bits-skeptic-evolves/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/02/22/digital-bits-skeptic-evolves/#comments Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:17:40 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1911 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/02/22/digital-bits-skeptic-evolves/feed/ 22 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 146 - Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. - I'm making some changes. I'd like to tell you about them. What's more important, I'd like to get your opinion. There are specific things in my mind, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 146 Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. I'm making some changes. I'd like to tell you about them. What's more important, I'd like to get your opinion. There are specific things in my mind, but I'd like to develop some of the details with you. I've got three things to talk about: 1) Fan Highlights Midway through the brilliant series "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", by Douglas Adams, there appears an immortal alien named "Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged". After getting fed up with every living thing in the Universe, Wowbagger decides to visit all of them, and one by one, insult them. I'm kinda doing the same thing, only the opposite. And on a much smaller scale. Specifically, I'm going to try to thank each and every one of my fans. Podcast listeners will know I do this already, right at the beginning of the audio, I have a "fan highlight". But until now, the website readers never knew about it. Visit DBSkeptic.com now, and you'll see a new section in the sidebar called - appropriately - "Fan Highlight". If you're a DBSupporter, you're on there. If you're a fan in some other way, like being a member of the Digital Bits Skeptic fan page on Facebook, rest assured you will be thanked... ...eventually. 2) The podcast versus the website - which do you prefer? The Fan Highlight moving to the website ties in with this topic - I'm going to stop the podcast. The website's staying. I'll still continue to produce and write articles, but I won't do the podcast. [Update: The podcast is staying. Thanks to all who let me know their opinions!] My question to you: Do you listen to the podcast? If the podcast stopped, would you then be willing to visit the website to read the articles, or would you sever ties completely? (Keep in mind you can sign up for email notifications for every new article, or keep in touch via Facebook.) My reasons for doing this reflect from looking at my website and podcast traffic stats. Basically, I can see that my website stats are changing in an upwardly direction, but my podcast traffic is not. For whatever reason, I've plateaued. ...and besides, have you heard my speaking voice? 3) Article publication times For the last three years I've kept pretty much on a weekly release schedule. I'm thinking of changing this. One reason is the podcast - having a podcast does put an obligation to produce material on a regular, frequent basis. If there's no podcast, I don't have as much of a deadline pressure. I could extend the time between articles, which would allow me and others to take more time to write longer and/or higher-quality stuff. And no promises yet, but I might also then be able to increase the payment amounts for the article writers. My question to you: How important is it to have articles like what's here once a week, versus longer publication times? The case for evolution In case anyone's curious, I should say that none of these changes are because of money problems. While DBSkeptic still loses money (meaning I pay for a lot of it out of my own pocket), there are still many people who have supported and continue to support the site. Those donations are appreciated, and make it so that keeping the website financially alive is not a problem. It's a weird thing, having a podcast and website. Even though I know I have weekly listeners and readers numbering in the quadruple-digits, I rarely get feedback of any kind. I'd love to hear your opinion. Just drop a note at the end of this article. In today's world, things must change and adapt to new conditions, or stagnate. I've identified new conditions, and I want to modify what I do. That's why I'm making some changes. Evolution is a good thing. And luckily, DBSkeptic.com is intelligently designed. Andy Kaiser clean 6:31 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/2010/01/24/modern-day-miracles/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/24/modern-day-miracles/#comments Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:51:15 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1858 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/24/modern-day-miracles/feed/ 52 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 143 - Can miracles occur today? - Let’s look at the evidence by examining three kinds of miracles: One type is “Marian apparitions”. Another is the spontaneous remission of cancer, By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 143 Can miracles occur today? Let’s look at the evidence by examining three kinds of miracles: One type is “Marian apparitions”. Another is the spontaneous remission of cancer, in which malignant tumors reduce or disappear, and can’t be attributed to any standard medical treatment. The final type is what I call “mundane miracles”, seemingly inexplicable and fortunate events which people attribute to the supernatural. I wrote this article for two reasons. First, I am genuinely curious about these strange events. They need explanation, and could perhaps tell us something meaningful about reality. Second, the faiths that we Westerners are most familiar with (like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) all depend upon the idea that miracles occurred in the past. If there is insufficient evidence that miracles occur today, or if there is evidence against miracle claims, this presents difficulty for those who want to argue that miracles occurred in history. Imagine the following: you’ve poured yourself a glass of soda, then you set it down and walk out of the room. When you walk back in, there is more soda in your glass than when you left. How do you explain this? Did someone add soda to your glass, or did more soda somehow emerge spontaneously? Since you have experienced the law of conservation every moment of your life without a single exception, it’s extremely unlikely that it’s been broken here. On the other hand, you have probably experienced people playing jokes, or a faulty memory. These second set of alternatives must be deemed far more plausible than the first, unless some extremely strong evidence is discovered which vindicates spontaneous soda generation. Let’s examine some modern-day miracles. Marian apparitions From 1900-2007, Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, allegedly made 386 reported appearances.[1] Out of all these, the Catholic church has deemed only eight as authentic. The rest are undecided or negative. How are these appearances judged? According to one source, the Catholic Church judges a Marian apparition as authentic based on the following criteria[2]: 1) The facts in the case are free of error. 2) The person(s) receiving the messages is/are psychologically balanced, honest, moral, sincere and respectful of Church authority. 3) Errors in doctrine are not attributed to God, Mary or another saint. 4) Theological and spiritual doctrines presented are free of error. 5) Moneymaking is not a motive involved in the events. 6) Healthy religious devotion and spiritual fruits result, with no evidence of collective hysteria. These criteria are rather problematic. For one thing, how do we know that the doctrines of the Catholic Church are correct? We don’t, so using doctrinal correctness as a criterion to judge these apparitions is spurious. Other criteria, such as “the facts in the case are free of error”, “the person(s) receiving the messages is/are psychologically balanced, honest, moral, sincere…”, “Moneymaking is not a motive” and “Healthy religious devotion and spiritual fruits result” are really only preliminary questions. The sanity and honesty of the witness must certainly be established before we begin to investigate whether the apparition was real. However, the fact that we have established that the witness is sane and honest does not by itself indicate that the apparition actually occurred. Roughly one in two hundred people are schizoid personalities and are prone to hallucinate, even though they are otherwise sane and normal people.[3] The Church’s criteria do not allow us to establish that these apparitions are real beyond reasonable doubt. At best, they act as a filter to remove some obviously false Marian apparitions, though even this is questionable. One could always wonder if some extremely well-documented and genuine Marian apparition has been discarded because it collided with Catholic dogma. Andy Kaiser clean 18:06 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 find... 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/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/#comments Mon, 11 Jan 2010 03:20:42 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1788 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2010/01/10/mistakes-god-made-where-is-the-mongoose-of-truth/feed/ 48 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 141 - imagine the Creation of the Universe watch a true God in His Act Of First Creation time is forever and never space is an infinite pinprick there is nothing except One who is Alpha and Omega - - the Creator gath... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 141 imagine the Creation of the Universe watch a true God in His Act Of First Creation time is forever and never space is an infinite pinprick there is nothing except One who is Alpha and Omega the Creator gathers to Himself energy in an effortless collection of All That Will Be after an eons-long mental glance at a Very Long and Holy Checklist He begins there is an explosion of pure thought a torrential rush of raw, primal creation Light Darkness The Heavens The Firmament Man and Woman God holds the creation aloft in one cosmic hand He turns it back and forth examining with multiverses of experience and a perfectly-evolved I that sees All when  He speaks this too is a miracle as the Universe hears the first words after its own wondrous birth the Lord of all looks down on creation reflecting these works of His might He stops, considers and says with a shrug "Sorry. Let's call it 'Version 1', all right?" The Christian god is supposed to be infallible and perfect, but he's not. Consider this list of mistakes God made. Noah's Ark The ark itself wasn't a mistake, but a symptom of a bigger problem. It's a great story for kids, until they get older. They they start asking how and why. It's quite a puzzle when you have a loving god murdering almost everyone alive, when the god created those people in the first place. So we have the story of Noah's Ark: in probably the biggest admitted mistake in all of humankind's existence, God says, "Sorry, world, you're just not working out. I'm going to destroy you and try again. Hey, Noah, 'Humankind 1.0' is acting a little buggy. I'm going to reboot the computer in a little bit. Trust me on this - Get in a boat." And yea, God said, "Whoops. My bad." The Tower of Babel Here we have the massive, intelligent, ambitious culture of Babel, whose accomplishments are symbolized by the construction of a gigantic tower. Worried that the people of Babel won't need him anymore, God curses the people of Babel into speaking many different languages. As a result, people can't communicate and the tower project is dropped faster than Noah's Ark after the Great Flood. The culture is destroyed. If being unified by the same language is really such a threat, what does today's God think about globalization and the Internet? Sure, he's tried to disperse and confuse humankind with some difficult and scary languages. But, so far, Fortran, COBOL and BASIC haven't done too much damage. The Tower of Babel is certainly here today, only we've built it not with bricks but with electrons. The creation of Lilith You think Eve was bad? Then you do not want to mess with Lilith. According to the text of the Jewish Talmud, Lilith was a demon seductress - a succubus - who lived around the time of Adam and Eve. Some traditions describe her as Adam's first wife. Others describe her as Adam's post-Eve lover. And love they did - she and Adam were parents to many strange non-humans. One interesting point about Lilith comes from the anonymous medieval text, "The Alphabet of Ben-Sira". God created Adam from scratch - collecting up dust, dirt, mud, snips, snails and puppy dog tails. Eve was created from parts of Adam. Not so with Lilith - she too was created from scratch, just like Adam, and was then introduced to him. The world's first argument - the first ever Holy Squabble -  was about Lilith's equality to Adam. Lilith refused to submit - socially and sexually - and so Lilith was banished and demonized. The snake in the Garden of Eden The evil Satan - disguised as a snake - enters The Garden of Eden and tricks Adam and Eve into eating the Forbidden Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The next step, then, is to banish those stupid humans. Couldn't God have predicted this? Yes. So why didn't he do anything to prevent it? Andy Kaiser clean 10:07 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/27/2009-year-in-review-authors-articles-2010-and-muppets/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/27/2009-year-in-review-authors-articles-2010-and-muppets/#comments Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:00:41 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1773 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/27/2009-year-in-review-authors-articles-2010-and-muppets/feed/ 5 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1350 - 2009 has been an interesting year for skeptics. - Our skeptical partners-in-crime are busier than ever: late in 2008, Phil Plait took over as president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1350 2009 has been an interesting year for skeptics. Our skeptical partners-in-crime are busier than ever: late in 2008, Phil Plait took over as president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, but after a presidency lasting about a year, Phil passed on the reigns to D.J. Grothe. The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe continued their dual missions: 1) increase the prevalence and force of the skeptical mindset, and 2) put all other podcasts to shame. Skepticism was all over the media: The TV show MythBusters continued busting things, and the last I heard from an interview of co-host Adam Savage, the shows ratings continue to climb. I wasn't able to find any ratings info on a certain non-family-friendly show starring Penn & Teller, but the ratings can't be that bad since the show is cranking through its seventh season. Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" celebrated its 150th anniversary, facilitated communication shot back into prime time with the sad story of Rom Houben, and Newsweek fought back against pop culture healthcare scams with an intellectual attack on Oprah Winfrey. And, last in this non-exhaustive list, there is the 2009 H1N1 pandemic - You may call it alarmist. You may call it dangerous. But to me, it will always be "the swine flu". As for Digital Bits Skeptic? Website visitors will see we have a new logo - thanks to Dan for his design skills and time spent making it. Thanks to the financial efforts of subscribers, I was also able to get rid of annoying clutter by removing all ads from the website. For the fiction-reading skeptics out there (or rather, for their children), I'm in the middle of publishing a young adult mystery series called "The League of Scientists". Digital Bits Skeptic has been publishing since 2007. Since then, we've posted over 130 articles and podcasts. In 2009, Digital Bits Skeptic published 53 articles from 11 authors. I'd like to thank this year's authors for working to write quality articles. Here they are (in first name alphabetical order): Andy Kaiser Diane Johnson David Annis James Lochbaum Jeff Kilroy Kevin Bridges M Parrot Navin Kumar Nicholas Covington (2009's most published author, with 8 articles!) Nick Farrantello Sandra L Hubscher Andy Kaiser 15 Diane Johnson 1 David Annis 5 James Lockbaum 2 Jeff Kilroy 1 Kevin Bridges 1 M Parrot 6 Navin Kumar 5 Nicholas Covington 8 Nick Farrantello 1 Sandra L Hubscher 1 One cool feature I was able to implement for dbskeptic.com was the ability to dynamically list all articles by a particular author. So, if you have a favorite author, and want to see everything they've written, just click on any of the names above. Top articles in 2009 (as measured by web statistics and comments left on the article) Article ID #1310 - Spontaneous human combustion and "the wick effect" Article ID #1315 - Sugar, acid and teeth Article ID #136 - Why pick on religion? Why religion matters to the non-religious Article ID #1322 - Evolution, the genetic code, and ‘message theory’: A response to Walter Remine Standouts Hardest phrase to pronounce award: Nicholas Covington, in article ID #1349, "Advanced apologizing: Proof of the existence of God". The phrase is "theistic hypotheses". YOU try saying it. Now say it again. Faster. Faster! Now imagine you're recording it, and you know that people all over the Internet are going to hear it. Most honest feedback award: This was from an email I received a few weeks ago, which offered some brutal but well-meaning advice. It said: I don't mean to offend but Andy Kaiser sounds like a robot (not the exciting kind of killer robot I like listening to).  He sounds like a robot that just hit a fantastic cycle of REM sleep and is trying to drag me into my subconscious by my toenails. My response? My voice is really not that bad. In fact, if you think about it, it could be far, far worse. Andy Kaiser clean 9:19 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/20/advanced-apologizing-proof-of-the-existence-of-god/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/20/advanced-apologizing-proof-of-the-existence-of-god/#comments Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:07:44 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1733 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/12/20/advanced-apologizing-proof-of-the-existence-of-god/feed/ 12 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1349 - Let's examine the evidence for a god's existence. Some arguments are well-known and very well covered, like the Problem of Evil, the First Cause Argument, the Argument from Design. Instead, By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1349 Let's examine the evidence for a god's existence. Some arguments are well-known and very well covered, like the Problem of Evil, the First Cause Argument, the Argument from Design. Instead, let's look at four lesser-known, overlooked oddities. Welcome to the strange world of religious apologizing. 1) "The common consent to God" Catholic theologian Peter Kreeft offers the following argument for God’s existence: [1] A belief in God—that Being to whom reverence and worship are properly due—is common to almost all people of every era. Either the vast majority of people have been wrong about this most profound element of their lives, or they have not. It is most plausible to believe that they have not. Therefore, it is most plausible to believe that God exists. As Kreeft says, “the majority is not infallible.” Big groups of people can make mistakes. He concedes this point, citing the fact that once upon a time most of the world believed the sun revolved around the Earth, rather than the Earth revolving around the sun. However, people back in those days could directly experience the sun and Earth. But in the case of God, what exactly is it that people experience and possibly misinterpret? This argument fails to convince me. For one thing, “belief in God” is not common to people of every era. Today, at least one third of the world’s population does not subscribe to any of the major monotheistic faiths. [2] It is my understanding that before the rise of Christianity (which covers almost all of human history), almost everyone was polytheistic or engaged in some form of nature worship. If Kreeft is right about the majority being an indicator of truth, he can't also argue for the existence of God (with a capital 'G'). His argument, if correct, actually supports polytheism! Another big problem is when Kreeft attempted to refute the “majority is not infallible” objection. Kreeft admitted that ancient people misinterpreted their experiences and so came to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Apply this to present day religion: A religious worldview could simply be the result of misinterpreting reality. Animism (personifying nature) seems to grow out of falsely attributing human characteristics to impersonal things (like regarding the moon as an "Earth Mother"). Polytheism appears to have grown out of animism, since the gods of ancient polytheistic religions were originally often just aspects of nature. We human beings, in our modern monotheistic societies, still personify inanimate objects. This supports my theory that religion is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of reality. Have you ever seen someone get angry at their car because it won’t start? Have you ever seen someone plead with or threaten a faulty computer? Think about what this person was doing: She was personifying inanimate objects. How rational is it to get angry at something with no will of its own, an object utterly incapable of being persuaded by curses or violence? It isn't rational. It makes no sense, unless this person believes, even subconsciously, that the inanimate object is actually animate. 2) "The singularity argument against God" The "Big Bang singularity" is the moment, after we extrapolate backwards in time, when we see that the Big Bang was infinitely dense, infinitely hot and was so tiny it consumed no space at all. The singularity is a cosmic "division by zero" error, where physics and general relativity break down. Philosopher Quentin Smith [3] says that the Big Bang singularity was a lawless, chaotic, and unpredictable state. In principle, it is impossible to predict whether such a thing could ever evolve life. Smith argues that God would not create the universe this way: a life-creating God would not leave open the possibility of a lifeless universe. There's a flaw here. Since God is omnipotent, He could have created the Big Bang, Andy Kaiser clean 11:55 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/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/#comments Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:20:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1662 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/22/a-review-of-on-the-origin-of-species-by-charles-darwin/feed/ 13 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1346 - I have just finished reading what is now one of my favorite books. At the time of this writing, it was published precisely 150 years ago. Ever since, it’s been a brilliant, revolutionary, and even dangerous work. By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1346 I have just finished reading what is now one of my favorite books. At the time of this writing, it was published precisely 150 years ago. Ever since, it’s been a brilliant, revolutionary, and even dangerous wo... Andy Kaiser clean 12:27 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/2009/11/01/ieds-and-the-futility-of-increased-armor/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/01/ieds-and-the-futility-of-increased-armor/#comments Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:43:33 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1601 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/11/01/ieds-and-the-futility-of-increased-armor/feed/ 2 James Lochbaum By James Lochbaum Article ID: 1343 - For the United States, there is probably no other weapon as symbolic of today’s conflicts as the Improvised Explosive Device, or IED. Up until 2007, IEDs were responsible for 63% of U.S. By James Lochbaum Article ID: 1343 For the United States, there is probably no other weapon as symbolic of today’s conflicts as the Improvised Explosive Device, or IED. Up until 2007, IEDs were responsible for 63% of U.S. casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom (1).  They have also been implemented by belligerents in Afghanistan, a place previously devoid of these weapons. To counter IEDs, the U.S. and other coalition forces have turned to traditional Third Generation Warfare strategies.  New Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles (or MRAPs) are designed and put into production, existing vehicles are upgraded with additional armor plating, troops are issued more ballistic vests and trauma plates, and electronic jammers are installed. While training and doctrine have been altered, the response to these devices has mainly been to field more heavily armored hardware. This approach seems to work. In 2004, when specially-designed MRAPs were first used by the U.S. Marine Corps, they reported no casualties in over 300 IED attacks involving the new vehicles (2).  But, the success of this "up-armor" approach has been severely distorted.  It is seen as a strategy for victory, when really it only treats a symptom of the conflicts we face. The IEDs are a symptom - and not the root cause - of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  An IED is simply a way for an insurgent or guerilla to attack a mechanized, first-world military. U.S. and NATO forces are vulnerable to IED attacks because of their mechanized nature, and their heavy logistics footprints.  (A logistics footprint refers to the amount of logistic support required in proportion to the size of the actual fighting force.) This is a vulnerability for developed nations involved in counter-insurgency (COIN) operations. Opponents in these types of conflicts rarely attack the "warfighter" directly. For example, the U.S. fields one of the world's most effective Main Battle tanks, the M1 Abrams. An insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan will have a hard time matching the firepower or armor that an Abrams brings to the fight, although an alarming number of tanks are being taken out of action by IEDs (4). A clever opponent can neutralize the tank's combat power by defeating its logistics footprint. How? The Abrams burns about 12 gallons of fuel an hour just with the engine idling. When moving, its gas mileage is measured in feet, not miles (3). For a company of tanks to conduct operations (that’s about 12 tanks), they must be supplied with at least 144 gallons of fuel per hour just to idle. Fuel must obviously be transported to the same place as the tanks. Fuel is just one resource required by the tank. We haven’t even mentioned spare parts, ammunition, lodgings and supplies for the crew. An opponent that seeks to neutralize the tank's combat effectiveness should strike its fuel supply (or any one of a dozen other logistics trains that delivers necessary supplies). This is where the “up-armor” doctrine begins to surface. As enemies attack the logistics train, the U.S. reaction has been to consistently apply more armor and more defensive systems to existing equipment, and to implement new, heavily armored vehicles. What has never taken place is a good hard look at what those logistics vehicles are delivering and why they are needed. Let's go back to the example of the tank. The Abrams Main Battle Tank has incredibly tough armor, a powerful main gun (105/120mm), and sophisticated optics and gear that allows it to do all kinds of ridiculous things that would have made it a Soviet General’s nightmare. But, the ability to engage targets with a gyroscopically stabilized main gun while moving isn't as effective when those targets are blending with the local population. This particular tank has severe limitations in the battle-spaces in which it’s currently employed. Yet, despite this, the U.S. Army deployed over 1,100 of the vehicles in Operation Iraqi Freedom (4). Andy Kaiser clean 9:02 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/25/enemies-closer-why-we-should-relocate-terror-suspects-to-the-united-states/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/25/enemies-closer-why-we-should-relocate-terror-suspects-to-the-united-states/#comments Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:23:25 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1587 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/25/enemies-closer-why-we-should-relocate-terror-suspects-to-the-united-states/feed/ 0 James Lochbaum By James Lochbaum Article ID: 1342 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is a Naval base established at the end of the Spanish-American War. It has since become a sort of frontier outpost in a country that, while not openly hostile, is certainly not friendly. By James Lochbaum Article ID: 1342 Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is a Naval base established at the end of the Spanish-American War. It has since become a sort of frontier outpost in a country that, while not openly hostile, is certainly not friendly.  Bagra... Andy Kaiser clean 11:26 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/18/what-is-faith/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/18/what-is-faith/#comments Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:55:09 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1579 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/18/what-is-faith/feed/ 11 Jeff Kilroy by Jeff Kilroy Article ID: 1341 - I attempt to have rational arguments with theists about their beliefs. I really do. Unfortunately, it seems that every time I present an argument that almost makes me shout “Checkmate!”, by Jeff Kilroy Article ID: 1341 I attempt to have rational arguments with theists about their beliefs. I really do. Unfortunately, it seems that every time I present an argument that almost makes me shout “Checkmate!”, I get the dismissive reply of “You just need faith,” or “This is just MY faith”. In most religions and even some pseudo-scientific circles, faith is touted as a necessity or virtue. But is faith really a good thing to possess? Better yet, do we really know what faith is? One of the more commonly used definitions comes from Merriam-Webster: faith is a "Firm belief in something for which there is no proof". That doesn't sound so great to me. I decided to post on a few religious forums and see what faith was all about.  My question to the readers was pretty simple. I wanted to know how they would define faith as well as why they felt that it was good to have. Unfortunately, the responses were not as captivating as I hoped they would be. I received generic responses that really were non-answers more than anything else. Some explained their relationship with God, which really had nothing to do with my question. The primary stance was that faith is simply one’s trust in something. We need it because we don’t always have proof. The problem is that whatever is taken on faith must have some faint evidence or reason to begin with. This often comes from your surroundings (including parents, culture and friends), otherwise the person with faith in Jesus Christ should also have faith in Muhammad, Zeus, and unicorns.  There has to be a reason why one obtains a particular faith in the first place. That faith is not a belief in something without evidence, but rather belief in something with some bit of evidence. And even with "evidence", it's still not enough to convince another, otherwise the believer wouldn't need to mention faith in the first place. The amount of evidence required in order to believe a claim should depend on the initial believability of the claim. For example, I walk into a grocery store and notice the man behind the counter has a nametag on his shirt reading, "Hello, my name is Bill". I would not need any more evidence to be convinced his name is Bill. This would be perfectly fine to assume since the evidence is sufficient in comparison to the claim. Since I may never see Bill again, I am not terribly worried about getting his name wrong. Next, I lean over and say, “Hi, Bill!” as he rings up my items. What if he corrects me? What if he explains that he had accidentally switched nametags with another employee, and then rushes over to the "real" Bill to get the correct nametag? Would I reject his claim of not being named Bill? Of course not. While the excuse is a bit odd, I have witnessed enough evidence to change my previous assertion. This is where faith is different from the normal way we reason. When someone has faith in something, they have an unjustified alliance with an idea.  While it could be said that we all have this to a degree, that we will continually qualify something as true until we receive a specific amount of evidence to oppose that assumption, the main distinction is with the amount of evidence required by a belief. If you have strong faith in an idea, you're saying, "It will be very hard or impossible for me to change my mind." This is a problem. When a person is closed to critical analysis of their own ideas, it's tough to trust the other choices they've made in their life. I feel everyone has the right to believe whatever that want, no matter how crazy I think they are. I would never want to take that freedom away from someone. I would, however, encourage those with supposed "strong faith" to evaluate their stance from an unbiased perspective. Get some opposing ideas and truly consider them. We must all realize how our own beliefs affect our everyday choices - large and small. The more we can be rational with our ideas and justify our beliefs, Andy Kaiser clean 6:28 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/11/whats-the-real-value-of-a-college-education/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/11/whats-the-real-value-of-a-college-education/#comments Mon, 12 Oct 2009 01:12:35 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1566 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/11/whats-the-real-value-of-a-college-education/feed/ 10 David Annis By David Annis Article ID: 1340 - Today I heard an advertisement on the radio urging me to go back to college.  “College graduates make a million dollars more over a lifetime,” the advertisement said. It directed me to a website where I could find a co... By David Annis Article ID: 1340 Today I heard an advertisement on the radio urging me to go back to college.  “College graduates make a million dollars more over a lifetime,” the advertisement said. It directed me to a website where I could find a ... Andy Kaiser clean 7:06 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/03/hidden-dangers-with-ibuprofin-motrin-and-flu-treatment/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/03/hidden-dangers-with-ibuprofin-motrin-and-flu-treatment/#comments Sun, 04 Oct 2009 02:46:08 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1548 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/10/03/hidden-dangers-with-ibuprofin-motrin-and-flu-treatment/feed/ 17 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1339 - Let me tell you about an adventure my family had a few weeks ago. I should also say that I'm not a doctor, and nothing you read here is official medical advice. This is my understanding of what happened in this specifi... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1339 Let me tell you about an adventure my family had a few weeks ago. I should also say that I'm not a doctor, and nothing you read here is official medical advice. This is my understanding of what happened in this specific case. I have to lead with this information because, while the story starts out fun, it ends in the hospital. My family went on vacation. Unfortunately, after just a few days, my daughter, Ally, got the flu. She's four years old, and this was a bad flu, the kind that really wipes you out. My wife and I had to take care of her full-time. We decided to ditch the vacation and come home, but not before stopping off at the local hospital to see if Ally was okay. And she was, the doctor told us. Just a standard flu. Keep her hydrated, wait it out, and she'll be fine soon. For controlling her fever, we also got a prescription for Motrin (that's a brand name ibuprofin used for fever and various aches and pains). On the ride home, I called Ally's pediatrician, and he agreed with the other doctor. But after five days, Ally was still wiped out. She hadn't eaten in that entire time. She couldn't eat anything without having to give it back within the hour. She could barely keep down water. The fever was gone. She just had continual nausea. While she was really weak, every once in a while she would move on her own. She'd burst into tears and say that her back hurt. She'd then flop around to change position, and that seemed to help. My wife and thought this was just because she'd been laying in that position for so long, her muscles were cramping up. I get backaches after sleeping the wrong way overnight - my daughter had been laying in the same position for almost a week. We brought Ally to her pediatrician's office, and were reassured that - again - it was just a regular flu. Then we found blood in Ally's urine. We drove to the emergency room. When we got to the E.R., the doctors, thankfully, were excellent. When we described all that had happened, one of the first things they said was, "We think she's having problems with her kidneys. Has she mentioned having any back pain?" That was one of those times where I felt like a complete failure as a parent. Yes, we said, she has complained of back pain. The doc was right: Ally was in the process of kidney failure. From there, they moved very quickly. I'll keep most of the details to myself because, well, I want them private. But here's one to give you an idea of what the parents and child had to go through: Ally went into surgery to have an IV inserted into her neck. Minutes after she woke up from the anesthesia, they started kidney dialysis. The neck IV was hooked up to a big machine that looked like a giant clothes washer. It took the blood out of her body, cleaned it, and put it back in. That was day nine. Nine days of no food, little water, bad sleep, the physical trauma of a bad flu and, as we found out, kidney failure. Luckily, that was the worst of it. Things turned around very shortly after the dialysis. It was just what her body needed, and having a machine clean her blood gave her kidneys a chance to recover. Things are fine now. The rest of the story is just recovery. After a week in the hospital's intensive care, we got to go home. Ally needed help walking again, but after a few wobbly trips to the hospital's children's activity room, she recovered with a speed I can only envy. We're now home and we're healthy. I told you the whole story so you can understand how we got to the point we did. I tell you this so you can prevent something similar from happening to someone you know. Remember earlier, when I mentioned that Ally was given Motrin for fever control? According to the kidney specialist, the Motrin was probably a contributing factor to Ally's kidney failure. Even if she had just one dose. Motrin, ibuprofin, asprin, and "NSAID" drugs Motrin, ibuprofin, asprin, Andy Kaiser clean 12:40 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/2009/09/13/pagan-parallels-to-jesus-the-forgotten-sons-of-god/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/13/pagan-parallels-to-jesus-the-forgotten-sons-of-god/#comments Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:46:12 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1507 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/09/13/pagan-parallels-to-jesus-the-forgotten-sons-of-god/feed/ 3 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1336 "And when we say also that... [Jesus] was produced without sexual union, and that He... was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regardi... By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1336 "And when we say also that... [Jesus] was produced without sexual union, and that He... was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regar... Andy Kaiser clean 18:57 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/2009/08/16/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 a ... 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/2009/07/25/andy-kaiser-interviewed-by-warning-radio/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/25/andy-kaiser-interviewed-by-warning-radio/#comments Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:54:17 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1390 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/25/andy-kaiser-interviewed-by-warning-radio/feed/ 2 By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1332 - Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. I'm interrupting the normal podcast with a public service announcement. And by "public", I mean "Digital Bits Skeptic". And by "service announcement", I mean, "shameless self-promotion, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1332 Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. I'm interrupting the normal podcast with a public service announcement. And by "public", I mean "Digital Bits Skeptic". And by "service announcement", I mean, "shameless self-promotion, though I honestly think you might be interested". I've been interviewed by our skeptical friends at "Warning: Radio". Done by Bryan, Baxter and Nitor, the show is relatively unscripted and was recorded live. This is a good thing, as the conversation topics range far and wide, and you get to listen to what I sound like when I can't edit my own audio. All of my interviews so far have been quick little things, or brief Q&As on various websites, and that's why I'm taking the time to mention this in-depth interview now. Listen to the surprising-but-understandable origins of Digital Bits Skeptic, my thoughts on "The Skeptologists" TV show, the missing skepticality in pop culture, technology scams, Mystery Science Theater 3000, and comments on my contemporaries, including Joe Nickell, Brian Dunning, James Randi and The Skeptics Guide to the Universe. Click HERE to listen to the full episode online. The interview starts at the 19:50 mark, about a third of the way through the audio. Andy Kaiser clean 3:35 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/19/ice-cubes-cornflakes-inflation-and-what-caused-the-sub-prime-lending-crisis-why-theories-are-so-hard-to-get-right/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/19/ice-cubes-cornflakes-inflation-and-what-caused-the-sub-prime-lending-crisis-why-theories-are-so-hard-to-get-right/#comments Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:51:30 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1380 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/19/ice-cubes-cornflakes-inflation-and-what-caused-the-sub-prime-lending-crisis-why-theories-are-so-hard-to-get-right/feed/ 3 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1331 - The Phillips Curve is possibly the biggest blow-up in economics that ever happened. Economists - and just about every class of social scientists - are frequently (and rightly) accused of being so infatuated with a theo... By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1331 The Phillips Curve is possibly the biggest blow-up in economics that ever happened. Economists - and just about every class of social scientists - are frequently (and rightly) accused of being so infatuated with a theory, that they ignore data if it doesn't fit in with their model. The Phillips Curve is a wonderful example of rigorous empiricism. In 1958, A.W. Phillips discovered a striking relationship between inflation and unemployment: periods of high inflation coincided with periods of low employment. Subsequent studies found this result held true across countries and time periods. This led to the belief that there was a "trade-off" between employment and inflation which could be exploited by policy makers: a government could reduce unemployment if it was willing to increase inflation and vice-versa. The theory behind the data was fairly simple: if unemployment was low, businessses found it hard to hire workers and to increase wages. Higher wages causes goods to be more expensive to produce, so firms increase prices, and this causes inflation. Conversely, if the government caused inflation, there would be a gap in which wages are low in comparison with the price of goods. This is because the workers have not yet negotiated higher wages to compensate for higher prices. During this period, businesses take advantage of low wages by hiring more workers and stepping up production, reducing unemployment. Higher inflation means increased production and lower unemployment. The empirical evidence and theory were flawless. Policies based on the Phillips Curve enjoyed some initial success. So why is it that in the 1970s the Phillips Curve collapsed, and the world saw "stagflation": a bizarre situation which combined reduced production with inflation? An answer came from American economist Milton Friedman: low unemployment, he explained, is the result of unanticipated inflation. If the government started intentionally causing inflation, inflation becomes regular and predictable. If it is predictable, employees started negotiating contracts in which wages increased in tune with inflation and there is no point at which wages are "cheap". This is an incredibly subtle difference. Note that the explanation hasn't changed: the relationship is still the result of wages not keeping up with prices. The only difference is that the second uses a more sophisticated system than the first. To illustrate what happened, consider the following example (used by Landsburg in his excellent book The Armchair Economist): "Imagine an economist noticed that people purchased two boxes of cereal per week. Excited, he publishes a paper on the subject and it comes to the governments' attention. The government - for whatever reason - decides that people should eat four boxes of cereal per week. People already buy two boxes, so if the government sends them [an additional] two boxes every week - yay! - they will eat four boxes a week!" But that's not how it plays in real life. After getting the two boxes, this won't suddenly change consumer habits to four boxes - they'll instead stick with two. Since the government just gave them two, they'll buy no boxes at all! These are the perils of not including  people's behavior when formulating an idea. But it's even worse when we get a theory wrong. Imagine two economists bumped into the "two boxes a week" fact. One says, "People will always buy two boxes of cereal per week," while the other says, "People will always eat two boxes of cereal per week." How can you tell which one of them is right? From the data, you can't.  But once you change the rules of the game - by sending them boxes - you can. The first theory implies they will continue buying two boxes per week while the second predicts they will buy none at all. The second will be proven right. Similarly, in 1958, if you had two theories which stated, "Inflation reduces unemployment, Andy Kaiser clean 11:04 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/12/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/2009/07/05/how-to-be-a-fakir/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/05/how-to-be-a-fakir/#comments Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:32:14 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1191 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/07/05/how-to-be-a-fakir/feed/ 3 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 1329 - In a previous article, I covered "How to be a psychic", telling how to recreate common psychic supernatural abilities. But there are more important problems in the world. Not a politician's expense claims, but fakirs. By M Parrott Article ID: 1329 In a previous article, I covered "How to be a psychic", telling how to recreate common psychic supernatural abilities. But there are more important problems in the world. Not a politician's expense claims, but fakirs. Fakirs convert people to religions by performing supposed miracles that people assume would otherwise be dangerous or impossible. Before I begin: everything I describe here is dangerous and should not be attempted. If you hurt yourself or someone else with the techniques described here, it's not my fault, it's yours. I will describe how these things are done, and the science behind them, as much as I can. If you are so desperate to try these techniques, I can't stop you. But I did warn you. How to lay on a bed of nails As many of you know, this trick is where someone just lies on a bed, and the bed is made from hundreds or thousands of upturned, pointy, sharp and dangerous-looking nails. The performer takes a snooze, gets up, and is unpunctured. So the trick... actually, there is no trick. All that is needed is a real bed of nails. The nails must all be the same length. You need someone to lower you down so that your weight is evenly distributed over all the nails. You want your body to be pressing against as many nails as possible. Your weight being distributed means there is not enough pressure on any one nail to puncture the skin. When getting up from the bed of nails, make sure no extreme pressure is applied to any nail-covered area. There's a similar (and much safer) way to perform this trick with eggs instead of nails. You can lay out a bed of eggs so that the top of the eggs - the pointy part -  are all facing upwards. Then lay down carefully in the same manner as you would on a bed of nails. If you mess up, at least it's not painful. Just moist. How to perform snake flossing This is a trick where the fakir gets a snake, sucks it in through his nose and pulls it out of his mouth. How's it done? Well, you get a snake, suck it in through your nose and pull it out of your mouth. Any perceived "trick" is just due to human biology: right above your nostrils is the entrance to your nasal cavity. The nasal cavity connects to your throat near the same place your mouth connects to it. So the idea is you snort the snake in through your nose with sharp intakes of breath (I'd suggest tail first), grab it from deep inside your mouth and pull it through. Now obviously if you were stupid enough to not follow my earlier warning and are going to try this (which I thoroughly suggest you do not), don't start with a snake. A thread of 100% cotton (I emphasise cotton) is best. How to walk on broken glass In this trick, a bed of broken glass is laid out. The fakir walks across the bed of glass from one side to the other. At the end of the journey, the fakir shows his feet, and they're uncut by the shards of glass. This relies on a similar principle to the bed of nails - weight distribution. Your pressure is spread out over enough pieces of glass that you won't cut your feet. But there is another element to making sure this trick works. A lot of the glass shards will lay smooth side up - sharp edges will press against the ground, not against your foot - but this isn't always the case. So, when you put your foot down, you must move it slowly back and forth, helping the glass settle into the right distribution so that you can put your entire weight on that foot without getting hurt. Do not transfer pressure to that foot until you are absolutely certain you won't cut yourself. Then repeat the process. The idea is to take it slowly, for two reasons. One, you don't want to cut yourself. Two, the slower it is done the more pain the performer appears to be going through. In reality, any pain is caused by walking on the broken glass too fast. How to walk on hot coals - How to firewalk A bed of burning hot coals. A fakir in bare feet, Andy Kaiser clean 12:49 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/28/was-life-on-earth-an-alien-creation-a-critical-look-at-directed-panspermia/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/28/was-life-on-earth-an-alien-creation-a-critical-look-at-directed-panspermia/#comments Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:28:22 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1158 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/28/was-life-on-earth-an-alien-creation-a-critical-look-at-directed-panspermia/feed/ 0 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1328 - Life may have been the result of intelligent aliens sending bacterium to Earth. This theory is called "directed panspermia". It was proposed thirty-five years ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1328 Life may have been the result of intelligent aliens sending bacterium to Earth. This theory is called "directed panspermia". It was proposed thirty-five years ago by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, and Leslie Orgel, a highly respected British chemist. I found the original paper they published. Here I examine it and provide some comments[1]. A common objection to the theory that aliens brought life to Earth is the problem of infinite regress: If life on Earth was created by aliens, who created the aliens? And who created those creators? And so on. Crick and Orgel get around this problem by speculating that some planets may have chemical properties that make the origin of life much more probable than it is on Earth. Although it's not mentioned, I think it's possible that there are forms of life more likely to originate from non-living matter (and without the guidance of an intelligent designer). Citing the work of astronomer Carl Sagan, they conclude that life traveling on a meteor would probably be destroyed by radiation long before it would arrive at Earth. But what if an alien civilization designed a special radiation-proof microorganism-carrying ship? Then the "life-from-space" proposal would once again be plausible. In the paper, Crick and Orgel say, "[I]t is quite probable that planets not unlike the Earth existed as much as [6.5 billion years] before the formation of our own solar system." This allows life to originate, evolve and spread before Earth even existed. They go on with arguments supporting their theory: "Infective theories of the origins of terrestrial life could be taken more seriously if they explained aspects of biochemistry or biology that are otherwise difficult to understand. We do not have any strong arguments of this kind, but here are two weak facts that could be relevant. The chemical composition of living organisms must reflect to some extent the composition of the environment in which they evolved. Thus the presence in living organisms of elements that are extremely rare on the Earth might indicate that life is extraterrestrial in origin. Molybdenum is an essential trace element that plays an important role in many enzymatic reactions, while chromium and nickel are relatively unimportant in biochemistry. The abundance of chromium, nickel, and molybdenum on the Earth are 0.20%, 3.16%, and 0.02%, respectively. We cannot conclude anything from this single example, since molybdenum may be irreplaceable in some essential reaction - nitrogen fixation, for example. However, if it could be shown that the elements represented in terrestrial living organisms correlate closely with those that are abundant in some class of star - molybdenum stars, for example - we might look more sympathetically at 'infective' theories." Crick and Orgel's second argument for their theory is the genetic code. As you may know, the genetic code is universal[2]. It is the same in plants, animals, and bacteria. Crick and Orgel believed this means all life on Earth shares a common ancestor with a complete and fully developed genetic code[3]. They reasoned that if an alien civilization sent life to Earth, then it would have developed an organism with that same genetic code. On the other hand, if life originated naturally, the common ancestor of all living things may have simply had a primitive genetic code which coded for only a handful of amino acids (later on, this species would have split into several different lineages which had genetic codes that coded for more types of amino acids using the codons which originally did not code for anything). In this scenario, all life would have genetic similarities, but would also have significant differences. The moral of the story is that directed panspermia would show a universally shared genetic code. A non-panspermia origin could produce a single, universal genetic code, or many codes with significant similarities). Andy Kaiser clean 9:32 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/2009/06/07/answers-to-objections-about-atheism-and-evolution/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/07/answers-to-objections-about-atheism-and-evolution/#comments Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:46:58 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1107 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/06/07/answers-to-objections-about-atheism-and-evolution/feed/ 13 David Annis By David Annis Article ID: 1325 - Atheism and evolution are two topics that I write about and discuss with my religious friends. I encounter the same objections for both. Repeatedly. - - Myth: "If you do not believe in God, By David Annis Article ID: 1325 Atheism and evolution are two topics that I write about and discuss with my religious friends. I encounter the same objections for both. Repeatedly. Myth: "If you do not believe in God, you have no basis for morality.  Anything is permissible." I can and do have a system of morality. It's based on what kind of world I want to live in, not on belief that a supernatural being wants me to behave in a certain way.  Wars, genocides, pogroms, holocausts, discrimination, terrorism, and slavery have all been justified based on religion.  I donate to charity, know that murder is wrong, and teach my children right from wrong (there are no toy guns in our house). Show me empirical evidence that the religious behave in a more moral way than non-religious and you might have an argument, but the evidence is not there.  I know many atheists that donate to charity, love their wives, abide by the law, and otherwise act in a moral way. And I know many religious people that do not. If you maintain that belief in God is needed as a foundation for a moral system, is any God sufficient?  Are Xenu, Shiva, Allah and the Christian God, all equally moral?  If so, isn't picking a God just taking the easy way out?  Instead of grappling with the difficult questions you are swallowing a belief system whole. Since you took the easy way out, if a premise fails you end up with a moral structure that can't support itself. If all Gods are not equally moral, how can you be sure that your God's system leads to real morality? Myth: "You can't prove a theory, so the Bible may be literally true." This argument falls into two pieces.  The first piece says that an omnipotent being could change the Universe in all sorts of ways.  Physical laws that work one way today may have worked differently years ago, so we should not believe the evidence before us.  Carbon may decay at a different rate then than it does now, geological process may have been different one thousand years ago, and so on.  Yet, those who make this claim also assume their refrigerator, car, and home heating system will still work just as well tomorrow. They rely on medical and agricultural systems built upon scientific methods.  That's intellectually dishonest. The second piece of this objection is that science only proves that a theory is highly improbable. It doesn't say something is impossible. A scientific theory can be overthrown.  I can't prove that I can't jump to the moon.  I can't prove that I can't pray my way there.  Using the scientific method, however, I can prove that it is highly improbable that either method will put a man on the moon.  Gathering insights about how the universe behaves is what allowed Neil Armstrong to take his giant leap for mankind. Myth: "I can't see evolution happen." Some people protest that they can't see evolution happening right before their eyes.  Plant speciation has been observed and used by farmers for hundreds of years, though not under laboratory conditions.  In a previous post, I discussed macro-evolution occurring in the laboratory, but still got a response saying something like, "Gee, that's a long way from seeing a bacterium turn into a horse." So, why don't we see a bacterium turn into a horse right before our eyes?  It's because we observe over too short a period of time.  My 10-year-old son is growing, but he looks no taller now than he did last week.  There is rich evidence of evolution in the fossil record, in the genetic sequences of the plants and animals alive today, in our ability to breed new varieties of plants, pets, and livestock, and in the changes we observe in the natural world around us.  We can't see changes within our lifetime because these changes normally take hundreds or thousands or millions of years. Does this mean we should conclude these changes aren't happening? If my son isn't taller this week compared to last week, does this mean he's not growing? Andy Kaiser clean 8:24 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/31/autographed-death-from-the-skies-is-free-from-digital-bits-skeptic/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/31/autographed-death-from-the-skies-is-free-from-digital-bits-skeptic/#comments Sun, 31 May 2009 19:16:46 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1093 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/31/autographed-death-from-the-skies-is-free-from-digital-bits-skeptic/feed/ 0 By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1324 - Thanks to everyone who contributed to the "Death from the Skies!" promotion. Per my request, you DID generously help me to run out of supplies! Sadly, all the books are gone - there's no more to give out - but you can ... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1324 Thanks to everyone who contributed to the "Death from the Skies!" promotion. Per my request, you DID generously help me to run out of supplies! Sadly, all the books are gone - there's no more to give out - but you can still purchase "Death from the Skies!" at this link. I'm keeping the text below for archival reasons, but am crossing it all out to make sure you realize it's no longer valid. Thanks, Andy Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. Do you know who I mean when I say "Phil Plait"? He's the president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, appointed by James Randi himself. Phil is an astronomer who, along with a healthy understanding of critical thinking and skepticism, writes as the "Bad Astronomer" for his "Bad Astronomy" blog. Do you know what I mean when I say "Death from the Skies!" That's the title of Phil Plait's latest book. Here's a brief summary from Publisher's Weekly: "Plait... presents in loving detail the many, many ways the human race could die, from temperature extremes and poisonous atmosphere to asteroid impacts and supernovae explosions. Such a state of destruction existed some 65 million years ago, when a giant meteoroid struck Earth, sending up so much flaming debris that the whole planet caught fire and the dinosaurs were wiped out. Solar flare activity could bring on another Ice Age. Worse yet would be a gamma ray burster, a collapsed star whose radiation would be comparable to detonating a one-megaton nuclear bomb over every square mile of the planet. Plait discusses insatiable black holes, the death of the Sun and cannibal galaxies—including our own. Balancing his doomsday scenarios with enthusiastic and clear explanations of the science behind each, Plait offers a surprisingly educational and enjoyable astronomical horror show, including a table listing the extremely low odds of each event occurring. He gives readers a good scare, and then puts it in context." Sounds fun, right? So, I contacted Phil Plait. After an enjoyable conversation, I've got my eager hands on a bunch of hardcover copies of "Death from the Skies!" And they are all autographed by Phil Plait himself. I want to give this book to you. At the time of this writing, Amazon has "Death from the Skies!" for $17 USD. Throw in shipping, and you're somewhere over $20. In what is honestly a complete coincidence, a Digital Bits Skeptic membership is $20 per year. We're all pretty smart here, so you see where I'm going with this: if you sign up for a DBSkeptic membership, I will send you an autographed, hardcover copy of "Death from the Skies!" for free. You're paying about the same cost you'd pay to get the book, AND the copy you'll get from me is autographed by Phil Plait, AND you'll become a Digital Bits Skeptic Supporter, which means you get that cool badge next to your name every time you visit DBSkeptic.com and leave an article comment. I'm actually losing money on this for the short term, since I have to pay for the book, as well as packaging and shipping to you. But I'm willing to do it if you can commit to supporting Digital Bits Skeptic. With that said, I can only ship to locations in the United States - overseas shipping is outside my price range. If you were planning to buy "Death from the Skies!" anyway, now's your chance to get it autographed, and at a discount. If you were thinking about supporting Digital Bits Skeptic, now's your chance to do so, and to get a cool book while you're at it. I'll continue this offer until I run out of supplies. Please, help me to run out of supplies. Andy Kaiser clean 5:32 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/2009/05/24/evolution-the-genetic-code-and-message-theory-a-response-to-walter-remine/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/24/evolution-the-genetic-code-and-message-theory-a-response-to-walter-remine/#comments Mon, 25 May 2009 02:51:07 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=1062 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/05/24/evolution-the-genetic-code-and-message-theory-a-response-to-walter-remine/feed/ 29 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1322 - [Editor's note: This article and its comments are here in entirety, but a continuing response by the author can be found at this link.] - This article is a response to a blog post at Uncommon Descent by Walter R... By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1322 [Editor's note: This article and its comments are here in entirety, but a continuing response by the author can be found at this link.] This article is a response to a blog post at Uncommon Descent by Walter Remine[1]. I will begin by quoting part of his essay: "Life is unified by an abundance of complex biochemical features possessed by all, or virtually all life. Such features are known as biologic universals. The list includes: DNA, RNA, a triplet-nucleotide genetic code, and the method of translation of the genetic code into sequences of amino-acids in proteins. Proteins constructed of left-handed alpha-bonded amino-acids, the same set of 20 amino-acids (out of several thousand amino-acids that exist). The lipid bilayer construction of cell membranes. Adenosine triphosphate, biotin, riboflavin, hemes, pyridoxin, vitamins K and B12, and folic acid implement metabolic processes everywhere. For a given complex trait, there are rare, very minor variations away from the standard form. For example, there is now known about two dozen microorganisms that have slight variations on the universal genetic code." I have no problem with this. I do have a problem with Remine's further comments: "Leading evolutionists acknowledge that each of the biologic universals is too complex to have been in the first life - nothing even remotely like known life could have originated by known natural processes aided by chance and the available time. The probability is staggeringly too small, even on the scale of the universe. This should have falsified evolution, but instead evolutionists compensated by making their theory unfalsifiable. That is, without any serious evidence, evolutionists now make three bold, untestable, unfalsifiable, unscientific assertions: 1.    There exists an infinitude (a very large number) of other biochemistries suitable for life. Evolutionists make this unscientific assertion in order to artificially increase the likelihood of life arising by chance. Evolutionists acknowledge the chance origin of any known lifeform is vastly too unlikely, but they claim the chance origin of some lifeform (when allowing for the infinitude of other possible lifeforms) is quite likely. They say there is nothing 'special' about Earthly lifeforms, instead life just happened by chance upon the type of life we see on Earth. 2.    The first lifeforms were vastly simpler than any life known today. The first lifeforms possessed essentially none of the biologic universals. 3.    Many evolutionists further assert that life may have originated more than once on Earth, perhaps many times." The first life by definition would have to have structures to perform things like replication, metabolic processes, etc. Although it is theoretically possible for something to reproduce, and break down energy without having the specific structures that our type of life does, if all life is descended from one primordial organism then the structures performing these functions could not have changed much as we'll discuss further on. As for Remine's allegation that evolutionists make "three unscientific assertions": I would love to see a source for point 1 - "There exists an infinitude of other biochemistries suitable for life", as I have never heard any evolutionist say anything like that. Point 2 - "The first lifeforms were vastly simpler than any life known today" - is false because the first life form would have had several of the biologic universals, as I will explain later. As for point 3 - "Life may have originated more than once on Earth" - it is a possibility that life originated multiple times, but I know of no one who insists that this is the case. Once again, no source is cited. Remine says: "With those assertions in mind, if evolution predicts anything clearly on this matter, it predicts the opposite of what we observe - it predicts that countless lifeforms lacking all, or most, Andy Kaiser clean 17:46 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/2009/04/26/problems-with-prophecy-from-the-bible-and-koran/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/26/problems-with-prophecy-from-the-bible-and-koran/#comments Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:16:25 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=973 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/26/problems-with-prophecy-from-the-bible-and-koran/feed/ 8 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1318 - Most world religions, especially the Abrahamic faiths, promote the idea that God has spoken to man in the past and present. If they are right, we should find strong evidence that future knowledge was handed down... By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1318 Most world religions, especially the Abrahamic faiths, promote the idea that God has spoken to man in the past and present. If they are right, we should find strong evidence that future knowledge was handed down to man in the form of prophecy. God may also have spoken scientific facts to a prophet which the prophet could not possibly have known at the time. As you might guess, Christians, Jews, and Muslims all believe that their holy books contain such knowledge. However, a careful examination reveals that not only is there no strong evidence of prophecy, but also that the Qu'ran and Torah both contain falsehoods concerning history and science! Before we can consider a prophecy as genuine, there are four standards that must be met. 1. The prophecy must be specific. This criterion rules out the vast majority of prophecies. Take those in the Biblical Book of Revelation, which is so vague that it has plenty of different interpretations. For example, the number "666" is said to refer to the Roman Emperor Nero by the Roman Catholics, while Seventh-Day Adventists maintain that this number refers to the Pope! Also, in order to be precise, the prophecy should give or imply a date by which it is to be fulfilled. Otherwise, any group can make a prophecy such as "City X will be destroyed" and claim victory for their prophecy if City X is destroyed hundreds or thousands of years later. Alternately, a group could always claim that the prophecy will be fulfilled sometime in the future, and so such a claim would risk nothing. An example of this is in the Bible's Book of Ezekiel (chapter 26). It says that Tyre will be completely destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. This is a false prophecy, since Tyre was still standing centuries later when Alexander the Great came through and conquered it. 2. The prophecy must be made before the prophesied event This is another criterion which rules out a very high percentage of alleged prophecies. To be certain that a prophecy was made before the predicted event, we must have documentation. And this documentation must be datable - by carbon-dating or some other trusted method - to a time well before the event happened. 3. The prophecy must be fulfilled and must not appear in the same book as a text containing false prophecies. We must be able to verify that the prophecy came true. We also would not expect a God-given prophecy to predict anything other than what actually happened. 4. The prophecy must not be something which could plausibly be attributed to a guess. Years before the Soviet Union collapsed, many people predicted the collapse itself. This makes sense, since the Soviet Union had been terribly unstable for years. While there is nothing miraculous about these predictions, any alleged prophecy must likewise be this specific. Prophecy: The Bible predicts the birth of the nation of Israel Throughout my reading and research, I have come across only a handful of prophecies which were claimed to fulfill all of these criteria. A Christian website claimed that the book of Ezekiel predicted the exact year when Israel would again become a nation[1]. Here's the relevant passage: "Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself. You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side.  I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel. After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year." (Ezekiel 4:4-6, NIV) Some say this passage predicts there will be 430 years of judgment against the nation of Israel.  We have claims that the Babylonian Captivity began in 606 BCE, and lasted for exactly seventy years. This would leave us with 360 years of remaining punishment. Andy Kaiser clean 10:07 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/19/the-drake-equation/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/19/the-drake-equation/#comments Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:06:03 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=955 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/04/19/the-drake-equation/feed/ 15 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1317 - I'm about to prove to you that aliens exist. I'm talking space aliens. Whether they're the traditional Little Green Men, bug-eyed monsters, or something incomprehensible to the human mind, they exist, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1317 I'm about to prove to you that aliens exist. I'm talking space aliens. Whether they're the traditional Little Green Men, bug-eyed monsters, or something incomprehensible to the human mind, they exist, they're intelligent, and they're trying to find us. I'm going to prove this to you by using the most powerful tool on Earth: mathematics. Ready? Here we go: The number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy Our planet Earth resides comfortably in the Milky Way galaxy, a pinwheel-shaped collection of at least 200 billion stars. You know how our sun is just ONE star? Give it 200 billion friends. That's 200,000,000,000. At the time of this writing, this is roughly thirty times the number of humans living right now on this planet. Personally, I can't even visualize a number that high. Again, that's why we're using math - even if we can't see it or fathom it, we can represent it and come up with meaningful answers. So, we have 200 billion stars. We know this number fluctuates - new stars form and die. Astronomers think that the birth rate of stars in the Milky Way galaxy is roughly one star per year. The percentage of stars that have planets Next, let's look at all those stars. How many have planets around them? They're hard to see, but we're sniffing them out. NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory tell us we've so far found hundreds of "extrasolar planets".  As of April 2009, the count was at 344. Some astronomers think at least fifty percent of all stars have planets! We'll be more conservative. Let's cut the ratio in half, and estimate twenty-five percent of all stars have a planet. The number of "Goldilocks planets" per star Now look at the planets spinning around all those stars. Of those planets, how many (per star) are capable of sustaining life? Such habitable places are sometimes humorously called "Goldilocks planets", meaning that conditions for life (as we know it) are not too cold, not too hot, but just right. In our own solar system, we have an idea of this number. Earth is such a planet. As we explore further, we may find that other places in our solar system are also "just right". Or say you have a solar system with a Venus-like planet, where the greenhouse effect has escalated beyond control and turned the planet into an acidic-raining wasteland which is hot enough to melt lead. Take that hellish planet and move it away from the sun. Get it out far enough and you'll find a sweet spot, where the planet is warm enough (thanks to the greenhouse effect), but not so hot it kills everything on the surface. There are endless possibilities and plenty of conjecture as to the number of habitable planets per star. For now, let's use the number as dictated by our only example, ourselves: let's assume that of the stars which have planets, one planet is capable of supporting life in some form. The fraction of planets where life evolves This leads us to a conversation about life itself: on planets capable of sustaining life, what are the chances that life exists? Some biologists think that if life can exist somewhere, it will. Their opinion is bolstered by so-called "extremophiles" - Earth-based life that has adapted to some truly nasty conditions. Extremophiles can exist without sunlight, or under massive pressure, or bombarded by amounts of radiation that would make The Incredible Hulk blush. With evidence here on our planet, this is why many suggest that if life can exist somewhere, it will. Others say that getting to that point - the point where life begins - is very difficult. We know it's possible, of course, because I'm writing this and you, my fellow human, are reading it. But let's err on the side of caution. Let's say that on life-capable planets, only one percent of those will harbor living beings. The fraction of life evolving into intelligent life So we've got a lot of stars. They have a lot of planets. Andy Kaiser clean 13:50 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/2009/03/22/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/2009/03/15/a-critical-examination-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/15/a-critical-examination-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/#comments Mon, 16 Mar 2009 01:48:56 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=872 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/15/a-critical-examination-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/feed/ 12 Nicholas Covington By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1312 - The Kalam Cosmological Argument was popularized by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, and it has become the most widely discussed argument for God's existence in contemporary philosophy[1]. By Nicholas Covington Article ID: 1312 The Kalam Cosmological Argument was popularized by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, and it has become the most widely discussed argument for God's existence in contemporary philosophy[1]. These th... Andy Kaiser clean 10:06 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/08/bless-me-father-for-i-have-sneezed/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/08/bless-me-father-for-i-have-sneezed/#comments Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:00:01 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=773 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/08/bless-me-father-for-i-have-sneezed/feed/ 13 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1311 - - "Oh, excuse me." - ...and that's all that should have to happen. - Yet, in the United States, if I sneeze, someone around me will inevitably say, "God bless you." Sometimes they leave out the "god", By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1311 "Oh, excuse me." ...and that's all that should have to happen. Yet, in the United States, if I sneeze, someone around me will inevitably say, "God bless you." Sometimes they leave out the "god", and you get the more concise and cooler, "bless you". I'd like to know: what exactly have I done to warrant such compassion? ...Or is it contempt? Why do I need to be blessed? Why do people say "God bless you" after a sneeze? A sneeze is often caused because I've got something up my nose and my body wants it out. So I get a funny twitching in my sniffer, I take a quick breath, and an explosive blast of air shoots out my nostrils. Disgusting? Maybe. But it's a normal human bodily function. So therefore, why am I not blessed for passing gas? Seems to me that breaking wind or cutting the cheese - or whatever euphemism you want for the expulsion of flatulence - is just as required and is usually as involuntary as a sneeze. Now, there are problems with blessing someone who's passed gas, since if you bless me, you've just incriminated yourself. After all, as we all learned in preschool, "he who first detected it, ejected it". And "the next person who speaks" is indeed "the person who reeks". At least with sneezing, it's obvious who committed the act. So we have the aforementioned "God bless you". What does this mean? Why the blessing? Why is this so necessary? I know several people who aren't particularly religious, and they'll casually throw out a blessing after every sneeze. I know several people who are very religious, and after a sneeze they'll race to see who can first bless the sneezer, like some kind of covert religious competition. The history of blessing after the sneeze is a little murky, like looking at history through the veil of a few layers of tissue. There are many possible causes why we bless someone after a sneeze. Here are several possibilities: A common belief about sneezing is that during a sneeze, the heart skips a beat or even temporarily stops. The blessing was meant to insure that the heart continued beating normally. In reality, the heart isn't affected by a sneeze. Some used to believe that when a spiritual soul inhabited one's body, that person was healthy. Sickness was caused by problems with the soul, or from the soul leaving the body. It stands to reason that a powerful enough sneeze could rocket the soul outside of a person's body. When this happened, bad spirits or demons could enter, and cause disease. So saying "bless you" was a ward against evil disease-spirits, preventing them from entering your body while the soul was temporary out to lunch. Another common origin of sneeze-blessing started around 590 AD, at the time of the European Great Plague. People noticed that sneezing led to illness, and at the time, that often lead to a horrible death. If you sneezed, you needed a blessing, pronto. So what's the point of this article? Why do we care about the origin of saying "bless you" after a sneeze? The answer lies in an examination of tradition and the amazing longevity of some superstitions. Many people do bless others after a sneeze. The majority of blessers probably don't intend to officially bless someone after such an event. After I sneeze, I've never had anyone frantically whip holy water at me. When I go to my doctor, he takes my temperature and gives me some pills. If blessing a disease worked, he'd instead have me kneel while he anointed me with oils and Latin incantations. People say the words because, well, that's what you say when someone sneezes. And so the tradition continues, trudging along with its ever-growing burden of unneeded Things To Do In A Given Situation. Given the length of time sneeze-blessing has been in our culture, it makes me wonder: how many other aspects of our society are pointless, and persist only because of an unneeded, long-outdated belief? The next time I sneeze, Andy Kaiser clean 6:52 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/28/spontaneous-human-combustion-and-the-wick-effect/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/28/spontaneous-human-combustion-and-the-wick-effect/#comments Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:42:55 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=761 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/28/spontaneous-human-combustion-and-the-wick-effect/feed/ 11 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1310 - Imagine you're sitting at home on your favorite overstuffed armchair. You sink down in the stuffing and relax. You've got a cigarette in one hand, a drink in the other. - You smoke and drink. You're sleepy, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1310 Imagine you're sitting at home on your favorite overstuffed armchair. You sink down in the stuffing and relax. You've got a cigarette in one hand, a drink in the other. You smoke and drink. You're sleepy, and the lazy trail of cigarette smoke is a gentle hypnosis. It lulls you into closing your eyes. Your brain decides it would rather be dreaming, and the rest of your body agrees. You go to sleep. You never again wake up. After your hysterical neighbor calls emergency services, the police break in to your home and find a gruesome and unbelievable sight. Your body is burned. Clothing, flesh and bones. It's gone. All that's left of you is a foot still wearing a slipper. Your chair is nothing but black cinders. But what's so perplexing, so frightening, is that there is no other damage to the room. Your body and your chair were destroyed, incinerated. But despite the horrible heat and flame needed to accomplish this, the fire never spread beyond, well, you. This wasn't caused by an electrical problem, and there was no highly-combustible fuel like gasoline. The fire was brutally hot, and burned fast, so couldn't have been caused by a dropped cigarette. And in either case, the pain of being burned would have woken you up before killing you. This is the mystery of spontaneous human combustion. While I've used a little poetic license in the story above, it really did happen. These were the facts of what could be the most famous case of spontaneous human combustion, that of Mary Reeser, who died in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 1951. Proponents of spontaneous human combustion point to several possible explanations. Humans can suddenly explode into flame, they say, because of things like excessive static electricity build-up. Get a big enough zap, and you'll spark a fire. There are indeed people who get more than the average amount of static shocks. And every human gut carries around a quantity of methane gas. This highly flammable gas is one of the byproducts of digestion. Perhaps certain unlucky people - those with more than average methane and a higher incidence of static shocks - are more likely to burst into flame without warning. If you were looking for a reason to stop smoking, I can't think of any better incentive. Luckily for those of us who haven't yet combusted, things make more sense when we look at spontaneous human combustion from a skeptical point of view. In order for a human body - or anything - to burst into flame, we need three things: 1) Fuel 2) Heat 3) Oxygen Let's examine the Mary Reeser case. We have oxygen, of course: The air we breathe is about 21% oxygen. We have heat: Reeser's lit cigarette. And we have a limited fuel source: Reeser's chair. What I haven't yet detailed beyond the opening story are a few additional facts about Mary Reeser: She was overweight. At the time of the accident, she was wearing flammable nightclothes. She had also just taken multiple doses of sleeping pills. The floors and walls of her apartment were made of concrete. The wick effect I said the chair is a "limited" fuel source because stuffing and wood are probably not enough to produce a bone-incinerating heat all on their own. To achieve this, we consider "the wick effect". This is where the fat in a body contributes to a fire. As the fire heats a body, the fat will melt and begin to burn. Just as a cotton wick will pull molten wax from a candle and burn it, cotton stuffing in a chair will do the same thing with human body fat of a person sitting in that chair. Like Mary Reeser. With the addition of these facts, the sequence of events becomes ever clearer: Mary Reeser fell asleep in her chair. Her lit cigarette dropped and ignited her nightgown or her chair. The material burned, and Reeser did not wake in time (or at all) because of her recently-ingested sleeping pills. The fat in her body liquefied and burned, Andy Kaiser clean 8:21 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/22/anti-republican-sentiment-and-not-barack-obama-gave-the-democrats-the-presidency/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/22/anti-republican-sentiment-and-not-barack-obama-gave-the-democrats-the-presidency/#comments Mon, 23 Feb 2009 03:43:27 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=741 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/22/anti-republican-sentiment-and-not-barack-obama-gave-the-democrats-the-presidency/feed/ 7 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 139 - Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. He won by an impressive margin. But a question is worth asking: why did he win? - Finding the cause is an unusually difficult task: people are e... By Navin Kumar Article ID: 139 Barack Obama has been sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. He won by an impressive margin. But a question is worth asking: why did he win? Finding the cause is an unusually difficult task: people are emotionally invested in Obama and really, really want to believe that he won because of his message of hope and change. But as economists and social scientists, it's our job to separate the wheat from the chaff.  But how? Surveys are useless: if you simply ask someone why they voted for Obama, they may choose the most comforting answer (like "I want to heal America's racial divide") instead of the most honest one (like "I think Sarah Palin's a bimbo"). So you need a source that's objective and non-partisan. Fortunately there is one: money. Even if you want Obama to win, if you were asked to put your money on him in a bet, you'd start asking yourself: do I think he's actually going to win? That's where intrade.com comes in. Intrade is an online "futures market" which is a rather fancy name for what is essentially a gambling parlor. How it works is this: an event (like "Obama.President.2008") is selling for - say - 48. This means the market believes that there is a 48% chance of the event happening. If you think the likelihood is higher: buy the contract. If you think the likelihood is lower: sell the contract. Thus the prices move up and down - just like a stock exchange. Since these are serious people playing with real money, they don't care whether of not Obama is better than McCain: they only care which one going to win. So looking at these numbers - and seeing what happens to them when certain events take place - tells us a lot about why the public went for Obama. He won with 52.9% of the popular vote and 349 electoral votes. In the United States, that's arguably a landslide victory. Obama wasn't always poised to win: at the beginning of 2008, his Intrade price was running under 15%, one third of Hillary Clinton's 45%. The total odds for the Democratic Party were over 60%. This basically means that it was far more likely that a democrat - but not necessarily Obama - was likely to be the next President of the United States. This might be an emotional damper for those who believe that Obama was essential to the Democratic Party's revival: without him, the Democrats were actually doing quite well. In fact, since 2004, the odds of the Republicans winning in 2008 never crossed 50%. By the time Obama won the Democratic nomination, his Intrade price was 60% - exactly the same as the Democratic Party was at the beginning of the year. So what happened after that? There was a very brief period where his Intrade price fell below 50%: that was just after John McCain selected Sarah Palin to be his running mate. Called the "Palin Bounce", the choice briefly pulled Obama below 50%. But by the time the elections came around, his price was at 85. What caused that? In three words: the financial crisis. People quickly blamed - and voted against - Bush and the Republicans. Voters were primarily anti-Republican and pro-Democrat. They were not specifically for Obama. Other suitable Democrats would have won the election. Obama might be a great guy, he may bring about the change he's promised, but he didn't win because of his "fresh" treatment of Washington politics. Hillary Clinton's ratings were soaring before Obama took center stage. Obama won because a majority of Americans voted against Bush and the Republicans. Obama's unique message is just icing on the political cake. Andy Kaiser clean 6:21 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/14/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/2009/02/08/the-skinny-on-the-body-mass-index-bmi/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/08/the-skinny-on-the-body-mass-index-bmi/#comments Mon, 09 Feb 2009 03:00:12 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=695 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/02/08/the-skinny-on-the-body-mass-index-bmi/feed/ 5 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 137 - Round up a group of ten-year-old children. Put each one on a scale. One third of those children are overweight. Expand your view, and you'll see that 23% of school children are overweight. So says the British government. By M Parrott Article ID: 137 Round up a group of ten-year-old children. Put each one on a scale. One third of those children are overweight. Expand your view, and you'll see that 23% of school children are overweight. So says the British government. They also state that within four years, one out of three adults will be overweight. I'm not sure if this scare trend is common across all cultures, but let me tell you now it is bull. The problem here is that to make these weighty judgements, the government uses the Body Mass Index (also known as the BMI) which is so innately flawed that you might as well flip a coin on whether someone is obese or not. What is the BMI (Body Mass Index)? Let's start with the BMI's origin. A Belgian mathematician and sociologist named Adolphe Quetelet created the Body Mass Index between 1830 and 1850. He did this as a way to compare a person's height with their weight. This technique was originally meant to aid in social science education, and wasn't intended to determine obesity levels. BMI was not meant for medical diagnosis. So how can we use it to see if people are obese? If we're analyzing a specific individual, we can't! At least, not reliably. Let's consider the problem with using weight as an obesity measurement. You might be thinking, "well, of course your weight determines if you're obese." Not really. Muscle and bone density play a big part. Compare equal amounts of muscle and fat, and you'll find the muscle weighs a lot more, at least four times more than fat. So a BMI label for someone with no fat but a lot of muscle will be obese. For example, Michael Jordan is obese according to the BMI and I guarantee he is a lot more fit than anyone reading this. I'm normal weight and Jordan is certainly in better shape than I. So here it is; if athletes are classed as obese then how can we possibly apply this formula to anyone? How can the BMI tell us if we are obese or not? (Yes, we can take additional factors into account like diet and exercise, but the BMI doesn't do that.) One of the key measurements of the Body Mass Index is weight. But weight isn't even an accurate measurement of how healthy you are. Some health fanatics and personal trainers will tell you that there are no genetic factors behind being fat, but this is far from true. Consider the variation in ethnicities. Look at Viking descendents and Greek descendents and you'll see a vast difference in structure. Those of Viking descendents are often higher than average weight; they have a larger bone structure. Greek descendents have a thinner bone structure and are in comparison generally lighter. So back to the BMI: why is one formula applied to everyone of every ethnicity if different ethnicities are genetically pre-disposed to be different weights? If you'd like to see how morbidly obese you are - or are not - see this BMI calculator from the Center for Disease Control. Diet and exercise are good for you. If you eat right you will be your natural, healthy weight. Yes, the BMI may label you as obese or over-weight. But so what? That's the weight at which your body is healthiest. Another detrimental part of the BMI is the social aspect. No matter what you look like, no matter how thin, fat, muscular, dimple-ridden, smooth skinned, pot holed or deformed: you're still a good-looking piece of humanity. It doesn't matter if you are the image of a greater being or the creation of self-directed chance. Humanity is a beautiful race. Live life however you want to live it. Don't be bullied by anyone, especially the government or media, on how you should look. It's your life; it's your choice. Andy Kaiser clean 6:35 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/31/why-pick-on-religion-why-religion-matters-to-the-non-religious/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/31/why-pick-on-religion-why-religion-matters-to-the-non-religious/#comments Sun, 01 Feb 2009 02:13:16 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=688 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/31/why-pick-on-religion-why-religion-matters-to-the-non-religious/feed/ 32 David Annis Author's note: This article was written in response to reader comments from article ID 1237: "If you can't prove God doesn't exist, why not believe?" - By David Annis Article ID: 136 - I have been asked why I bother trying to convince people that the... Author's note: This article was written in response to reader comments from article ID 1237: "If you can't prove God doesn't exist, why not believe?" By David Annis Article ID: 136 I have been asked why I bother trying to convince people that the God they choose to believe in does not exist.  There are many common beliefs that I don't share, like the one about Steve Martin being a comic genius. I choose to ignore that belief. There are other religions, such as Taoism, that I have never criticized. Why then do I debate other religious beliefs? To explain, here's a true story about my oldest son.  When he was 5 years old we went through a period when he was clearly very upset by something.  We had no idea what it was and he wouldn't tell us. His nanny noticed it too and talked to us about it. Disappointed that we didn't know what was bothering him, she vowed to figure it out.  One day when my wife and I returned home, our nanny told us she had solved the mystery. "This is going to sound a lot worse than it is," she said.  "I offered to play basketball with him and he wouldn't play, so I asked what was bothering him. This time he actually answered." He said, "I can't tell you, it's a secret and I'm not supposed to tell anyone, especially an adult."  Our nanny suggested that he could always share his secret with his parents. Our son replied that this secret was so unique, it was especially important that he not share it with mom and dad. As you can imagine, at this point my wife and I had horrible visions racing through our heads. But our nanny had pulled out all the stops to convince him to share his secret and eventually the promise of a huge ice cream sundae did the trick. Our son told his secret. He said, "Jesus is my savior." This revelation came from the woman who cleans our house. She had promised our son a silver cross if he would believe that Jesus was his savior.  Knowing we wouldn't approve, she swore him to secrecy.  She knew it was wrong to encourage a five year old to keep a secret from his parents. But she decided that saving his soul from eternal damnation was more important. I called my son over and asked him if he knew who Jesus was or what the word "savior" meant.  The answer to both questions was no. Now, let's cut briefly to education. My child can discuss murder and war in his school but was reprimanded for discussing sex in the hallway; not in an obscene way, not inaccurately, just giving an answer to a fellow first grader who said that she didn't know what the difference was between boys and girls.  The teacher was worried that a parent would object to their daughter getting "sex education". These stories quite nicely illustrate my issues with some religions. These religions encourage their believers to think that they have a monopoly on the truth, that they need to restrict the actions of others based on their beliefs, and that they must convince others to think as they do. These draw my ire because of the way that they affect me.  On a high level, they lead to restrictions on stem cell research, terrorist attacks in the name of religion, fights over abortion, holy wars, hostility to science, and bans on gay marriage.  So back to the title of this article: why pick on religion? For me, it's justified on a personal level. I see religious ideas encroaching into my kids' schools. I see censorship of legitimate discussion. And with the bribe of a silver cross, I've experienced people trying to proselytize my kids. Andy Kaiser clean 5:58 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/26/support-digital-bits-skeptic/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/26/support-digital-bits-skeptic/#comments Tue, 27 Jan 2009 02:48:50 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=670 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/26/support-digital-bits-skeptic/feed/ 7 By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 135 - Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. I'll make this short and hopefully sweet: - Digital Bits Skeptic loses money. This is okay - and planned for - because it's a labor of love. But for obvious reasons, By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 135 Hi everyone, Andy Kaiser here. I'll make this short and hopefully sweet: Digital Bits Skeptic loses money. This is okay - and planned for - because it's a labor of love. But for obvious reasons, I'd rather pay as little out of pocket as possible. Long-term plans are to make it a fully registered educational non-profit 501(c)(3) organization. Until then, my lawyer tells me I first need to develop a subscriber base and make sure it's financially stable. Step one to get to that point has been the website ads. But the ads don't make much money, not even enough to cover hosting, let alone being enough to pay the writers. Step two is now active: you can support DBSkeptic with monthly or yearly subscriptions. No, I'm not offering anything beyond the subscription process itself. There will be no annoying pledge drives, no interruptions to the usual format. I'm just taking a moment right now to ask for donations. Your money will help ensure continued operations and continued payments for the article writers. And - this should go without saying, but just to be clear - money from subscriptions will ONLY be used to pay for DBSkeptic's writer payments and operational costs. Many of you have read the recent article ID #133 about DRM - Digital Rights Management. One of the points made was that digital media will be and should be very cheap. The content here is free. But for those who are able and willing to support DBSkeptic, I'm putting your money where my mouth was, and am indeed keeping it very cheap. Very, very cheap - you can get down to $20 USD per year. That's $0.38 per article. If you feel that the DBSkeptic content is worth paying for, I'm flattered. If you think its not worth paying for, but want to support the site anyway, I won't complain. To do so, visit DBSkeptic.com and click the link for "Support". If you'd rather do nothing, that's fine too. No offense taken. Just sit back and keep reading. More quality skepticism is on the way. Andy Kaiser clean 4:04 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/25/religious-misconceptions-are-in-the-details/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/25/religious-misconceptions-are-in-the-details/#comments Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:32:52 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=623 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/25/religious-misconceptions-are-in-the-details/feed/ 4 M Parrott By M Parrott Article ID: 134 - This article, instead of a long essay, is a series of short blurbs about religious misconceptions. I'll be honest; I don't believe any of this. I'm not a religious man. But it is important to know what you don't believe. By M Parrott Article ID: 134 This article, instead of a long essay, is a series of short blurbs about religious misconceptions. I'll be honest; I don't believe any of this. I'm not a religious man. But it is important to know what you don't believe. Or know what you do believe if you are religious. Or know what others believe that you don't believe. Because in some way or another, it will affect your life. Believe me. What was the last name of Jesus? Not "Christ" as you may have thought. Christ derives from the word Χριστός (Khristós) in Greek. It means "the anointed". This word was used in place of the word מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ,) in Hebrew. So Christ means messiah and is a description or title, and not Jesus' last name. Two thousand years ago, last names did not exist. People were primarily described by their job or home; such as Jesus of Nazareth or Joseph the Carpenter. What was the fruit eaten by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? You said "an apple"?  Wrong! The word "apple" is found nowhere in the Bible. However, what we'll call "the Eve encounter" does mention "forbidden fruit". There are a few possible explanations as to why the "forbidden fruit" became an apple. One theory is that Renaissance artists mixed in the Greek mythological story of the Garden of Hesperides. This garden contains an apple tree of immortality - eat the apples and live forever. Another view of "the Eve encounter" is that it's an unintentional, centuries-old game of "telephone".  This is where verbal communication is misheard and mistranslated so many times, the original meaning of the message is lost. In this case, the Latin words for "evil" and "apple" are very similar: Malus means apple and malum means evil. On top of that, the first known evidence of the apple fruit is from roughly 300 BCE. For Biblical literalists, the apple may be too young to have been around at the time of Adam and Eve. Some modern theologians theorise that the actual forbidden fruit would have been a banana. I don't know exactly what Sigmund Freud would have thought about "the Eve encounter" starring a banana. But I have a pretty good guess. In Buddhism, who created the universe? It wasn't Buddha. "Buddha" isn't even technically a person. It's a title. It's the name given to one who has earned perfect enlightenment, or Buddhahood. Buddhism is a pantheistic religion and does not credit anyone with powers of creation. Buddhism does claim there are gods, but does not suggest they have supernatural powers. Instead, they generally have to work in "the real world": Buddhist gods have the same Earthly limitations and restrictions that regular humans do. What did Siddhārtha Gautama (commonly known as Buddha) look like? Was Buddha short and fat? Did he have a big stomach you could rub for luck? Nope. Buddha was a good-looking guy. He was literally tall, dark and handsome. He had blue eyes. And as is befitting a critical religious character, his body was "golden-colored". Some artwork of Buddha represents him with a big moustache. What's really interesting - or perhaps really odd - are "The 32 Signs of a Great Man" and its sequel of eighty secondary characteristics. These lists are a set of physical features said to describe what the original Buddha looked like. They include freakishly detailed descriptions like: "He has taut calf muscles like an antelope." "He can touch his knees with the palms of his hands without bending." "His sexual organs are concealed in a sheath." [No, I don't know what that means either.] "His body hair are blue-black, the color of collyrium, and curls clockwise in rings." "He has a large, long tongue." "His fingernails and toenails are slightly upturned at the tip." "His fingernails and toenails have a rosy tint." "His upper and lower lips are equal in size and have a rosy tint." "The lines on the palms of his hands have a rosy tint." "His tongue is soft and has [everybody say it together now] a rosy-tint." Andy Kaiser clean 11:06 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/2009/01/05/a-fire-officers-guide-to-disaster-control-an-expert-works-outside-his-expertise-and-is-attacked-by-ufos/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/05/a-fire-officers-guide-to-disaster-control-an-expert-works-outside-his-expertise-and-is-attacked-by-ufos/#comments Mon, 05 Jan 2009 06:27:12 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=593 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/01/05/a-fire-officers-guide-to-disaster-control-an-expert-works-outside-his-expertise-and-is-attacked-by-ufos/feed/ 9 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 131 - The Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control is a massive, 600-plus page book detailing various emergency scenarios and how to respond to them. As the Fire Department is the first service to arrive at many emergency sit... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 131 The Fire Officer's Guide to Disaster Control is a massive, 600-plus page book detailing various emergency scenarios and how to respond to them. As the Fire Department is the first service to arrive at many emergency situations, the book is a quality guide for crisis response and management. It's co-authored by William Kramer and Charles Bahme. Both authors have a short bio, and each is the resume of a superhero. Each man has dedicated his life to fire and disaster management, both in training others and by direct field experience, which, I assume, involved lots of physically dangerous situations. Between the two authors, we have active duties in World War II and the Korean War, college and professional-level instruction, and appearances for national and international audiences. They've worked with high-level United States agencies like the U.S. Supreme Court and the Department of Defense. In essence, they've done more to help people and have saved more lives than many of us could ever hope to achieve. These men are true real-world heroes. There's something strange, however, about the book's second edition, published in 1992. As you browse through it, you'll be impressed with the scope and detail, with chapter headings like "Organizational Structure and Incident Command", "Communications and Information Management", "Catastrophic Fires", "Civil Disorders and Riots", "Weather-Related Natural Disasters", "Transportation Disasters", "Mass Casualties and Mass Evacuation" and "Aftermath and Recovery". And then you come to Chapter 13. It's titled "Enemy Attack and UFO Potential". I'm going to guess that UFOs are generally not associated with nationally-used emergency training materials. Maybe the Fire Officer's Guide just chose poorly for the chapter heading. That's the way it looks at first: the chapter begins with a brief analysis of warfare, and mentions the United States' entry into World War II, with the attack on Pearl Harbor. There are logical definitions of war, mentions of Grenada, Lebanon, the Persian Gulf, and the United States' "cold war" with the Soviet Union. Next we have causes of war with plenty of sobering examples. These include chemical warfare, biological warfare, bombs both conventional and nuclear, and detail of perceived and probable effects of a nuclear attack. Then, almost twenty pages through the chapter, we get to the good stuff with a heading that reads, "The UFO Threat - A Fact". You might say this chapter is meant to teach proper response to human behaviors, and is not about alien attack remediation. Or you may say it's meant to react to Earthly UFOs, like stealth technologies from another nation visiting our airspace. Nope. The authors are talking about aliens: green-skinned, big-headed, silver-jumpsuit-wearing aliens. Or at least that's what I assume. And my assumption of the alien's appearance is as valid as the book's claim we need to watch out for an alien attack. That is, there is no evidence to justify either statement. Why did the authors pick aliens and UFO attacks? Why stop there? Why didn't they have another section for Biblical Armageddon and the final battle between good and evil? You know, something like "In the event of the heavens raining from the sky and most everyone being killed, the most important thing is to first establish a sense of calm and order." You don't think Armageddon is appropriate? I should keep things realistic? Then what about other Earth-changing disasters, like the Large Hadron Collider creating deadly black holes? Or what if the Sun decides to vomit out a planet-destroying solar flare? Why not plan for these? They're just as applicable as a UFO attack. Granted, the LHC is an unfair example, having been created years after this edition of the Fire Officer's Guide. But you get my point. The results of an actual UFO attack - wake up and smell the humans Now consider logistics. Andy Kaiser clean 11:58 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/29/2008-year-in-review-authors-articles-statistics-and-planning-for-2009/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/29/2008-year-in-review-authors-articles-statistics-and-planning-for-2009/#comments Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:48:59 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=555 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/12/29/2008-year-in-review-authors-articles-statistics-and-planning-for-2009/feed/ 9 Andy Kaiser By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1266 - - So how was 2008 for Digital Bits Skeptic? You tell me. - But first, let me start you off with some helpful information (be sure to listen to the podcast for more information than what you see below): - Authors and... By Andy Kaiser Article ID: 1266 So how was 2008 for Digital Bits Skeptic? You tell me. But first, let me start you off with some helpful information (be sure to listen to the podcast for more information than what you see below): Authors and Articles In 2008, Digital Bits Skeptic published 65 articles from 18 authors. That's an average of 3.6 articles per author. Author list (in no significant order) David Annis (10 articles!) Nick from Science, Reason and Rationality (10 articles!) Anonymous M Parrot Joshua Walker Navin Kumar Matthew Green Jason Y Thomas Gentry Amr Hima James Lochbaum Todd Fritz Tammy Buchli Peter Booth Rodrigo Neely Sebastian L Tim Eisele Andy Kaiser Top articles (measured by web statisics and comments left on the article) Article ID #127 - The Dyatlov pass accident and the fatal "unknown compelling force" Article ID #1257 - Original versions of classic fairy tales Article ID #122 - Oprah, plug in your toaster. Most appliances don't use energy when turned off. Article ID #119 - Photo evidence of ectoplasm and ghost orbs explained Article ID #123 - Spider bites are an overrated menace Standouts Hardest to record: Article ID #1217 - Atheism in Hinduism - Man, was this one hard to record (and pronounce). You should've heard the outtakes - the original podcast recording was probably five times the size of the final article, due to my complete unfamiliarity with Hindu culture, and me breaking down laughing serveral times at my own idiocy. Most surprising result: Article ID #125 - Human static electricity generators: Can a person's body generate static electricity? - A quick and fun article that was unexpectedly taken very seriously by a lot of people. Thoughts on improving DBskeptic in 2009 1) Find out a way to remove ads, yet still generate revenue to pay for the site. 2) Increase traffic, readers and listeners. 3) If traffic will support it, add a forum or some other method to discuss subjects off-topic from the articles. 4) Solicit listener and reader feedback: So you think I have a horrible reading voice? Then let me know so I can improve my podcasting equipment and voice technique. How good or bad is DBSkeptic? Is once a week publication too often? Is this the worst site design you've ever seen? Should there be more unscripted material, or do you like the scripted article format? Whatever, just tell me - I can take it. Click the "Contact" link to send me an email. Or leave your public comment at the end of this article. Andy Kaiser clean 15:28 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/2008/11/30/party-politics-and-the-false-dilemma-logical-fallacy/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/30/party-politics-and-the-false-dilemma-logical-fallacy/#comments Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:40:39 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=499 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/30/party-politics-and-the-false-dilemma-logical-fallacy/feed/ 10 Joshua Walker By Joshua Walker Article ID: 1262 - I'm an American. Just a few weeks ago, the United States elected a new President for 2009. This is the first election that I decided to forgo party politics - I voted for the person I think was best for the job. By Joshua Walker Article ID: 1262 I'm an American. Just a few weeks ago, the United States elected a new President for 2009. This is the first election that I decided to forgo party politics - I voted for the person I think was best for the job. I voted based upon my political principles, instead of just voting "against" the "other guy". During this process, I've grown angrier and more frustrated at the "false dilemma" logical fallacy that is so prevalent in American politics. What is a false dilemma? A false dilemma is a logical fallacy where someone states that "either X is true or Y is true". The problem is that X and Y might both be false or both true.  In fact, there might be claims A, B, L, and Z that are also true and related to the topic.  Now, it is possible that X and Y might be the only options and that if one is true the other is false; we should, however, be very careful with such claims and determine if X and Y are really the only options. Republican or Democrat: You decide I am constantly astounded by those who claim a differing political ideology, such as Libertarianism or Constitutionalism, yet always vote for the two major parties.  The Republicans are usually considered conservatives and the Democrats are usually considered liberals, but even those ideologies have splintered into sub-ideologies, such as the neo-conservatives and neo-liberals.  Sometimes these new ideologies are directly contrary to their parent.  Yet even with these ever-evolving political philosophies, the individual is expected to sacrifice their ideals to the current party puppet- ...I mean party "candidate". Americans are constantly flooded with propaganda telling them that there are only two choices and that the third parties have no chance at winning an election.  This becomes its own self-fulfilling prophecy.  If a man thinks he's going to die tomorrow, he'll find a way to make it happen, or die trying.  If a majority believes that voting for a third party candidate is useless, then the prophecy will fulfill itself.  If we all want change, but choose to vote for party sycophants simply because we are told to do so, then we are merely puppets and not free people. The example of false dilemma propaganda that inspired me to write this article came from this news article at Yahoo.com.  It begins by quoting a person saying that voting third party would be throwing their vote away.  Since this person is - of course - just like us, then we also should not throw our vote away on a third party.  Or is that more than a quote, and a recommendation from the article's author?  Later in the article, an "expert" is brought in to tell us that none of the third party candidates "resonate" with the American people, even though people constantly complain about the poor choice of candidates and the "vote for the lesser evil" strategy.  There are figures and statistics dissuading us from opposing the political power structure because no third party candidate has ever won high political office. Unfortunately, repeating this fact helps to ensure continued failure of the third party candidates. The major parties place themselves on opposite sides of every issue, even though many political positions have more than two sides.  Take, for example, the abortion debate.  You are either pro-life or pro-abortion.  Taking a position that the federal government has no authority in this issue and that it should be left to the states is never considered.  Consider the ANWR drilling controversy.  You're either for or against it.  You can't say that it's irrelevant because the government has banned alternative fuel options for years and more drilling is only a band-aid on an amputation.  The issues are always turned into yes or no options. This lets the parties take opposite sides and argue pointlessly, while ignoring any inconvenient facts. Take responsibility and free your mind Logical fallacies are dangerous. Andy Kaiser clean 7:42 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/a-skeptical-analysis-of-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/a-skeptical-analysis-of-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes/#comments Mon, 24 Nov 2008 04:54:40 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=492 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/a-skeptical-analysis-of-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes/feed/ 27 Navin Kumar By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1261 - The phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" has been around for a long time. It's used with phrases like "there are no atheists in a crashing plane" or "there are no libertarians during a financial crisis". By Navin Kumar Article ID: 1261 The phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" has been around for a long time. It's used with phrases like "there are no atheists in a crashing plane" or "there are no libertarians during a financial crisis". It's a way of saying that even those who claim to be very principled forget their principles during an emergency. More narrowly, it's a way of asserting that atheists do actually believe in God and are simply in denial. This supposes that during times of great stress - like when you've just parachuted into Landmine County - religious belief rises to the surface and blasts away all "pretensions". What's the rebuttal to "there are no atheists in foxholes"? There is no logical rebuttal to this claim. Why? Because it's not an argument. "There are no atheists in foxholes" is an assertion. It's like saying "X is equal to 6.78". It's either true or it isn't. But in the interests of being thorough, let's give the phrase more dignity than it deserves and raise it to the level of a theory. If a person presents such a theory, he is expected to present some kind of empirical data or experiment to back it up. In this case, there is no empirical evidence. A possible experiment could involve recording the religious orientation of outgoing soldiers, and then asking the returning atheists a question like the following: While in your foxhole, did you ever have a moment when you decided that God exists? a) Yes. b) No. c) I was too busy trying not to get decapitated to think about it. No one has ever conducted this kind of survey. If someone claims "there are no atheists in foxholes", the only proper retort to this bigoted sentence is "Yes, there are." If it's such faulty reasoning, why do people claim there are no atheists in foxholes? Theists believe that atheists live in denial because a theist's belief in God is based largely on faith, rather than reasoning or empirical evidence. They feel God's presence, and can't understand how others don't. So they conclude that other people do in fact feel him but are lying due to some ulterior motive. Psychologists call this "projection" (although the term may not be technically right: projection deals with unwanted qualities and most theists would reject the idea of theism being unwanted). A selfish person sees everyone else as being selfish. A liar sees dishonesty everywhere. And a religious person cannot believe other people can be so spiritually blind. They assume that everyone is the same as them, despite what others claim. With this understanding, it's easier to see how so many people can believe an assertion without evidence. Of course, the atheist-in-foxholes phrase is irrelevant to the question of whether a god exists or not. If there are atheists in foxholes, a theist could argue that it's just an example of divinely-created free will. On the other hand, simply beliving in something doesn't make it true. Do wars convert warriors into believers? Yes, but not the way theists intend. Anecdotal evidence (which, it should be warned, is unreliable) suggests that battlefield conversions do happen, but in the opposite direction: faced with the horror of war, soldiers start to wonder if a kind, benevolent, all-powerful God would allow something like this to happen. Specifically, "either there is no God, or He's a bastard". Andrew Cline - in his blog "About.com Guide to Atheism since 1998" - received a letter from a US Marine who said: "Not that this would be admitted or last after combat is over, but even the marines praying every night when we were in the rear weren't pleading for god's help in combat. They were acting just like atheists, ducking and covering, shooting back; trying to save themselves. Never once did I see someone stop and pray for help. They use religion to get them through day to day, but when it hits the fan so to speak, they don't take chances relying on god." Andy Kaiser clean 10:25 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/17/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/2008/11/10/the-god-confusion/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/10/the-god-confusion/#comments Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:35:53 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=466 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/10/the-god-confusion/feed/ 13 Science Reason & Rationality by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1259 "It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men." ~ Carl Sagan - Hello. My name is God, and I am an atheist. by Science, Reason & Rationality Article ID: 1259 "It is said that men may not be the dreams of the Gods, but rather that the Gods are the dreams of men." ~ Carl Sagan Hello. My name is God, and I am an atheist. I don't believe in gods because there are no gods who created me and there's no one else here to compare myself to. I just have always existed. I didn't evolve from anything. I am now just as I always have been, and will always be that it in the future. Messes with your head, doesn't it? Think of how I feel! But, what if there is a god who created me? I don't see any other gods here except me, so why should I believe in another god? How about faith? Can faith establish that there is another god? No way! That's just being silly. Even if I do have a creator, who created that god? No, that's a faulty line of reasoning. I am the one and only. There is no other god but me. Right? Before I could know of another god, there must first be hard evidence and genuine scientific proof. That's not going to happen, because I am God, I'd know of such things. Okay, just me then. Now that I've got that question solved, what am I going to do now? There's a lot of black empty space out here and I'm getting really bored! I gotta do something. Maybe I should create a "Big Boom" or a "Big Bam" or some kind of huge explosion and see what happens. [A gigantic, mind-numbing, multiverse-shaking explosion ensues...] ...Okay, so I guess that was more of a "Big Bang". Not bad, not bad at all. I'm an instant artist! Look at these beautiful stars, planets, and galaxies. I'm impressed. I'm the greatest thing in this whole universe. But then, I'm the only one here, so I'm greatest by default. I suppose I could create other gods, and challenge them so that I can see for myself if I am indeed the greatest. On second thought, that may be a bad idea. What if they beat me? Or form evil alliances against me and revolt? That'll be embarrassing. And what if they ask me who created me? Since I am the one who created them, they might think there must be some other god who created me. They'll stop worshipping me, and look for other gods. Not acceptable. Moreover, they're not gonna believe me if I said I just came into being out of nothing. Still, I could force them to believe whatever I want them to believe. Or I could punish the non-believers. I'll have to give this some thought. [Some time later...] I'm bored. I've created everything I wanted to create. Am I going to be the only one admiring my own work?  That would be lame. ...I know! What if, instead of creating new gods, I create some tiny little creatures on one or more of these planets? They won't be as powerful as a god, so they won't be a threat to me. I'll design them unable to see me, but they can see all my genius works. They can admire my work and praise me for it. It'll be fun seeing them trying to figure out what the heck is going on. I can see it now: some will claim that they know me and have spoken to me or I have spoken to them, and they'll use my name to start a religion. Soon, there will be a whole bunch of them and they'll be killing each other to prove which Me is the one and only "true" Me. And I'll never speak to any one of them. Anything they think is my voice will be misinterpretation or self-delusion. This will be good entertainment. Should keep my boredom away. I get to be movie director. Producer too. And the whole special effects production crew. To paraphrase someone I'm about to create, "it's good to be the god!" Okay, got a little sidetracked there. Back to the plan. Those "religion" businessmen will use really effective marketing strategies in order to control others, making people behave with a predetermined right and wrong. All in my name, of course. That'll cause problems, but those are their problems, not mine. I just want an audience. Now, what will my creatures look like? I can't make them all look exactly like me. Andy Kaiser clean 10:31 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/2008/10/10/where-meat-meets-metal-how-acupuncture-works-or-doesnt/ http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/10/where-meat-meets-metal-how-acupuncture-works-or-doesnt/#comments Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:54:59 +0000 Andy Kaiser http://www.dbskeptic.com/?p=383 http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/10/10/where-meat-meets-metal-how-acupuncture-works-or-doesnt/feed/ 10 Thomas Gentry By Thomas Gentry Article ID: 1254 - Right down the road from my house, there's a store selling and promoting homeopathy and acupuncture. I've spent a couple dozen hours collecting information about the place and what it sells so that I can give an accu... By Thomas Gentry Article ID: 1254 Right down the road from my house, there's a store selling and promoting homeopathy and acupuncture. I've spent a couple dozen hours collecting information about the place and what it sells so that I can give an accurate depiction of its beliefs and worth. In the next few paragraphs I'll expound on why this alternative modality of medicine is another case of people taking money for a service they can't render. I'll use text from their own website and combine this with the knowledge and critical thinking skills I have acquired from past studies. When addressed critically, this undermines the practitioners' intellectual credibility and their entire profession. I'm not a particularly well-read or knowledgeable person; I don't have specific knowledge of any field in appreciable depth. What I do have is years of training and practice in trying to spot lies and chicanery. In this case, I don't need in-depth knowledge of any specific medical modality. If I needed detailed knowledge of every topic to judge the validity of its claims, I would still be stuck on making and learning the proofs for addition, multiplication, and subtraction--don't even get me started on division. Using the filtering processes afforded to me by the rules of logic, I gauge a topic by the unlikelihood of its claims. The reference material for acupuncture sets off nearly every "red flag" I have acquired over the years, leading me to judge it as an extremely unlikely candidate for efficacy. Right from the "get go", if you do a search on the natural history of acupuncture you find claims like "It is based on the theory that a life force called Qi [pronounced 'chee'] flows through the body along certain channels, which if blocked can cause illness." That particular red flag is called the logical fallacy of "magical thinking." The magical thinking proponent says something meaningless, and allows the listener to fill in any logical gaps. Like how this "life force" works, what it is, or what is blocking it. How does the insertion of needles fix this blockage? This method of boondoggling doesn't work once you have the trained habit of forming questions when information is presented. It's as simple as asking, "how does this statement explain the claim?" If we can get past the first premise of this Chinese ideology (which already leap-frogs past rationality), the literature abounds with examples of lazy thinking. For instance, the claim that "acupuncture has been practiced for up to 5,000 years in the Orient" added to this claim of, "the evidences for acupuncture's effectiveness are adding up." In five thousand years, there's not enough data to link a cause and effect! What disheveled mind could make both of these claims without seeing the two statements are nearly incompatible, unless the writer means to say "the evidence has been building for 5,000 years, but we don't want to be too expedient in our proclamation of acupuncture's worth." That's only five hundred decades without a sensible explanation of acupuncture's cause and effect. Today's strongest claims have no link between cause and effect. The acupuncture peddlers themselves can't definitively explain their treatment. I found at least four separate and distinct ideas proposed as the underlying method of how acupuncture works. I'd like to specifically address two of these: Endorphins The body reacts to pain and intrusion by releasing feel-good drugs that lessen the pain. That one sounds fairly straight-forward, probably because it doesn't mention Qi. It refers to an actual, measurable, chemical process of the body. But why insert needles all over your body when you could just take these same chemicals in pill form? If this acupuncture claim really is correct, the entire process has been outmoded by modern pharmacology! Magic The next idea listed on my local acupuncturists' website was, "inserting a needle into the body's connective tissue... Andy Kaiser clean 8:23