|
|
By BaS, on October 1st, 2009%
 Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/somerslea/321513270 Note: I addressed the following essay to the general population of the No Agenda Forums, a community that I cherish despite frequent frustration. It is peopled by many conspiracy theorists and champions of various “alternative” things, such as alternative explanations, alternative medicine, etc. In short, people I cannot really reach on a level of reason. What I say may not do any good, but if even one in a thousand of those readers can see the light, then I am proud to have played a small part in the emergence of a rational mind.
Continue reading You make and break your own religion
By BaS, on September 7th, 2009%
 Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cowfish/269715/ I received an email forward today from an extended family member, and it upset me more than if it had been spam or malware. It was a mal-meme:
This is not sent for discussion. If you agree, forward it. If you don’t, delete it. I don’t want to know one way or the other. By me forwarding it, you know how I feel.
-
I’ll bet this was a surprise to NBC.
NBC POLL
Do you believe that the word God should stay in American culture?
NBC this morning had a poll on this question. They had the highest Number of responses that they have ever had for one of their polls, and the Percentage was the same as this:
86% to keep the words, IN God We Trust and God in the Pledge of Allegiance
14% against
That is a pretty ‘commanding’ public response.
-
I was asked to send this on if I agreed or delete if I didn’t …..
Now it is your turn. It is said that 86% of Americans believe the word God should stay.
Therefore, I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a mess about having ‘In God We Trust’ on our money and having God in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Why is the world catering to this 14%?
AMEN!
If you agree, pass this on , if not, simply delete.
In God We Trust
Continue reading Prejudice isn’t a discussion
By BaS, on March 15th, 2009%
 Image credit: flickr.com/photos/markfbennett/2223565383 Debating
Like most sports, I’m not much good at debate. I say it’s a sport because it’s a competition with a winner and loser where the participants’ skills have the largest bearing on the outcome.
I think that most people casually lump debate and argument into the same mental bin; if not as exact synonyms, then as different degrees of the same thing. But they are really quite different! A debate has almost nothing to do with logic or the correctness of stated facts, but these things are crucial to the outcome of an argument.
Continue reading Argument > Debate
By BaS, on March 15th, 2009%
 Image credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/go_kusano/2679175875 As Orac states:
Science as it is practiced today relies on a fair measure of trust. Part of the reason is that the culture of science values openness, hypothesis testing, and vigorous debate. The general assumption is that most scientists are honest and, although we all generally try to present our data in the most favorable light possible, we do not blatantly lie about it or make it up.
Science is a massively collaborative endeavor, with each researcher relying on the existing mesh of literature as a starting point for their own contributions. When everyone is being honest, a good methodology and peer review will prevent most obvious problems of bias and rigor. In other words, the facts are pretty well understood, and everyone has a pretty good idea about how robust various theories are.
This is important, because it means when research is invalidated (or some theory is shown to be inferior to a new one), it tends to be an incremental change, not a destructive one. Anything we learn will update, clarify, and add to our existing understanding. Any new theories we employ will work at least as well as the old ones they unseat. Relativity is more correct than Newton’s laws, but that doesn’t mean apples must be re-checked to verify that they do in fact fall toward the earth instead of levitating or falling toward the moon.
When a researcher repeatedly confabulates data in a case of massive fraud, it knocks everyone for a loop.
Continue reading Dishonesty in science: we still win
By BaS, on January 29th, 2009%
 Photo credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/takver/1963128315 Hybrid fusion-fission energy generation a possibility via Futurismic.
Isn’t it interesting how this story swept through the internet? Everyone, of course, wants to get rid of nuclear waste right? Awful, evil stuff. Bury it in the earth if you have to. Making it disappear in a magic theoretical reactor is even better, what great news! But what struck me is how no one seems to realize that this is by no means the first idea for a reactor to deal with nuclear “waste”, and that the stuff isn’t really waste at all once you understand a little about it.
Read on, and discover a whole nuclear world that you’ve probably never even heard of.
Continue reading The emotions of energy
By BaS, on July 2nd, 2008%
 There are many confirmation biases and magical thinking tendencies that fuel testimonial and anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of woo, from acupuncture and chiropractic all the way up to the giant woo umbrella of “complementary and alternative” medicine (CAM) or “integrative” medicine.
But that’s not why these things are a threat to actual real scientific medicine (ARSM?). The real danger is when CAM seems to get real results.
Continue reading Dangerous faith-based mechanics
By BaS, on May 30th, 2008%
Another quick redirect; I love this writeup of how we are stupid at risk assessment . I wish a few of the people close to me would learn up on this a bit.
The precautionary principle can so easily be abused to the point that it becomes a zero risk . . . → Read More: Risk assessment bias
By BaS, on May 25th, 2008%
This is a TED video from 2006, but I just now watched it. Michael Shermer talks about cognitive bias, pareidolia, and other interesting ways we fool ourselves.
Michael Shermer at TED.com: Why people believe strange things
It’s a delightful 12 minute refutation . . . → Read More: Why we believe strange things
By BaS, on April 17th, 2008%
 As we learn more about how brains work, traditional views can be called into question. Recent research indicates that (at least some) decision-making processes are “prepared” by the brain unconsciously several seconds before there is an awareness of having come to a decision.
“In the study, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their left or right hand. … The researchers found that it was possible to predict from brain signals which option participants would take already seven seconds before they consciously made their decision.”
I was somewhat surprised by this finding, and look forward to follow-up research as well as independent confirmation. But most of my surprise was not due to the study itself, but rather how the results were interpreted as evidence against the existence of free will.
Continue reading Hearts and minds
By BaS, on April 4th, 2008%
The willful manipulation of an audience in propaganda and debate is a depressing fact of life to me.
I am interested in full understanding of an issue; best gained by rational discourse, scientific inquiry, and criticism.
I am also a fairly rabid supporter of freedom of expression.
I am most strongly an advocate of critical thinking skills as a . . . → Read More: A strong influence on the weak mind
|
|
