This will conclude my review of How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, starting with chapter 4, Relativism, Truth, and Reality, which deals with a discussion of the various forms of relativism: the notion that we each create our reality, that which claims that reality is socially constructed, and that which assumes that reality is constituted by conceptual schemes. Having an interest in philosophy, I find this sort of thing, and the logical refutations of relativism provided, just too fascinating, especially the part that deals with Plato’s criticism of the Sophists. Chapter 5, Knowledge, Belief, and Evidence, is yet more meat and drink of skeptical philosophy, unlike the previous chapter, dealing with epistemology, philosophy of knowledge, as the previous chapter dealt with ontology, philosophy of being. It discusses techniques used in the past for acquiring knowledge, propositional knowledge, reasons and evidence, expert opinion, coherence and justification, sources of knowledge, and appealing to faith, intuition, mystical experience, as well as a discussion of astrology. Very cool. Chapter 6, Arguments Good, Bad, and Weird, deals with such things as claims of fact and arguments, with a good discussion on a frequent subject dealt with on this site, logical argument and fallacious reasoning, in addition to deduction, induction and informal logical fallacies. Moving on, Chapter 7, Science and its Pretenders, involves discussions of dogma in science, scientism, scientific methodology, the adequacy of observational criteria, such pseudosciences as creationism, parapsychology, with a good rundown of such cool little tidbits as the JREF million dollar psychic challenge, the consequences of overestimating one’s alleged psychic ability, and the infamous Project Alpha hoax orchestrated by James Randi. Chapter 8, How to Assess a “Miracle Cure,” deals with the issues of using personal experience as a guide to medical efficacy, doctor’s evidence, the logical fallacy of the appeal to tradition, a discussion on scientific findings in medicine, and a section on the ethical issues of promoting unproven medical modalities. Chapter 9, Case Studies in the Extraordinary, builds upon the themes in the previous chapters, with techniques for assessing unusual or questionable claims, and includes bits on such things as homeopathy, dowsing, UFO abductions, near-death experiences, and among other things, discussions on the skepticism of some biblical scholars toward the religious notion of souls, spontaneous human combustion, ghosts, bad vibes, and the practice of scrying. Overall, this book is well worth my money, and I recommend it highly to those interested in clear thinking as a guide, not to be more of a critical thinker, but a better one. Two thumbs up!

Hilarious!

Just a teaser:

Because people do not suddenly wake up one day and decide to start slaughtering their neighbors or ruining and devastating a country. I did some investigation and saw that the Darwinist materialist mindset lies behind all wars, revolutions and anarchy.

Yeah, no religious wars before Darwin.

How stupid should be somebody to buy this stuff?

One of the things that we of a skeptical bent sometimes encounter are true believers in one form or another of some pseudoscientific or antiscientific view, and the arguments they use in an attempt to draw attention and publicity creds to themselves in defense of their pet belief system. Yes, if you think that the term ‘true believers’ sounds derogatory, you are correct: it is meant to be. Deal with it. Here are a few indications of what to look for when dealing with the arguments and intellectual strategies they often use.

[1] Use of emotionally laden and negatively connotative language to label the hypotheses, models, or theories that they attempt to argue against: such as “doctrine,” “dogma,” “ideology,” or “religion.”

[2] Frequent invocation of the terms “paradigm,” “worldview,” “assumptions,” “preconceptions,” “notions,” and “presuppositions,” in defense of their view.

[3] Employment of ad hominems, well-poisoning attacks, simple name-calling, and such  adjectives as “reactionary,” “orthodox,” “establishment,” and “conventionalized,” to describe and label their critics, especially those members of the scientific community.

[4] Attempting to shift the burden of proof from themselves onto their critics, insisting that said critics disprove their claims beyond all possible doubt: a tall order indeed, considering that a universal negative cannot be proven with a finite data set.

[5] Frequent employment of strawman arguments to misrepresent and caricaturize the statements and views of their critics, often using such terms as, “reductionist,” “materialist,” “scientistic,” “naturalistic,” and “mechanistic,” and/or such descriptive words as “sterile,” “nihilistic,” or “atomistic.”

[6] Invoking a conspiracy to suppress the findings of their pet theory’s proponents to cover their ass for a telling lack of supporting evidence for their claim.

[7] Arguing that their theory has superior explanatory and predictive power over one accepted by the scientific community without providing any evidence or verified examples of this, or by presenting “evidence” that has been falsified by observation and/or experiment.

[8] Comparing the proponents of their theory or themselves to Galileo, not bearing in mind that in order to do so, they must also be right.

[9] Frequent promotion of technobabble-heavy, mathematically deficient theories, or those with wrong math, or no math at all.

[10] Use of the terms “alternative,” “revolutionary,” “paradigm-shattering,” or “unorthodox” and similar ones as selling points for their pet theories.

[11] Arguing that impending acceptance of their theory by a reluctant scientific mainstream is “just around the corner.”

[12] Having the unmitigated gall to claim that all of “big Science” is wrong about theories that the claimants lack sufficient knowledge of to understand, and making a virtue of their ignorance, claiming that they can thus better “think outside the box,” as well as presuming the moral high-ground of “open-mindedness.”

…and finally, for now…

[13] Use of overly simplistic models, hypotheses, fallacious logic and theories for no other reason than that they appeal to human intuition or sound “sensible,” when the history of science has shown time and time again that the pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.  ‘Nuff said!

Here’s something I thought I’d share: some important things to ask when assessing the claims of suspected cranks, quacks, charlatans and intellectual frauds, pious and not so pious, of all stripes. Enjoy.

[1] Does this Idea directly pertain to a genuine problem, or answer a real question relevant to the field for which it is proposed? If not, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

[2] Does this Idea have some modicum of prior plausibility with regard to established scientific knowledge? After over 400 years of scientific development, there are things which we happen to know, that have been verified so many times as to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not operate in an intellectual vacuum, and any new idea proposed must fit reasonably well, if not completely, into that framework. The more a new idea requires us to revise our conceptual paradigm, the more it should be regarded with suspicion. A workable new idea should have at least a wee basis in actuality and not require us to suspend our critical faculties, to open our minds so far that our brains fall out.

[3] How may this Idea be tested to see whether or not it works? Idea not testable=Idea not science, ‘nuff said. Remember the Null hypothesis: Any new Idea is to be considered bullshit until proven true.

[4] Is it possible to alter this Idea, in the event that it fails some of the tests to verify it? The proponent of the Idea should be able to logically revise it so as to be retested if it might still have some basis in reality. Any rational individual’s baloney detector should be tripped by a theory or hypothesis so rigidly adhered to that it requires a conceptual morphing of reality to conform to the Idea. Bad juju!

[5] Is it possible for the proponent to jettison this Idea when it so happens that it does not conform to reality? It is not scientifically acceptable to retain a theory or hypothesis when all attempts to test it have come up negative. Nor is it acceptable to invent imaginary conspiracies, invoke special pleadings, move the goal posts, or any other forms of specious reasoning, for a failed Idea. If the Idea is wrong, discard it, get over it, and move on.

[6] Who does this Idea benefit? Does it benefit Science, the Public, or does it benefit some guy with a website, a sensationalist “documentary” to produce, or a New York Times bestseller to publish?

[7] Where is the evidence needed to verify this Idea? Proponents of the historicity of Atlantis often invoke the ghost of Heinrich Schliemann in an attempt to draw a false analogy between his discovery of the city of Troy, and claims of the impending discovery of Atlantis. The problem, other than the fact that there is just as much historical and archaeological evidence for Star Wars as there is for Atlantis, is that the Illiad & Odyssey were works of poetry based on legend, while Plato’s works, Timaeus & Critias were works of fiction written to make a philosophical point: the superiority of Athenian society. In short, they were two completely different and disanalogous forms of literature. Atlantis was a fictional plot device, nothing more. Schliemann was able to prove his discovery because he knew where to look and by his own effort, not from the armchair, got the evidence he needed to prove his case. Neither did he dither on getting this evidence, nor claim a conspiracy to suppress his findings, unlike some of my favorite idiot pseudoarchaeologists. Any evidence for an Idea should flow smoothly from the investigation to verify it, and fallaciously rationalizing a lack of evidence for one’s revolutionary discovery will simply not get one a free pass.

One of the more interesting modern incarnations of pseudoscientific nonsense and an example of utterly inane (astro)physics denial, is the idea of the Electric Universe (EU)cosmology, the supporters of which vociferously advocate the removal from astronomical science of such gravitationally chauvinistic and dogmatically held ideas as black holes, dark matter, neutron stars, dark energy, indeed, that we discard the very idea of gravity being the fundamental large-scale binding force of the Universe altogether.

Despite the claims of its advocates, the reason that the scientific ‘orthodoxy’ rejects the EU idea is because of the fact that empirically, EU theory has been examined and found wanting: it just doesn’t work, and doesn’t have nearly the explanatory power its followers claim it has, much less more than that of conventional astrophysics. This scientifically bankrupt ‘theory’ is nothing more than intellectual bunk, without an evidential leg to stand on, hence its rejection by the astrophysical community, not a diabolical Big Science™ conspiracy.

The only closed-minded obstructionism involving this idea is that of its ideologically zealous supporters, who refuse to discard an obviously flawed theory even when it has been falsified time and again.

Yes, the scientific mainstream has on occasion been proven wrong, but not once by advocates of ‘alternative,’ science, ‘fringe’ science, or antiscience, always by those who pay their metaphorical dues and play by the rules and standards of science, which cranks, or rather those who eternally remain cranks, not those later accepted as scientific heroes, never do. Also it does not logically follow that merely because authorities have been proven grossly wrong at times, that ‘mainstream’ always necessarily equates to ‘wrong’ or that, ‘unconventional’ always means ‘correct,’ or ‘better able to think outside the box.’ I tells it like I sees it.

Two such exponents of this failed idea, Dave Talbott and Wally Thornhill, in their book Thunderbolts of the Gods, among other tomes of crankery on this subject by writers such as Don Scott, author of the Electric Sky, contend that early people saw planets not as points of light, but enormous god-spheres suspended in the skies, that these planets ‘spoke’ electrically, and generated gigantic plasma-discharge displays across the skies like the aurora borealis on crack. It’s just too bad that all these amazing cosmic lightshows happened in a time before written records and just magically went away, never to happen again, before anyone could actually prove it in a modern age of computers and digital media recording.

Dave and Wally then try to prove their claims by making yet more claims, in the time-honored tradition of cranks everywhere, further contending that the figures in ancient rock carvings and other examples of early artwork, really, truly represent unstable plasma manifestations occurring in the Earth’s atmosphere, having absolutely nothing to do with the things that they look like, as is typical for attempts at pseudoscientific mythohistory, such as people, bandicoots, handprints, mammoths, etc, etc.

Advocates of the electric universe concept claim that gravity is just not satisfactory to explain the origins of stars, planets, the mechanics of celestial objects, and that the idea that astronomical bodies are electrically neutral must give way to the ‘understanding’ that stars are not incredibly massive balls of thermonuclear gas, but seen from the paradigm of an electric universe are really huge electrical discharges, cosmic electrodes, brought into being and energized by the ‘galactic power lines’, which are also said to generate the low-frequency hum we call the cosmic microwave background, mistakenly presupposed by delusional mainstream astronomers to be proof positive of the Big Bang, which of course, never happened.

This is just a rehash of old ideas first circulated in the 50s by Immanuel Velikovsky, as well as the some of the failed concepts of otherwise successful Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfven. They would be so proud of their imitators, and this whole farce is a perfect example of what James Randi refers to as ‘unsinkable rubber duckies,’ nonsense that gets debunked over and over, surfacing yet later when discovered by a new generation, but I digress…

EU theory is typical among the pseudosciences: prose-heavy, simplistic, and its adherents have the unmitigated arrogance to claim de facto that all the ‘orthodoxy’ (read: scientific community…)is wrong about theories that EU advocates lack sufficient understanding of to logically and empirically argue against well enough to convince that scientific mainstream of the merit of their ideas. It’s very telling that their books, websites, and videos, and such are targeted to the general public, which lacks the training to critically assess their idea, rather than those with scientific training such as astronomers and physicists, who are the people that they should be convincing.

EU theory is also typical of pseudosciences because its different proponents simply do not agree as to which EU ‘theory’ is correct: there are just as many versions of it as there are proponents, in contrast with the standard model of cosmology, about which most mainstream cosmologists are in a firm consensus.The fact that the scientific mainstream remains unimpressed with the “superior” predictive and explanatory power of EU theory is also telling…

Here are a few more points on why and how the electric universe cosmology just doesn’t add up: The electric force is some 2.27×10^39 times stronger than gravity, and even a tiny asymmetry one way or another in net electric charge would cause huge Coulomb effects, the repulsion between like-charged bodies and attraction of opposite-charged ones completely overpowering the comparatively puny effects of gravity.

Stars are claimed to be composed of ‘positively charged gas excited to a glowing state’ by way of invisible interstellar electrical currents with internal electrostatic forces that keep them from imploding. Imploding from what? A force like gravity, which EU proponents say is too insignificant to do that anyway? (I smell a logical fallacy here…sniff, sniff…). Considering the aforementioned strength of the electrical force compared with puny gravity, the electrostatic repulsion would be so great that it would prevent a star from ever forming a cohesive body to begin with. The thing that prevents stars from collapsing gravitationally during their active life is gas pressure, as per Ideal Gas Laws, not electrical forces, as EU theorists suppose.

To claim that stars are not powered by nuclear fusion is to deny physical laws and processes that have been well-demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt in the laboratory, such as hydrostatic pressure, all of fundamental nuclear physics, the conservation of Baryon and Lepton numbers, and quantum tunneling, the last of which allows the tunnel diode and cold cathode/field effect emission to function.

Let’s take a look at a typical star, the Sun, and see what it would take to power it electrically rather than by nuclear fusion: The Sun has a radius of R=6.96×10^8 meters as well as a luminosity of 3.827×10^26 watts. Using the electron kinetic energy of E, electron rest mass of m in addition to the speed of light, c, we can calculate the velocity, v: v=c(1-γ^-2)^½ , where γ=1+(E/mc^2). Using this velocity, the electron density, n, and the area of intersection with the Sun, A=∏ R^2, we can take a look at a range of electron densities, computing the electric current, I: I=q n v A in amps, where q is the charge of the electron. Let’s also look at the total amount of energy passing through the solar region per unit time, which, by the way, must at the very least equal the Sun’s luminosity: P=E n v A in watts, and once we figure these quantities out, we can compute the strength of the magnetic field thus produced by the alleged current: B=μ0 I/2 π r.

For a range of electron densities and energy, we can construct a table of power for a star, which can easily be done on any good spreadsheet program, and to test this model a bit more. Let’s take a look at the magnetic field produced, both at the Sun’s surface and at the Earth’s orbit (1 AU=1.49×10^11 meters): Using the previous calculations, we show that the magnetic field at the surface, if the EU model is viable, would have to be 100 tesla (1 tesla=10,000 gauss), as opposed to the range we observe of 0.01-0.2 tesla, and at the orbit of the Earth would have to range from 0.1 to 10 tesla, when what we observe is only a few nano-tesla. If the Sun’s magnetic field was as intense as it would have to be in order for it to be powered electrically to meet the requirements of its luminosity, compass directions on Earth would flip back and forth between day and night cycles. This certainly fails any scientific standards of consistency that would be needed for the EU model to be correct. See table 1 below:

Furthermore, they propose, that when comprehended by better data, the cratering beheld on the solid bodies in our solar system is really seen to be the effect of scarring by electrical arcs over the span of minutes or hours, not the ad hoc rationalization of impacts with other solid bodies over billions of years as has been erroneously stated by the astronomical establishment. In other words, they claim that asteroids and meteorites never collide with moons or planetary bodies, or if they do, never leave craters as evidence of the impact; so which of the two is it, kiddies (C’mon, throw me a bone here!)? Any large solid or gaseous astronomical object that somehow had a net electric charge would instantly attract charged particles of the opposite sort, which would close the circuit and cancel the charge.

Yes, it is true that space is filled with charged particles, after all, what do you think the solar wind and cosmic rays are? However, the hydrogen spread thinly throughout the interstellar and intergalactic media is electrically neutral, and we have used this neutral hydrogen to map the Milky Way. In both cases, these particles have been shown to have a net electric charge of ZERO for astronomical purposes.

Why does every body in the solar system just completely ignore Coulomb and Faraday, but dutifully abide by Newton? And if that’s not what’s going on, why doesn’t the Sun just electrically suck up every comet and asteroid in the solar system like a black hole on steroids? (Oh, wait, I forgot: according to this ‘revolutionary new idea’ gravitationally ideological things like black holes don’t exist! My bad–NOT!).

On some pro-EU websites, the claim is made that the theory is scientific but based not primarily on theory, rather upon experiment and observation, which is a logical fallacy as it violates the Law of Noncontradiction, which states that a given thing cannot both have and lack a property at the same time, i.e, both being and not being theoretical.

This also grossly betrays the nonscientific mindset of EU supporters, for they reveal their own ignorance, not only of basic principles of logic, but of in some cases the very status and role of a theory in science: a scientific theory is a constellation of ideas often supported by data and distinguished by being testable, that attempts to explain how the phenomena that it describes work. Also, science requires both data, such as observations and experiment, and theory to explain that data, otherwise it is just a collection of dry, useless facts that explains nothing.

Many EU advocates also claim, and have claimed to me through my online persona, that there is only one way to produce a magnetic field: with an electric current, arguing that planetary, stellar, galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields are caused by ‘the electrical flow of the Galaxy,’ and by no other way. This is simply false, as at least two ways to produce such fields immediately come to mind, perhaps more:

[1] By the alignment of the magnetic domains of a substance on a microscopic level, using electron spins, as any refrigerator magnet, piece of lodestone, compass or other permanent magnet will demonstrate.

[2]…as well as by an electric current flowing through a conductor such as a wire, as the workings of much of our technology shows, or currents generated by axial rotation, as per Dynamo Theory using the convection of molten iron in the Earth’s outer core, which produce the planet’s magnetosphere. A similar process using thermonuclear plasma convection in the interior of stars probably powers their magnetic fields as well.

Magnetic fields, like any electromagnetic phenomenon, extend into space infinitely though intervening matter and distance attenuates them in accordance with the inverse-square law. So the galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields, actually far weaker than the EU community claims them to be, are easily attributed to the magnetic fields of planets, stars and other celestial objects, with no need to invoke imaginary giant, invisible ‘galactic electrical currents.’ The electric universe model has thus failed every observational test to confirm it. Sorry.

Thus it appears to my dogmatic and gravitationally reactionary mind that belief in the EU not only requires one to be ignorant of conventional astrophysics, and to have an ideological opposition to mainstream science, but also requires ignorance of the very way electricity and magnetism themselves, ironically the things its central thesis is based on, are known to work and have been consistently shown to. It’s telling that most supporters of the EU cosmology are not themselves as well-traveled in terms of scientific training as those they ideologically oppose, often by their own admission. Ironic and telling indeed…

It seems counterintuitive, but it explains a lot. A new mathematical model explains the spread of useless quackery not becuase it seems to work, but in fact because it is useless.

In short, people emulate each other. If you see me taking a medicine for an illness, you are likely to try the same remedy. The longer I stay sick, the more people I will meet, and the more people will see me taking the treatment. If I am cured quickly, I may only pass along the effective treatment to one or two people. If I am not cured, I may pass along the ineffective treatment to dozens.

The study says that this is not always the case, though it nevertheless goes a long way to explaining the widespread belief in useless folk remedies.

In a blow to common sense, the Alberta government has passed a bill that allows parents to request their child be exempted from classes that include topics of evolution or homosexuality.

Although falling short of removing or muzzling these topics in the classroom, it impacts not only Science classes, but Phys-Ed, Health, Geography, and Social Science as well. Some of these may be compulsory courses.

It seems to me, as an educator, that closed-minded prejudice should be all the more reason to take those courses and learn more about the concepts, rather than an excuse to ignore them and continue misunderstanding them.

What’s next, exemption from History class that discusses Sumerian civilization (7400 years ago), or the settling of the Americas (>10,000 years ago)? Or exemption from a course that discusses the Moon landings? 

If you don’t like reality that’s your problem. But government approval to turn a blind eye to it – that’s just not right.

I’ve known about this one Youtube user for a while now, and her videos just make me want to slap my forehead and shake my head.  She seems to think sundogs are manmade.  She also thinks that rainbows from a sprinkler are from HAARP, as they supposedly never appeared 20 years ago.  Well, I remember seeing those rainbows 25 years ago.  I also understood the physics behind them.  Rainbows and sundogs are similar concepts, refraction of sunlight through water drops or ice crystals.  She thinks the ice crystals in the atmosphere are created by the government.  She thinks that it’s some sort of UV shield that the US government created, or something like that.  Just watch.

You can also check out her channel.

Reader Darell Bellaart submitted a link to his newspaper article here, and a Globe and Mail article can be found here.

Originally I thought perhaps Lunney was the greater offender for speaking against evolution and science, while Gary Goodyear (also a chiropractor, by the way) merely avoided the question. But it turns out that Goodyear later said, on CTV’s PowerPlay:

We are evolving every year, every decade. That’s a fact, whether it is to the intensity of the sun, whether it is to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it is running shoes or high heels – of course we are evolving to our environment.

Goodyear, by the way, is our Minister of Science and Technology.

It’s at times like this when I feel (insert Antonia Banderas voice) I am so ashamed to be a Canadian.

In a recent address in the House of Commons, James Lunney, long-standing conservative MP for Nanaimo-Alberni made the following statement:

Mr. Speaker, recently we saw an attempt to ridicule the presumed beliefs of a member of this House and the belief of millions of Canadians in a creator. Certain individuals in the media and the scientific community have exposed their own arrogance and intolerance of beliefs contrary to their own. Any scientist who declares that the theory of evolution is a fact has already abandoned the foundations of science. For science establishes fact through the study of things observable and reproducible. Since origins can neither be reproduced nor observed, they remain the realm of hypothesis.

In science, it is perfectly acceptable to make assumptions when we do not have all the facts, but it is never acceptable to forget our assumptions. Given the modern evidence unavailable to Darwin, advanced models of plate techtonics, polonium radiohalos, polystratic fossils, I am prepared to believe that Darwin would be willing to re-examine his assumptions.

The evolutionists may disagree, but neither can produce Darwin as a witness to prove his point. The evolutionists may genuinely see his ancestor in a monkey, but many modern scientists interpret the same evidence in favour of creation and a creator.

In general, the phenomenon of faith-based antiscience is American in origin, due to the constitutional separation of church and state. Here north of the 49th* parallel, most of our school boards have a religious origin, so that religious content can be presented as such, and not substituted for science. However, the phenomenon is not uniquely confined to the US.

As PZ Meyers points out, we cannot afford to be complacent, even though we are on the periphery. When Lunney spoke in the House, he was speaking in his professional capacity as a representative of his constituency, and of the governing party of this country. For someone in his position, taking an antiscience stance is unacceptable, and does a disservice to his constituency and to his country. If you are a citizen of the Great White North, or ideally a constituent of Nanaimo-Alberni, I suggest you may want to write him and let him know that he is completely wrong. His contact information is here. 

 Interestingly, you may notice on his site that he is Dr.James Lunney. It turns out he is a Doctor of Chiropractic – a field that has itself been criticized for unscientific claims.

*Although most of Canada lies north of the 49th parallel, the line that forms the southern border of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC, not all of it does. I am actually sitting at 43.75N.