Why Climate Change Denial Is Like the O.J. Trial is an interesting article. The essence is that the climate denialists are using the same techniques as the OJ defense team: Find anything resembling a needle in a vast haystack of data, then claim that the presence of the needle casts doubt on the character of the haystack itself.
Because there is an overwhelming pile of evidence in support of anthropogenic global warming, there are bound to be occasional pieces of data that can appear to contradict the mass of affirmative information. The pile is overwhelming, especially to non-scientists. Therefore few have the patience to understand the whole thing.
Those who want to spin the counter argument claim that, because the two sides are both represented, therefore the issue is in doubt. And, as in the OJ trial, if there is cause for doubt, then no action is to be taken.
Jenny McCarthy, a famous non-scientist who has toured the country warning that vaccines caused her son’s autism, now says that her son doesn’t actually have autism and that vaccines might not actually cause autism.
You see, real science doesn’t make things up. Real science is a self-critical activity . . .
Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticized the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.
So, do we really know if parachutes are better than a placebo for surviving skydiving? Alt-Med advocates are all over this one.
In America’s heartland there is a modern temple to the denial of five nines (99.999%) of what we’ve learned about the universe in the last couple of centuries. The Creation Museum is a sleek, elegant, well presented indoor theme park almost entirely lacking in actual knowledge. It is derided worldwide, and is a source of shame for our once forward thinking nation. It is also, I grant, an edifice to the principle of free speech.
The ham, showman and charlatan who created this institution in Kentucky after he was laughed out of his Australian homeland seems to be quite sincere about the project. Ken Ham is actually his name. And he has been raking in major profits for nearly three years from this place, well beyond even his early hopes. Apparently there is more than one born again every minute.
Busloads of young Christians long to go on pilgrimages to shore up their Young Earth ideology. The younger ones (under 12) can even get their picture taken on the back of a dinosaur, just like those that people rode. That is, before the old west cowboys killed the last of them off. That’s why all those T-Rexes are found out on the great plains.
You don’t have to take this from me on faith, follow the links from the Wikipedia article on the Creation Museum. See actual video tours.
I just learned that a young collateral relative, a bright young man, is looking forward to his trip there this weekend! Half a dozen years ago, he was in public schools, in every advanced program they offered. Advanced science and math and lead cello in the district orchestra. Then his parents removed him from all that intellectual wealth to put him in a small Christian school. He still excelled, eventually garnering college board scores that got him invitations to Harvard and Yale and such. But he wants to go to a small school with an influential chapter of the Campus Crusade. Sigh.
In this terrifically engaging and accessible video interview, Daniel Dennett (talking with Richard Dawkins) explains his view that Darwin’s idea was the greatest idea ever. Dennett, who authored Darwin’s Dangerous Idea explains that natural selection unified the world of mechanism/material/physical and the world of meaning/purpose/goals which, until Darwin, seemed to be unbridgeable.
Many people feel that Darwin’s idea destroyed their sense of meaning, but Dennett argues that this “immaterial immortal soul” is a “crutch,” and that Darwin replaced that idea with that of a “material mortal soul.” Dennett describes our material souls as made of neurons. “They are blind little bio-robots . . . They don’t know; they don’t care; they are just doing their jobs.” If you put enough of these simple little bio-robots together, you end up with a soul. Out of these little bio-robots, you can assemble the control system of a complex organism. Simple little parts can self-organize into sentient being that can “look into the future . . . because we can imagine the world in a better way, and we can hold each other responsible for that.”
There’s no need to assume that a God implants any sort of soul. Rather, according to Dennett, a functional soul can “emerge” from soul-less little individual parts. The simple little parts don’t need to exhibit the functions and abilities of the assembled groups of parts, but this illusory jump is a huge stumbling block for many theists. They wonder how you can “make a living thing out of dead stuff,” but that is exactly what happens, “and that’s the wonder of it.” Science has also shown that you can also “make a conscious thing out of unconscious stuff.”
Over great periods of time, natural processes can constitute the design function that allows these incredible results we see in the world. It is not necessary that complex things need to be created by even more complex things. Darwin’s ideas destroyed this misconception and “this is a really stunning fact. Purpose can emerge from the bottom up.” The brain itself is a fast-paced evolutionary device; the learning process is a matter of generation and testing and pruning, over and over.
Dawkins asks Dennett to explain further how “cranes” (simple natural processes) can really account for the wonderful complexity of life in the absence of “sky-hooks” (supernatural beings). You could argue that our planet has grown a nervous system and it’s us. The above summarizes only the first ten minutes of the fifty-minute interview.
Numerous other topics are discussed in the video, including the following:
- Modern wars and strife constitute growing pains resulting from our being flooded with great amounts of information about each other. (15:00)
- Cultural evolution clearly exists. Languages and musical ideas evolve, for example, without anyone initially consciously “laying down the law.”
- Dennett’s recent brush with death (his aorta suddenly burst), resulting in many intriguing observations (21:00), including a deepened understanding of the phrase “thank goodness.” You can put goodness back into the world, “and you don’t need a middleman” (God). You can directly thank the doctors, nurses and medical journalists, the peer reviewers and the entire scientific enterprise that allows elaborate cures such as artificial aortas. According to Dennett, don’t bother thanking God, “go plant a tree, go try to teach somebody something . . . let’s make the world better for our children and our grandchildren.”
- Dennett elaborates on being part of this elaborate social and scientific fabric, this complex exploratory process. He finds this view much more inspiring that the idea that he is “a doll made by God . . . to pray to him.” (24:00)
- The scientific process is double-edged, exacerbated by the Internet. We can’t tightly control this information, and their effects might be detrimental. We need to think “epidemiologically” about this possibility, and to better prepare people to deal with the ideas gone awry to protect them. (26:00) Knowledge can be a “painful process,” yet we need to honor other people to make their own considered decisions.
- Darwin offers some consolation regarding our impending deaths: that they had the opportunity to walk on this planet “for awhile.” (29:00) Dawkins adds that it is a huge privilege to have been born, in that “you are lucky to have had anything at all . . . stop moaning.” Dennett adds that we are not aghast at the thought that there were many years that passed before we were born when we were also not alive . . . it shouldn’t bother us that we will someday again no longer be alive. Our grief at someone’s death is a measure of how wonderful someone was.
- The urge to thank someone for the many good things in one’s life is a great temptation for believing in God. (33:00). Dawkins argues that contemplating that amazing process that gave rise to you “is better than thanking because it is a thoughtful thing to do . . . You’re not just thanking your Sky-Daddy.” He argues that the urge to thank should be “sublimated” into the drive to understand how it all happened. Atheists, too, can feel the sense of “awe.” Dennett exclaims, “Hallelujah! It’s just spectacular. It’s so wonderful! The universe is fantastic!” Dawkins adds, “Hallelujah for the universe and for the fact that we . . . are working on understanding it.”
This June 2009 video is uncut; it is the full Dennett interview by Richard Dawkins. Parts of this interview were used in a British television documentary entitled “The Genius of Charles Darwin.”
In this thought-provoking video, physicist Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, S. James Gates, Jr., and Freeman Dyson discuss the joy of living without knowing everything, thus minimizing falsehoods:
This is a very funny satirical critique of the Theory of Gravity using many of the arguments that people will use to discount evolution. It was written by Ellery Schemp, the noted physicist who is also known as an activist for the separation of church and state.
From Wiki:
On November 26, 1956, Ellery staged a protest against the school requirement that each student read 10 Bible passages and the Lord’s Prayer each day during homeroom. Instead, Ellery brought a copy of the Qur’an and read from that. For this, he was sent to the Principal’s office. With the help of his father, Edward Schempp, and the American Civil Liberties Union, they sued the Abington School district over their policy of mandatory Bible readings.
One of the things I found especially interesting about this article is that I discovered it on an Evangelical Apologetics website in the Philosophy section!
Warning: Gravity is “Only a Theory”
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun’s gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth’s gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
I found this illustration of how to order your arguments at the Starts With A Bang blog. This blog usually leads one to a first source. However, I had to do some digging to find the original creator of this image. This image is all over the web, but I think the first source is here, from the Create Debate blog in April 2008.
This image (click on it to enlarge) was created to illustrate an earlier point by Paul Graham, whose text-only posts I’ve been (occasionally) reading for years.
The premise is to always lead with your top level reasonable arguments, and never resort to the bottom layers. As Ethan Siegel (SWAB) put it,
It’s sometimes tough to decipher what the central point of someone else’s argument is, because most people don’t argue clearly and logically. But if you can identify it, that’s when you win. When someone else mucks around at the bottom of the pyramid, don’t sink to their level; stay up high. Those top two levels are really the only way to ever change someone’s mind, or to sway other intelligent, thinking people to your side.
This is an attitude that would serve us well on this site.
He spent his life conducting world-renowned orchestras, but was almost blind and growing deaf – the music he loved increasingly out of reach. His wife of 54 years had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. So Edward and Joan Downes decided to die together.
Downes – Sir Edward since he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1991 – and his wife ended their lives last week at a Zurich clinic run by the assisted suicide group Dignitas. They drank a small amount of clear liquid and died hand-in-hand, their two adult children by their side. He was 85 and she was 74.
Many people feel that suicide necessarily cheapens one’s life. In many cases, I don’t agree. I do think that the choice of when and how to die belongs to each person individually, as long as the decision was not made impulsively or under the influence.
If the day comes when I decide that I can’t bear the pain, or that I no longer find joy in my life, I would hope that I wouldn’t need to travel all the way to Switzerland because inter-meddlers think they know better than me about the meaning of my own life.
One of my peeves against anti-evolutionists is those moderates who fully accept gene drift and mutations for short term changes (breeds, “micro-evolution”) but not longer term changes (species, types, “macro-evolution”). Try to pin one of those people down on a definition of species and type, and one can always show them an observed example of something that crossed the line, or else multiple species that are obviously different but on the same side of their line.
But this post is broader than that. For example, Pluto was a planet. Everyone knew that. Recently it was demoted to dwarf-planet. There are groups still dedicated to its reinstatement as a planet, like the Society for the Preservation of Pluto as a Planet. My presumption is, because that’s what they were taught in their youth, therefore it’s “As God Intended”. Nothing changed in the sky, nor in our understanding of how things work. But a category changed and our world shook. Well, at least the world of those of us who noticed.
What of moons? An excellent article is here: Meet our Second Moon! We now have two moons? And in my lifetime, the origin of our main moon changed from an unlikely captured or even less likely co-congealed object to a reasonable and most probably ejected one. I remember being disturbed when the moon count around Jupiter went from 12 (the 19th century standard) to 63 (care of Voyager etc). The count varies depending on how you define “moon”. One has to be broadly accepting of both size and ballistic classification to accept 3753 Cruithne as a moon of the Earth, but it is there. Speaking of the moon, here is an incredible new way to see our moon up close (with pan and zoom) taken from ground based cameras. Things change.
As I have mentioned many times on this blog, most people are hung up on the misconception that words accurately define things. The thinking that, if you have a name for it, then you understand the thing. You get the collector’s fallacy: The confusion of the joy of matching names to things with the understanding of the things themselves. Knowing the names of thousands of birds (or bugs or species or stamps or diseases) and accurately matching them to the subjects is useful. But it is not complete in terms of understanding the similarities and differences.
That is what is meant by the quote “Biology without evolution is but stamp collecting”. One cannot understand things without also understanding the relationship between things (species, astronomical objects, populations, etc) and knowing the latest (most complete, so far) underlying set of theories (scientific definition, not vernacular).
Humans are better than most other creatures at recognizing patterns. We regularly see patterns in random observations: Pareidolia.
Any set of words will be an incomplete definition of any object. Defining a class of things is even more nebulous. Do species change over time? Certainly, given either enough time or a precise enough definition. How many moons are in the solar system? Good question. Define “moon”, and show me the latest ballistic data on the 100,000 largest object so far discovered inside of the Oort Cloud. By the time I have an answer, something will have changed.
I’ve wondered why so many respected scientists participate in Templeton Foundation activities. One reason is money, but not all lovers of science acquiesce, as indicated on Richard Dawkins’ site. For example:
I hope you will understand that this is by no means directed at you personally, but I don’t engage in Templeton-associated matters. I cannot agree with the Templeton Foundation’s project of trying to make religion respectable by conflating it with science; this is like mixing astrology with astronomy or voodoo with medical research, and I disapprove of Templeton’s use of its great wealth to bribe compliance with this project. Templeton is to all intents and purposes a propaganda organisation for religious outlooks; it should honestly say so and equally honestly devote its money to prop up the antique superstitions it favours, and not pretend that questions of religion are of the same kind and on the same level as those of science.
Anthony Grayling
Here’s one more excerpt from a letter to Edwin Cartlidge of the Templeton Foundation, this one by Daniel Dennett:
If you had said that you were studying the views of scientists, philosophers and, say, choreographers on this topic, I would at least be curious about what expertise choreographers could bring to it. If you had said scientists, philosophers, and astrologers, I would not even have replied to your invitation. The only reason I am replying is to let you know that I disapprove of the Templeton Foundation’s attempt to tie theologians to the coat tails of scientists and philosophers who actually do have expertise on this topic.
In the June 2009 edition of Scientific American, well-known skeptic Michael Shermer discusses human tendencies to find things and agency where they don’t actually exist:
Patternicity [is] the human tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. Consider the face on Mars, the Virgin Mary on a grilled cheese sandwich, satanic messages in rock music. Of course, some patterns are real. Finding predictive patterns in changing weather, fruiting trees, migrating prey animals and hungry predators was central to the survival of Paleolithic hominids.
Thomas Gilovich conducted a now classic study regarding our tendencies toward patternicity. The subject was the “hot hand” that many people assume that basketball players get. You know . . . give him the ball. He’s got the hot hand going . . .
But we are also a bit too good at inferring agency:
We infer agency behind the patterns we observe in a practice I call “agenticity”: the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents. We believe that these intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top down (as opposed to bottom-up causal randomness). Together patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms. Agenticity carries us far beyond the spirit world. The Intelligent Designer is said to be an invisible agent who created life from the top down.
Why do we claim to see things that don’t exist? Shermer concludes that we are “natural born supernaturalists.”
If you've enjoyed reading a DI post, please take a few seconds to recommend it to
Digg, StumbleUpon, Reddit, Facebook, etc
using the "Share/Save" link on the post's Permalink.
Thank
you!
Note: If you don't see a post's
"Share/Save" link on the Homepage version of that post, click on the title of the post you'd like to share (to get to the permalink of that post), then scroll to the bottom.
"Thousands of protesters – many directing their anger squarely at President Barack Obama – marched through the nation's capital Saturday to urge immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.""'Arrest that war criminal!' [Cindy] Sheehan shouted outside the White House before her arrest, referring to Obama."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2... »
A lesbian high school student embroiled in a legal flap over her school's prom policy has received a $30,000 scholarship on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/ellen-gives-30000-to-cons_n_506465.html »
So those who are publicizing the knowledge of global warming are those few with enough money to do so; those who are already in a position to make back their expenses and then some. This is supposed to be a surprise?Cap and trade may do little in the short term. But the precedent of monetizing waste products will force people to consider the long t... »
Some suggestions for the Race-Other box: Indy 500 Tour de France Ironman Triathalon Rat Daytona 500 (or any other NASCAR event) Arms Three-legged Baja 1000 »
Dan, It would seem that way in a superficial sense, but the major proponents of anthropogenic CO2 as the major cause of global warming are those in a position to profit greatly from trading carbon credits as a commodity. The groundwork has already been laid for the open trading of carbon credits in commodity brokerages. The result of cap and trad... »
Aren't you making my argument? Shall we trust the results presented by the multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel industry, or those of the the struggling, liberal, independent "green" studies?Again, who has the money and profit motive to spin climate results? »
Naomi Klein discusses proposal of a highly influential Israeli think tank:"[T]he Reut Institute, arguably Israel's most influential think tank, published a very controversial report about "hubs of delegitimization." It attempted to equate tactics of non-violent resistance—like the growing movement to use Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) to ... »
Double display product:"So, here's the worst idea I've heard all week: Lip gloss that lets everyone around you know you're horny. 'The saucy slap changes from clear to deep crimson as the wearer feels frisky,' reports The Sun. 'It works by reacting with a girl's body chemistry. And each £12 tube comes with a colour chart so men can work out how ran... »
From the Independent:"Five years of occupation have destroyed Iraq as a country. Baghdad is today a collection of hostile Sunni and Shia ghettoes divided by high concrete walls. Different districts even have different national flags. Sunni areas use the old Iraqi flag with the three stars of the Baath party, and the Shia wave a newer version, adopt... »
From the Daily Dish:"It's not exactly startling to see that Karl Rove has denied he was aware his own father was gay, even as he guided the GOP into anti-gay wedge politics in the last decade (the Christianists, he coolly calculated, had potentially way more votes for the GOP than gays and their families). But it is important to note that it is unt... »
"'Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,' Jenkins says. Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue."http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788 »
"To the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States, the Pentagon has added WikiLeaks.org, a tiny online source of information and documents that governments and corporations around the world would prefer to keep secret."http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html »
Tim: My census arrived today (as you can see from my photos above). I did laugh at the note that accompanied the census:"Your answers will only be used for statistical purposes, and no other purpose."Understood, I think. But then tell me, U.S. government. How will those STATISTICS be used? As if a statistic is an end in itself . . . They trul... »
My parakeet was apparently trying to tell me that much of the census form was for the birds.I think my parakeet was most distressed by the "race" question. Me too. If the government can present even one thoughtful scientist who can explain that "race" is a meaning concept, I would be willing to enter some information. Until then, the "race" que... »
Check how Bret Baier interviewed President George W. Bush compared to the way he interviewed Barack Obama. Dramatic contrast.http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/18/baier-bush-obama/ »
Niklaus, I couldn't agree with you more. The worst of the impacts of climate change are projected decades into the future. We have already begun to feel the impact of the end of cheap energy, and it's quite painful. These effects are here now, and by solving the energy problem, we will most likely have automatically solved the climate quandary. »