How does pseudo-science "beat" science? I'm still thinking this through, but here is where I am at the moment. Here are three steps often employed by pseudo-scientists: Step I: Claim that honest work done by careful scientists is not credible without having any appreciation of the intense and meticulous work…
Upbeat roundtable by Meet the Press, featuring comedian/author Bill Cosby, Congresswoman Maxine Watters, Adrian Fenty (Mayor of Washington D.C.) and Alvin F. Poussaint. Cosby and Poussaint have co-authored a book entitled Come On, People: on the Path from Victims to Victors (2007). The main theme of this roundtable is what…
I am sitting cross legged on a pillow on the floor, which I try to do daily these days, when my cheek begins to itch. A 20 minute daily sitting meditation has, over the past year, become more routine for me. I sit focused on my breath. I am my…
We have all been through one cycle after another of debate with someone who insists that science is a religion. This is a tiresome argument on one level because it is one with all sorts of things that fall under the category of "I know it when I see it." …
Richard Dawkins once wrote a letter to his ten-year old daughter, explaining the difference between belief based on evidence versus authority. This letter addresses the appropriateness of extrapolating from evidence in making solid scientific conclusions. The title of this article from a book of Dawkins' essays entitled "A Devil's Chaplin," is "Good and Bad Reasons for Believing." And I do believe that any reasonable ten year old who keeps an open mind can see the difference. After all, we do informal science all day every day. The problem for some of us is when we start discussing the undeniable reality of humans as animals, thus highlighting our kinship with "lower" animals and suggesting that our creation was natural (and is ongoing). Understanding this basic point made by Dawkins doesn't require great intelligence. It requires intellectual courage. It requires that one quits screwing around with the burden of proof when testing propositions.