Skeptical dogmatism

Last week, I wrote about the annoying backwardness of some old-school skeptics — the ones who want to dictate what is an allowed topic for skeptical inquiry and what is not. I targeted Daniel Loxton for criticism; he’s a good guy who does good work promoting skepticism, but he also has this rather nannyish side that prompts him to deplore everyone else who doesn’t do it exactly like he does.

This week, I’ve found someone worse: Barbara Drescher. Once again, we have someone with a distinguished history in the skeptical movement and great things to contribute, who digs in her heels at these new and different people who dare to intrude on her little domain and offer different perspectives. And I’m going to go further: on some things, she is just plain wrong, persisting in a hidebound version of skepticism that has been dogma for far too long. In particular, she wants to — as is typical — restrict the range of subjects to which skepticism may be applied, and sneers at anyone who disagrees.

She has posted four articles, all spawned by her resentment at what she saw at TAM9. I found them infuriating.

[Read more…]

Live-Blogging Curiosity

I just learned that Sean M. Carroll is live-Blogging Curiosity, the new television program that asks whether gods exist. Hawking comes out strongly with a confident “NO”. But now they have this horrible, awful post-show panel where they bring in weasely theologians to sow confusion. Carroll is also on the panel, and seems to be the sole rational, godless voice.

If you aren’t watching it on TV, you’re in luck — you’ve escaped the blithering nonsense pouring out of John Haught’s mouth. Read Cosmic Variance instead.

Live by the science, die by the science

This is a wonderful video debunking the Kalam Cosmological Argument. What I really like about it is that it takes the tortured rationales of theologians like William Lane Craig, who love to babble mangled pseudoscience in their arguments, and shows with direct quotes from the physicists referenced that the Christian and Muslim apologists are full of shit.

(via Skepchick.)

(Also on Sb)

I don’t get it

People keep sending me this cartoon, and I really don’t understand it. Is this an issue? Are there flocks of people fleeing atheism who need superstitious artifacts to ease their way? Some of the readers have been telling me to pay particular attention to the dartboard target of the crazy bearded guy in the lower left…I look at it and see Mel Gibson. WTF?

But that’s OK, they all reminded me to browse Atheist Cartoons, which has some much better cartoons that don’t feature Elvis and Mel. I particularly liked this one, which will throw everyone into a tizzy.

He dares to question your right to bacon? Burn him at the stake!

Somebody doesn’t understand basic genetics

Oh, boy. Look at these quotes from a recently published magazine article, and try to guess where they came from.

Scientists had also implicitly assumed that the X chromosomes in all women were identical.

We had? When?

The first comprehensive study of gene activity in the X chromosome of women reveals an unexpected level of variation among individual females. This extensive variation means there is not ONE human genome, but TWO – Male and Female.

This does not follow. There’s also individual variation in chromosome 7, and every other chromosome in the genome. Allelic and expression variation do not make for calling every variant a different genome.

Chromosomes are the set of genetic instructions that guide the creation of an organism. Every human embryo begins with two X chromosomes, but in order to be a male, one of the X chromosomes turns into a Y chromosome.

Wait, how? Could this happen even now? Watch out ladies: if you watch too much football, one of your X chromosomes might turn into a Y.

Depending on the gene, having two active copies can matter very little or very much. When genes on the second X chromosome that escape inactivation are expressed, this can create a stronger overall concentration of particular genes.

That started out just fine, and then degenerated into gobbledygook.

Have you figured it out? You’re probably thinking it’s some wacky creationist journal, because they are always written by people who don’t understand science and get the facts all wrong.

But no: it’s from Health & Wellness magazine, written by Angela Hoover. The editor of the magazine.

The title of the magazine is a clue. What the heck is “wellness”, and how is it different from “health”?

(Also on Sb)

Take one more step, please

Those secular Europeans…they’re almost there. Klass Hendrikse is a Dutch minister who is apparently reasonably typical of the breed. He doesn’t believe in gods.

“Personally I have no talent for believing in life after death,” Mr Hendrikse says. “No, for me our life, our task, is before death.”

Nor does Klaas Hendrikse believe that God exists at all as a supernatural thing.

“When it happens, it happens down to earth, between you and me, between people, that’s where it can happen. God is not a being at all… it’s a word for experience, or human experience.”

Oh, yes, god as blithering bafflegab. It’s mostly harmless, it’s entirely pointless, and you might as well change the name of his church to the Gorinchem Social Club and be honest about it all. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a social club.

So finish it, and do one more thing: read that Bible you keep waving around.

Mr Hendrikse describes the Bible’s account of Jesus’s life as a mythological story about a man who may never have existed, even if it is a valuable source of wisdom about how to lead a good life.

I’ve read the Bible; I think most Christian’s eyes must glaze over before they hit the second chapter of Genesis, and then they skip ahead to Revelation. This version of Jesus as the loving wise man isn’t in there. Instead, he’s a patriarchal rabbi with an apocalyptic vision who wanders the land, doing cheesy magic tricks and making extravagant claims about himself. I certainly don’t think he modeled a good life, and the nice humanist bits in some of his purported sermons you can get just as well by reading some of the Greek philosophers.

So the Dutch have a little bit further to go, but at least they’re further down the road of reason than the typical American preacher.

Atheism is an essential part of skepticism

Daniel Loxton is an annoying fellow. He does good work for the skeptic movement, and he’s got an excellent record of working for the cause, but he’s also prone to flop into simpering, pandering mode at the first sign someone disagrees with him (not in my case, though, but then I’m particularly annoying myself). This time, what prompts my mixed feelings is his summary of the diversity panel at TAM. This was a panel moderated by Desiree Schell, and containing a group of people who actually were diverse: D.J. Grothe, Debbie Goddard, Greta Christina, Jamila Bey, and Hemant Mehta. It’s a sign of good things in the skeptic movement that we did actually have some different backgrounds represented on a prominent panel, and not a collection of old white guys.

This has long been an issue with the skeptical movement. I used to subscribe to the Skeptical Inquirer, a very good magazine with well-written and substantive articles on skeptical issues, but I let my subscription lapse. It was a strange thing that prompted it; several years ago, there was an issue lauding the leaders of the skeptical movement, and it had a nice line drawing of four or five of these Big Names on the cover: and every one was white, male, and over 70 years old. I looked at it, and I wasn’t mad or outraged — every one of them was a smart guy who deserved recognition — but I saw it, sighed, and felt that not only was this incredibly boring, but that organized skepticism was dead if it was going to turn into a gerontocracy. I didn’t let my subscription lapse in protest, but out of lack of motivation.

[Read more…]

Yes, but it’s royal and noble snake oil

Another reason to get rid of the silly monarchy: Prince Charles is a quack.

Professor Edzard Ernst criticised the heir to the throne for lending his support to homeopathic remedies and for promoting the Duchy Herbals detox tincture.

In a briefing with reporters at the Science Media Centre in London, Ernst warned that “snake oil salesmen are ubiquitous and dangerous”, and named the prince as “one of the most outspoken proponents of homeopathy”.

He later told the Guardian: “There are no official criteria for a snake oil salesman, but if they existed, I think Charles would fulfil them.”

What are these Duchy Herbals, you might ask?

Britain’s leading academic expert on complementary medicine has warned that the Duchy Herbals Detox Tincture – a food supplement, which combines artichoke and dandelion and promises to rid the body of toxins while aiding digestion – is based on notions which are “implausible, unproven and dangerous”.

It also doesn’t work.

So, you Brits, when are you going to get rid of these goofy parasites? They seem to get worse and worse every year.

Why we shouldn’t take the Tea Party seriously

I can’t believe we elected any of these hypocritical loons to office anywhere. Look at the shenanigans in Dayton, Ohio.

Kelly Kohls, who was elected in Springboro on a platform of fiscal responsibility two years ago, requested last week the district’s curriculum director look into ways of providing “supplemental” instruction dealing with creationism. Fellow member, Scott Anderson, who was elected with Kohls when the district was struggling financially, supports his colleague’s idea.

“Creationism is a significant part of the history of this country,” Kohls said. “It is an absolutely valid theory and to omit it means we are omitting part of the history of this country.”

That’s not true. It is neither a significant part of our history nor is it a valid “theory” — it doesn’t even deserve the label of theory, since it doesn’t integrate a large number of scientific hypotheses and observations. It doesn’t even deserve to be called a hypothesis, since it’s made in direct contradiction to the evidence. It might best be called a myth, nothing more.

One other fine piece of hypocrisy: she and many Teabaggers are getting elected on promises of fiscal conservativism. Clearly, they didn’t mean it: peddling creationism in the public schools means they’re going down the Dover path, and we all saw how much that cost the school district. This should be seen as a ploy to destroy public education.

Also, how’s this for irony? Kohls filed for bankruptcy. They own a house valued at $450,000 (in Ohio? What kind of mansion did they splurge on?), on which they owe… $829,000. Yeah, she’s a smart money manager.