I am so over the skeptical movement

I am so over Ben Radford. I thought he was obtuse before. Now I’m convinced that he’s simply an idiot. He attempts to rebut my criticisms.

Myers admits that I’m technically correct that Ensler’s statistics are not exactly right, but claims I’m being “hyperskeptical,” and states that “One billion women have been victims of ‘homicide, intimate partner abuse, psychological abuse, dating violence, same-sex violence, elder abuse, sexual assault, date rape, acquaintance rape, marital rape, stranger rape and economic abuse,’ confirmed by statistics that Radford cites. One billion women. Radford’s hyperskepticism is so fierce that he objects to Ensler using 3 general words – raped, beaten, violated – instead of 26 more specific words, but is willing to overlook the horrific truth that she is correct and one billion women will suffer for their sex in their lifetime.”

Except that I didn’t; Myers misread it. I actually didn’t write the “one billion” figure that Myers misquotes me as saying; that was Ensler’s number. What I actually wrote (check it yourself) was that “one-third of women [have been victims of] homicide, intimate partner abuse, psychological abuse, dating violence, same-sex violence, elder abuse, sexual assault, date rape, acquaintance rape, marital rape, stranger rape and economic abuse.” (One in three women is not the same as one billion if you do the math, though perhaps that’s just my hyperskepticism.)

I was not saying he was technically correct. I was saying that the figure he’s carping about is actually right, and that his complaints are empty. I did not realize that he’d respond by proudly declaring his innumeracy: I’m sorry, but 1/3 of 1/2 of 7 billion people is actually about one billion.

Worse yet, he then goes on to piously plead that people need to heed the principle of charity in their arguments (I’ve noticed that it’s usually the people who most need charity who are begging for it.) Then — get ready for it — he turns around and writes this appalling piece of ham-handed dreck. Yeah, right. Fuck the principle of charity. No charity for you, Radford.

I’m so over Harriet Hall’s t-shirt. She’s been going on and on, circling around the drain to somehow defend it. It’s simple: she wore it to spite some people she clearly doesn’t like, and to get praise from other people who don’t like Rebecca Watson and the Skepchicks. It’s really that easy. Just admit it and move on. I know it’s hard to admit that you’re that petty, but it would end all this nonsense, and it would be honest. Get over it; the wordy excuse-making is getting embarrassing. Besides, Amanda Marcotte has Hall’s number.

I’m so over Reap Paden. Dear god, he’s so obsessive he’s made another creepy video that says far more about him than me.

The one thing I’m happy to do is publicize these dumbass arguments. Why is it that people who attach themselves to a movement that prides itself on having rationality as its raison d’etre are so godawful pathetic at making a case for themselves?

An argument for gun control that might finally resonate with wingnuts

A tragic story: a man stuffed a gun in his pants and it accidentally went off, shooting him in the penis and leg.

Let’s forestall the usual comments: no, he didn’t deserve to be mutilated this way, OK? But still, this kind of event is what we should worry about more, and which will occur far more, than some murderous villain blazing away at innocents with a gun. Accidents will happen, and the more casual (and incompetent) people end up with deadly weapons in their hands, the more often these irreversible and unfortunate errors will occur, and they will inevitably occur with far greater frequency than homicidal sprees. The best thing that can be said is that at least no one was killed…this time.

Although this particular man will be reluctant to ever hang out with his gun-toting companions in the future. Especially with the little detail that he shot himself with a pink pistol.

I am now even more confident that we need more gun control

If nothing else, I want this asshole disarmed. BigDaddyHoffman1911 is some kind of gun freak from North Carolina who is proud to be walking around everywhere carrying deadly weapons…and here he is bragging about carrying a pair of Glock handguns equipped with 50 round ammo drums each.

What war does he expect to erupt around him so that he’ll need that many rounds? Or does he just have 100 people on his kill list?

Jeez. Gun nuts. There really is something wrong with them.

(via Kick!.)

Show your work, @JoseCanseco!

The baseball player Jose Canseco made a remarkable series of tweets yesterday.

canseco

I may not be 100% right but think about it. How else could 30 foot leather birds fly?
The land was farther away from the core and had much less gravity so bigness could develop and dominate
My theory is the core of the planet shifted when single continent formed to keep us in a balanced spin
Gravity had to be weaker to make dinosaurs nimble
Animal tissue of muscles and ligaments could not support huge dinosaurs even standing up or pump blood up 60 foot necks
elephants today eight tons supersaurs two hundred tons a totally different world. why?
You ever wonder why nothing REALLY big exists today in nature
Ancient gravity was much weaker

Deja vu, man, deja vu. Any old regulars from the talk.origins usenet group will remember this one: Ted Holden and his endless arguments for Velikovskian catastrophism. Holden also claimed that earth’s gravity had to have been much lower for dinosaurs to stand up.

Ted Holden has been repeatedly posting the claim that sauropod dinosaurs were too large to have existed in 1g acceleration. His argument is based on simple square-cube scaling of human weightlifter performance (in particular, the performance of Bill Kazmaier). His conclusion is that nothing larger than an elephant is possible in 1g. His proposed solution is a “reduction in the felt effect of gravity” (by which he seems to mean the effective acceleration), due to a variant of Velikovskian Catastrophism, often called Saturnism. Ted’s materials in their current form can be found on his web pages dealing with catastrophism.

For those not familiar with Velikovsky, he was a pseudoscientist whose claim to fame was that he so nimbly straddled two disciplines and befuddled people on either side. He was a classical scholar who used his interpretations of ancient texts to claim there was evidence of astronomical catastrophes in Biblical times (his scholarship there impressed astronomers and left the real classical scholars laughing), while also peddling an astronomical model that had planets whizzing out of their orbits and zooming by Earth in near-collisions that caused the disasters in the Bible and other ancient civilizations (his physics dazzled the classical scholars but had physicists gawping in astonishment at their absurdity).

Holden at least tried to do the math; he just flopped and did it wrong. Canseco hasn’t even done that much. Vague and uninformed impressions are not justifications for rejecting science. Here are some quick arguments against this nonsense of dinosaurs living in reduced gravity.

  • Dinosaurs exhibit the adaptations required for their mass: limbs are thicker in proportion to their length, bones show large muscle insertions, bones are thick and dense, etc. The biology clearly obeys the scaling laws we can see in extant animals.

  • Holden’s mechanism for reducing gravity is ridiculous: he postulates, for instance, that Mars hovered above the Earth and that its gravitational pull countered part of the Earth’s pull. It would have to be very close to have that effect, and while it’s true that could reduce the ‘felt effect of gravity’, it would only do so briefly before the two planets collided and destroyed all life, and also, you wouldn’t be alive to experience that brief easing of the gravitational load — you’d have been killed in the destructive chaos during the approach, and your body’s behavior would probably be dominated by atmospheric and geological upheavals anyway.

  • Canseco’s mechanism is pathetic. We already have gravitational variations on the planet, with primary differences between the equator and the poles. These amount to a roughly 0.5% difference in weight — so a 200 pound person weighs 199 pounds at the equator, and 201 pounds at the North Pole. So, most optimistically, if all the gravitational anomalies happened to be piled up on one side of the planet, let’s assume that the Mesozoic variation was greater, all the way up to 1% less on the supercontinent. So that 200 ton supersaur Canseco is concerned about would instead weigh…198 tons. Oooh. That’s enough to make his objections disappear?

At least Canseco is not as delusional as Holden. But if he starts tweeting about giant teratorns carrying Neandertals on their backs, who then fly to Mars and build giant monuments in Cydonia, get him some help, OK?

I get email: explosive beginnings

sheldon_car

I still do get lots of letters from creationists. Their general tone is usually one of smugness: they’ve got a “gotcha” question they can’t wait to unload on an evilutionist.

dear prof pz myers

can an explosion(big bang)+time= a car?

yours

א ב

Why do you ask a yes/no question about something as complex as the origin of the universe? I can tell from how you chose to ask this question that you aren’t actually interested in the answer, but only want a binary response in which you can either get a “no,” in which case you’ll preen and claim you’ve got me to agree that natural causes are impossible, or you’ll get a “yes,” in which case you’ll fall back on your ignorant intuition and tell me that that is impossible. You aren’t sincere, and you aren’t curious, and you are not an honest seeker after the truth.

Your question is also badly formed; I can’t answer yes or no because it’s phrased in such a way as to reveal your false assumptions. You are equating your colloquial understanding of an explosion to a cosmological event, the Big Bang, and also making an implied demand for a complete causal chain covering a period of 13.8 billion years. A bit presumptuous, don’t you think, that you feel you can dash off a thoughtless question and expect a persuasive answer on a difficult topic?

It’s a commonplace cliche that a teacher will tell a class that there’s no such thing as a stupid question. The teacher is lying. I’ve run across many stupid questions, and you, sir, have written one. It’s not even amazingly stupid or creatively stupid or newly stupid; it’s mundanely stupid. It’s the stupidity of a parrot squawking what, to it, are nonsense syllables, and expecting a cracker for its effort. Further, it’s not a parrot repeating fragments of the speech of great philosophers or scientists, but a parrot fed on nothing but an aural diet of the mumblings of benighted fools.

So, I’m sorry, but I’m unimpressed. Try harder. Try thinking for a change.

As for the meat of your question, the cosmological expansion of the universe in the first instant of its beginning was something a little more profound and substantial than an “explosion”. The phrase “Big Bang” is shorthand, a metaphor, for a process that is seen in a rich data set of observations and that can be encapsulated in the language of physics and math. You’re clearly a religious person: ask your rabbi about “metaphors”. They’re used even in your holy books, and you’ll find yourself led to even more ridiculous conclusions about the nature of the universe if you follow every one of them strictly literally.

But if we generalize your question and ask whether explosions can lead to greater complexity and even greater organization, the answer is yes. A better example of such a phenomenon that better fits your casual understanding of the meaning of the word “explosion” is the aftermath of supernovae. The reactions that occur in the hearts of stars are part of a process called nucleosynthesis, in which smaller atoms are fused (it’s why these are called fusion reactions) to produce larger atoms; from a starting point of hydrogen stars build up larger atoms, like carbon and iron. And then at the end of their lifetime, the stars literally explode, dispersing those large elements in vast clouds that condense under the influence of gravity to form new stars and planets.

So yes, the iron in your car was forged in a star and scattered to our planet in an explosion. The carbon of which automotive engineers and factory workers are made was also assembled in a star that exploded.

The second term in your equation, time, is also an attempt to trivialize a phenomenon. Yes, “time” built us. But by time, of course, more sensible people mean a complex set of historical interactions and natural processes that were necessary for change to occur. Why do you regard it as something insignificant? We could say that you were the product of a messy eruption of fluids and cells from your mother and father plus “time”…but do you consider your embryonic development, your growth as a child and adolescent, your education (which, I’m sorry to say, was actually where you were shortchanged), your experiences and years of thoughts (shallow as they were), are simply reducible to a four-letter word?

Can ovulation/ejaculation+time=you?

Only in the most trivial and unhelpful sense. Just like your question.

Why the Republican Party as we know it is doomed

Because its base is made up of people like Kathleen O’Brien Wilhelm:

Signs that read “Deer Crossing” and the like are going to continue to pop up throughout our country including Avon Lake, but who are these signs for? Deer cannot read, do not obey the law and probably will cross where they wish. Although adorable companions, it is hard to remember the last time that the news reported an animal talking, thinking or providing significant input for the benefit of society. Yet, these signs cost taxpayers like so much of government.

It gets better from there. Just go read. Don’t say I never provided the Horde with amusement.

You don’t get to be “over” rape

Oh, great. Ben Radford has put his foot in his mouth again. Radford has announced that he is “over” rape, that he doesn’t like the “One Billion Rising” efforts by Eve Ensler because she abuses statistics, and that he’s going to beat up a whole bunch of straw feminists. You can tell he’s got all of his ideas about what feminists believe from listening attentively to anti-feminists — it’s rather like reading an anti-evolution rant from someone who has got all of his information from creationist web sites. It tells us nothing useful about the subject under discussion, but it’s extremely revealing about the critic’s personal biases.

Ophelia has already set all of his straw on fire, but I have to mention that I agree with him on one thing: this One Billion Rising stuff leaves me cold, for reasons that Natalie Gyte articulates so well. Radford’s reasons, though, are classic hyperskepticism. Ensler has said that one in three women will be raped, violated, or beaten in their lifetime, which is where that “one billion” number comes from. Radford objects! It’s not true!

The correct statistic is not that one billion women will be raped in her lifetime (as Ensler said in an interview on Democracy Now!), nor that one in three women “will be raped or beaten” in her lifetime (as Ensler states on the One Billion Rising web site), but instead that one-third of women “has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused” in her lifetime (as referenced in the study linked to on the web site). “Otherwise abused” includes “homicide, intimate partner abuse, psychological abuse, dating violence, same-sex violence, elder abuse, sexual assault, date rape, acquaintance rape, marital rape, stranger rape and economic abuse.” All these are serious, legitimate problems, but not all of them are physical beatings or rape (nor even involve men). This is important because mischaracterizing the statistic as reflecting women either being “raped or beaten” harms victimized women instead of empowering them by not reflecting the true diversity of forms of abuse.

You know, when someone tells me that statistics are being distorted for a cause, I imagine someone misrepresenting the data with exaggeration or understatement to bias it in a prejudicial direction. I don’t consider simplifying for a public interview while keeping the core numbers accurate to be using “misleading statistics to support their social agendas.”

One billion women have been victims of “homicide, intimate partner abuse, psychological abuse, dating violence, same-sex violence, elder abuse, sexual assault, date rape, acquaintance rape, marital rape, stranger rape and economic abuse,” confirmed by statistics that Radford cites. One billion women. Radford’s hyperskepticism is so fierce that he objects to Ensler using 3 general words — raped, beaten, violated — instead of 26 more specific words, but is willing to overlook the horrific truth that she is correct and one billion women will suffer for their sex in their lifetime.

Maybe it’s a good thing he’s over complex social issues; from now on he can stick to the easy stuff, like debunking bigfoot stories, that are apparently at the upper limit of his intellectual capacity.

Sasquatch is ill-served

zztop

Melba Ketchum issued a press release announcing that she had sequenced Sasquatch DNA. That was back in November.

It stalled out at that point. It turns out the paper couldn’t get past peer review, and no one was going to publish it. We’re all heartbroken, I know.

But now she has overcome all the obstacles, and it’s finally in print! You can read the abstract.

One hundred eleven samples of blood, tissue, hair, and other types of specimens were studied, characterized and hypothesized to be obtained from elusive hominins in North America commonly referred to as Sasquatch. DNA was extracted and purified from a subset of these samples that survived rigorous screening for wildlife species identification. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing, specific genetic loci sequencing, forensic short tandem repeat (STR) testing, whole genome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) bead array analysis, and next generation whole genome sequencing were conducted on purported Sasquatch DNA samples gathered from various locations in North America. Additionally, histopathologic and electron microscopic examination were performed on a large tissue sample. vel non-human DNA.

Umm, yeah, I know, it kind of falls apart in the last sentence, but that’s what it says.

How did she get it published?

Well, she says she bought an existing journal and renamed it (the Journal of Cosmology was on the market, and I hoped most fervently that that was it…but no, JoC is still online). So she owns the journal. It’s now called De Novo.

Then she came out with a special edition. It’s Volume 1, Issue 1. It contains precisely one paper, hers.

You should be laughing by this point.

The online journal is a mess. The layout is funky-ugly, it’s difficult to figure out how to actually get to the paper, and when you navigate to it, it’s got a wretched little “Buy Now” button imbedded in a couple of intersecting blocks of color in a hideous table-like layout. It reminds be of the esthetics of JoC.

Anyway, it’s $30 to buy a paper so bad they had to build a custom journal around it to get it published. Not interested.

Pwning David Barton

Barton is such a lying tool. Chris Rodda catches him in an outright lie: Barton claims that gun accidents didn’t occur in 18th century America, and that he could only find two accounts of such problems. I guess he must be a very bad historian, then, in addition to lacking any sense, because Chris just went browsing and found lots of accounts of accidental shooting deaths and injuries (as you’d expect — guns are dangerous tools, of course you’re going to get accidents!)

One other thing you might do, though, is that a link to the story is on Reddit…and some people have even downvoted it. Why? I don’t know. Rodda’s story is full of hard evidence that Barton was completely wrong. Those of you with Reddit accounts might head over there and give your honest opinion.