Ron Bailey is a bit late to the funeral, but he does have a scathing review of Expelled.
Anybody ready to end the wake with a decapitation? Some garlic? How about a woodchipper?
Ron Bailey is a bit late to the funeral, but he does have a scathing review of Expelled.
Anybody ready to end the wake with a decapitation? Some garlic? How about a woodchipper?
Richard Dawkins interviewed Rupert Sheldrake on Sheldrake’s remarkable assertions about the existence of psychic abilities. Here’s Sheldrake’s rationalization:
He then said that in a romantic spirit he himself would like to believe in telepathy, but there just wasn’t any evidence for it. He dismissed all research on the subject out of hand. He compared the lack of acceptance of telepathy by scientists such as himself with the way in which the echo-location system had been discovered in bats, followed by its rapid acceptance within the scientific community in the 1940s. In fact, as I later discovered, Lazzaro Spallanzani had shown in 1793 that bats rely on hearing to find their way around, but sceptical opponents dismissed his experiments as flawed, and helped set back research for well over a century. However, Richard recognized that telepathy posed a more radical challenge than echo-location. He said that if it really occurred, it would “turn the laws of physics upside down,” and added, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
“This depends on what you regard as extraordinary”, I replied. “Most people say they have experienced telepathy, especially in connection with telephone calls. In that sense, telepathy is ordinary. The claim that most people are deluded about their own experience is extraordinary. Where is the extraordinary evidence for that?”
Hang on there. Notice the devious twist?
Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. So what does Sheldrake do? He simply asserts that the idea that people can read minds over long distances for the ever-so useful purpose of occasionally detecting who is making a phone call (What? We have awesome telepathic powers that do nothing more than act as a flaky version of caller ID?) is not an extraordinary claim … on the basis of the unlikelihood that people could possibly be deluded about their own experiences. The man is nuts.
People fool themselves all the time. Millions claim that Jesus talks to them; other millions claim to be following the will of Allah. People believe in UFOs and Bigfoot and that the moon landings were a hoax. It is not at all extraordinary to suggest that human beings are eminently capable of swallowing truly crazy stuff.
On the other hand, Sheldrake’s telepathy lacks a mechanism and doesn’t even make sense. His ‘experiments’ are exercises in gullibility, anecdote, and sloppy statistics. His “morphic resonance” babble is embarrassingly gullible nonsense.
And I’m afraid Sheldrake is grossly in error in the way he pursues science. You can’t just simply carry out a Fortean exercise in collecting odd anecdotes and unexplained phenomena. You have to propose mechanisms — you need to make hypotheses that can be used to guide tests of the idea. What is the mechanism behind the claimed ability of people to sense who is calling them on the telephone? Having some suggestion about how it works would allow investigators to design experiments that block the effect, or better yet, enhance the effect.
I can guess why Dawkins turned down Sheldrake when he insisted on presenting his “evidence”. It wasn’t evidence. Evidence is data that provides support for a proposition: Sheldrake has no testable proposition, no mechanism, no quantitative description of a measurable phenomenon. He has self-selected collections of numbers, addled by poor experimental design and confirmation bias, and all he’d do is reel off streams of context-free numbers accumulated in the absence of a quantifiable thesis. I’ve read enough of Sheldrake’s work to know what a godawful load of substanceless bollocks he can spew at will.
In a fluff story about George Takei (Sulu!) getting married to his partner of 21 years, WNBC takes the tacky step of including a poll asking, “Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?” Please. How ridiculous. When the cheesy news was full of Britney Spears or Angeline Jolie or the movie star of the moment planning their nuptials, did these sites run polls asking if these people should be married? When did it become legitimate “news” to question people’s personal decisions about partnerships?
Don’t miss this one! At 9am Central, Atheists Talk radio will feature the physicist James Kakalios — ask him your questions about superheroes. Then August Berkshire will discuss the problem of evil…it must have something to do with supervillains, I guess.
I was very pleased to see Hillary Clinton’s call for party unity today — that gives me some hope that we’ll all pull together and win this important election in November. So…do you need another reason to despise John McCain?
Maria Maltseva took a bunch of photos of last night’s talk for the Seattle Skeptics facebook group — and look, here’s me and my mom!

So now she’s on facebook. We’ll drag her into the 21st century yet!
The introductory schtick to my talk at the Seattle Skeptics meeting last night was to take a Bible and read a bit of Genesis, making the point that it was vague, wrong, and useless (I also ripped out the page and waved the pathetic thing around a bit, which had several people asking if they could have the bible defaced by PZ Myers afterwards). Then, of course, I summarized some small bits of the story of eye evolution to demonstrate that science has a much deeper and more powerful origins story than that little scrap of piss-poor poetry that half this country wants to make the backbone of our science curriculum.
Now here’s something cool: somebody has tried putting the actual creation story as revealed by modern physics into the same kind of portentous, simple language that even a Mesopotamian goat-herder could understand, the point being that if a god had chosen to tell primitive people how the universe came to be, he/she/it could have done so in just as awe-inspiring a way as the false myths we’ve got.
It’s rather neat that modern scientists know more than God.
Now South Carolina is offering one of those inane “I BELIEVE” license plates to drivers in their state, and yay, we’ve got a stupid poll to crash! You can vote “Thumbs up” or “Thumbs down” on it, which was a bit of a dilemma for me — I kind of like the idea of the credulous being clearly labeled, and would approve of the idea of having “I BELIEVE” stamped on their foreheads if they wanted it. I resolved it by answering as if I were given the choice of getting this plate, to which I would say “NO WAY”.
Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to complain about the fact that Katie Kish doesn’t like my kind. I am quite certain that the universe has a law that requires that everyone find me likable, and I am surprised that the internets allow disagreement. I would appreciate your attention on this matter as I consider this deeply offensive.
(OK, yeah, atheist meetings need much more diversity, and more spokespeople would be great so everyone doesn’t have to look at the same faces all the time. But we have to respect “spirituality”? Yuck. Bleh. Empty noise.)
Under the malign influence of the wicked and silly Sally Kern, some Oklahomans were trying to pass an awful religious viewpoints anti-discrimination act, which would have simply given further privileges to majority religious views in the state.
Fortunately, Governor Brad Henry has vetoed the legislation, saying
Under current state and federal law, Oklahoma public school students are already allowed to express their faith through voluntary prayer and other activities. While well intended, this legislation is vaguely written and may trigger a number of unintended consequences that actually impede rather than enhance such expression. For example, under this legislation, schools could be forced to provide equal time to fringe organizations that masquerade as religions and advocate behaviors, such as drug use or hate speech, that are dangerous or offensive to students and the general public. Additionally, the bill would presumably require school officials to determine what constitutes legitimate religious expression, subjecting them to an explosion of costly and protracted litigation that would have to be defended at taxpayers expense.
It’s one small step back from the brink of theocratic inanity, hooray!
