Posts on The Lippard Blog

25 years of OpenBSD Security Tools: syslock and sysunlock

Fri, 05 Jun 2026 15:00:00 +0000

If you missed the overview post, you can see it here. This one is about managing immutable and append-only files on *BSD, Linux, and macOS.

Immutable and Append-Only Files

BSD-derived operating systems (including macOS) and Linux both support the concept of files being made immutable, so that neither their contents nor attributes can be changed. They also both support files being made append-only, so that the existing contents cannot be changed except by adding more data to the end. They do it in slightly different ways.

25 years of OpenBSD security tools

Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:00:00 +0000

I’ve been using and administering OpenBSD systems since 1999 (OpenBSD 2.5). During that time, I’ve written numerous scripts to make things easier, more automated, or more secure, or sometimes just to improve my understanding of how things work. When I started managing my home systems, I ran several Internet-exposed services on my home network (DNS, mail, web, SSH). I used djbdns, qmail, and Apache httpd at the start before switching to nsd/unbound for DNS and postfix for mail, and finally to OpenSMTPD for mail. When I got tired of excessive inbound traffic I moved my authoritative DNS to a provider while keeping an internal zone and resolvers, set up two cloud servers for mail and my public webserver. My home network became a hardened, minimal-exposure architecture that only allows Wireguard from expected sources and mail (after mutual TLS authentication with certificates) while continuing to run internal services.

Book Review: Scott J. Shapiro, Fancy Bear Goes Phishing: The Dark History of the Information Age, in Five Extraordinary Hacks

Mon, 01 Jun 2026 19:25:21 +0000

Scott Shapiro's 2023 book's aim is to answer three questions: (1) why is the Internet (still) so insecure? (2) how do hackers do what they do? and (3) what can be done about it? He recounts some historical events, the "five extraordinary hacks" of the subtitle, to tell the story, and introduces the terms "upcode" and "downcode" as the core concepts in his framework for understanding--where "downcode" means actual, implemented computer code and "upcode" means the social, political, and institutional forces providing incentives and governance. This is essentially a simplified version of Lawrence Lessig's four forces of law, social norms, markets, and code spelled out in his 1999 book, Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, and also reminded me of the framework in Bruce Schneier's 2012 book, Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust That Society Needs to Thrive, where the four forces are moral pressures (internalized incentives), social pressures (social/cultural incentives from other people), institutional guidelines and rules (formal rules, regulations, and laws), and security systems (locks, police, firewalls, fraud detection, etc. -- actual operational controls which may be implemented physically, in code, or by policies and practices). For Shapiro, Lessig's first three forces are "upcode" and only code is "downcode," and Schneier's first three forces and parts of his fourth are "upcode."

Books read in 2026

Tue, 21 Apr 2026 22:49:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here still, but here's my annual list of books read for 2026.

Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford, Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of An American Myth (2021)
Ted Chiang, Exhalation (2019)
Laura K. Field, Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right (2025)
Kerry Howley, Bottoms Up and the Devil Laughs: A Journey Through the Deep State (2023)
Christopher Mathias, To Catch a Fascist: The Fight to Expose the Radical Right
Matthew Rose, A World After Liberalism: Five Thinkers Who Inspired the Radical Right (2021)
Scott J. Shapiro, Fancy Bear Goes Phishing: The Dark History of the Information Age, in Five Extraordinary Hacks (2023)

Top for 2026 published in 2026: Mathias; other top reads for the year: Howley, Chiang, Rose, Burrough et al, Field

A few planned or already (or still) in-progress reads for 2027:

Robert Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York (1975)

G.A. Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (1995)

John Ferris, Behind the Enigma: The Authorised History of GCHQ, Britain's Secret Cyber-Intelligence Agency (2020)

Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe's History (2017)

Arthur M. Melzer, Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing (2014)

(Previously: 2025, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Books read in 2025

Thu, 01 Jan 2026 15:34:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here still, but here's my annual list of books read for 2025.

Adam Becker, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley's Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity
Rutger Bregman, Humankind: A Hopeful History (2019)
Samuel D. Brunson, Between the Temple and the Tax Collector: The Intersection of Mormonism and the State
Kate Conger and Ryan Mac, Character Limit: How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter (2024)
Mark Jonathan Davis, Grateful: 25 Years of Music, Movies, and Medical Emergencies with Richard Cheese & Lounge Against the Machine, Part One: Stranger in a Strange Lounge
Renée DiResta, Invisible Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality (2024)
Cory Doctorow, Picks and Shovels: A Martin Hench Novel
Erle Stanley Gardner (Martin H. Greenberg and Charles G. Waugh, eds), The Human Zero: The Science Fiction Stories of Erle Stanley Gardner (1981)
Brooke Harrington, Offshore: Stealth Wealth and the New Colonialism (2024)
Gabriel Kennedy, Chapel Perilous: The Life & Thought Crimes of Robert Anton Wilson (2024)
Thomas Levenson, So Very Small: How Humans Discovered the Microcosmos, Defeated Germs--and May Still Lose the War Against Infectious Disease
Mary Roach, Replaceable You: Adventures in Human Anatomy
Oliver Sacks, The Island of the Colorblind (1996)
Oliver Sacks, The Mind's Eye (2010)
Neil Sheehan, A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam (1988, 2009 edition)
Quinn Slobodian, Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right
Dana Stevens, Camera Man: Buster Keaton, the Dawn of Cinema, and the Invention of the Twentieth Century (2023)
Katherine Stewart, Money, Lies, and God: Inside the Movement to Destroy American Democracy
Spencer Sunshine, Neo-Nazi Terrorism and Countercultural Fascism: The Origins and Afterlife of James Mason's Siege (2024)
Sam Tanenhaus, Buckley: The Life and the Revolution That Changed America
Mark S. Weiner, The Rule of the Clan: What an Ancient Form of Social Organization Reveals About the Future of Individual Freedom (2013)
Tim Weiner, The Mission: The CIA in the 21st Century
Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (2006)
Sarah Wynn-Williams, Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism

Top for 2025 published in 2025: Tanenhaus, Levenson, Roach, Weiner, Davis, Wynn-Williams, Becker, Doctorow; other top reads for the year: Sheehan, M. Weiner, Sacks

A few planned or already (or still) in-progress reads for 2026:

Robert Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York (1975)

G.A. Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (1995)

John Ferris, Behind the Enigma: The Authorised History of GCHQ, Britain's Secret Cyber-Intelligence Agency (2020)

Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe's History (2017)

Arthur M. Melzer, Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing (2014)

(Previously: 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Comment on Steve Novella's "Rethinking the Skeptical Movement" a decade ago

Sun, 16 Nov 2025 01:44:00 +0000

I just came across this comment I wrote a decade ago on a post that Steve Novella wrote on his blog, and I think it's pretty good, but it generated zero comment and no upvotes or downvotes. I just came across it again while looking for old comments I made about Al Seckel, who is in the news again for his role in attempting to scrub negative information about Jeffrey Epstein from the Internet.

Illinois state representative Mike Bost's dog-killing story

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 21:30:00 +0000

Another case of conservative animal abuse, via libraryjayne on Threads, Illinois state representative Mike Bost (R-Murphysboro):

The earliest episode dates back to 1986, when a neighborhood beagle named Rusty bit Bost's 4-year-old daughter. The report filed by animal control officials indicates that the girl provoked the attack by chasing the dog. She ultimately had to get 19 stitches on her face.

Causing unnecessary death and suffering

Sun, 26 Jan 2025 17:08:00 +0000

If your reasons for voting for Donald Trump for president included that you wanted to cause unnecessary death and suffering and reduce to the standing and trustworthiness of the United States with the rest of the world then congratulations, you've been given what you wanted. If not, maybe you should engage in some reflection on what you've helped to bring about.

On Bluesky, doctor Atul Gawande, author of the excellent book Being Mortal (which I read in 2019) and The Checklist Manifesto (which was well-reviewed but I have not read), who was USAID Assistant Administrator for Public Health from 2022 to 2025, wrote the following posts:

Books read in 2024

Wed, 01 Jan 2025 17:21:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here still, but here's my annual list of books read for 2024.

James Bamford, Spy Fail: Foreign Spies, Moles, Saboteurs, and the Collapse of America's Counterintelligence (2023)
Benjamin Breen, Tripping on Utopia: Margaret Mead, The Cold War and the Troubled Birth of Psychedelic Science
Jennifer Burns, Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative (2023)
Bryan Burrough, Vendetta: American Express and the Smearing of Edmond Safra (1992)
Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance (1990, 2010 foreword)
Rich Cohen, The Fish That Ate the Whale: The Life and Times of America's Banana King (2012)
Daniel C. Dennett, I've Been Thinking (2023)
Cory Doctorow, The Bezzle (fiction)
Edward Dolnick, Down the Great Unknown: John Wesley Powell's 1869 Journey of Discovery and Tragedy Through the Grand Canyon (2002)
Jon Friedman & John Meehan, House of Cards: Inside the Troubled Empire of American Express (1992)
Beverly Gage, G-Man: J. Edgar Hoover and the Making of the American Century (2022)
John Ganz, When the Clock Broke: Con Men, Conspiracists, and How America Cracked Up in the Early 1990s
Masha Gessen, The Future Is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia (2017)
Martin Kihn, House of Lies: How Management Consultants Steal Your Watch and Then Tell You the Time (2005)
Stephen Kinzer, Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control (2020)
Stephen Kinzer, The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire (2017)
Talia Lavin, Wild Faith: How the Christian Right is Taking Over America
Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45 (1955)
Michael Warren Lucas, git commit murder (2017, fiction)
Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor, AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can't, and How to Tell the Difference
Craig Nelson, Thomas Paine: Enlightenment, Revolution, and the Birth of Modern Nations (2006)
Ryan J. Reilly, Sedition Hunters: How January 6th Broke the Justice System (2023)
Chris Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, Volume 2 (2016)
Zoë Schiffer, Extremely Hardcore: Inside Elon Musk's Twitter
Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi, The Individualists: Radicals, Reactionaries, and the Struggle for the Soul of Libertarianism

Top for 2024 published in 2024: Doctorow, Breen, Ganz; other top reads for the year: Gage, Dennett, Kinzer (2020), Cohen, Gessen, Rodda

A few non-books of relevance for 2025:

What the Southern Baptists used to believe, but no longer do: https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/resolution-on-moral-character-of-public-officials/

Umberto Eco, "Ur-Fascism," New York Review of Books, June 22, 1995

Dorothy Thompson, "Who Goes Nazi," Harper's Magazine, August 1941 (but contrast with Mayer 1955 and Gessen 2017 above)

A few planned or already (or still) in-progress reads for 2024:

G.A. Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (1995)

John Ferris, Behind the Enigma: The Authorised History of GCHQ, Britain's Secret Cyber-Intelligence Agency (2020)

Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe's History (2017)

Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (2006)

Arthur M. Melzer, Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing (2014)

Mark S. Weiner, The Rule of the Clan: What an Ancient form of Social Organization Reveals About the Future of Individual Freedom (2013)

(Previously: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

NRA CEO Doug Hamlin's cat killing story

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 23:03:00 +0000

Per Stephanie Kirchgaessner in The Guardian, 14 October 2024:

Douglas Hamlin, who was appointed to lead the NRA this summer in the wake of a long-running corruption scandal at the gun rights group, was involved decades ago in the sadistic killing of a fraternity house cat named BK, according to several local media reports at the time.

Who's Who in Jack Smith's presidential immunity brief

Mon, 07 Oct 2024 21:23:00 +0000

Here's my best effort, informed by Adam Klasfeld's at Just Security and others I came across.

P1 = Steve Bannon.

P2 = Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien (post July 2020).

P3 = Trump deputy campaign manager Justin Clark.

P4 = Trump senior campaign advisor Jason Miller.

P5 campaign operative Mike Roman.

P6 = Roger Stone.

P7 = Hope Hicks.

P8 = Pence Chief of Staff Marc Short.

P9 = Eric Herschmann.

P10 = Joe DiGenova.

P11 = Victoria Toensing.

P12 = Jenna Ellis.

P13 = Jared Kushner.

P14 = Ivanka Trump.

P15 = Trump WH Assistant to the President and Director of Oval Office Operations Nicholas F. Luna. P16 = AZ Gov Doug Ducey.

P17 = GA Gov Brian Kemp.

P18 = Speaker of the AZ House Rusty Bowers.

P19 = Trump staffer Christina Bobb (4 Dec 2020 tweet https://x.com/christina_bobb/status/1334996485075836936, ref p. 20).

P20 = Kory Langhofer (Bowers' attorney).

P21 = Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows.

P22 = campaign attorney (p. 22) Alex Cannon.

P23 = Trump GA lawyer Ray Smith (Roy Stallings Smith III, a real estate attorney).

P24 = volunteer Trump GA attorney Jackie Pick.

P25 = GA Sec of State Chief Operations Officer Gabriel Sterling.

P26 = GA Attorney General Christopher M. Carr.

P27 = US Senator David Perdue (proof is ref in Trump tweet on p. 18).

P28 = Kelly Loeffler (ditto).

P29 = GA election worker Wandrea "Shaye" Moss.

P30 = GA election worker Ruby Freeman (Shaye's mother, p. 25).

P31 = Cleta Mitchell, private attorney introduced on Trump v Kemp call as "who is not the attorney of record but has been involved" (p. 29, see WaPo "Here’s the full transcript and audio of the call between Trump and Raffensperger").

P32 = Kurt R. Hilbert, lead attorney for Trump in Trump v. Kemp.

P33 = GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

P34 = GA Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan.

P35 = GA Secretary of State General Counsel Ryan Germany.

P36 = Trump private attorney on Raffensperger call Alex Kaufman (Fox Rothschild, subsequently resigned Jan 7, 2021; however, Kaufman stated he never represented Trump).

P37 = MI Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey.

P38 = MI House Speaker Lee Chatfield.

P39 = RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.

P40 = not referenced.

P41 = ? Scott Gragson ?, "Michigan campaign associate" (p. 34)

P42 = Trump executive assistant Molly Michael.

P43 = RNC Chief Counsel Justin Riemer.

P44 = RNC spokesperson Liz Harrington (recipient of email from Riemer: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rnc-trump-stop-the-steal/2021/07/12/79e58a02-e320-11eb-934f-7e6c1927f261_story.html).

P45 = White House Deputy Chief of Staff/Social Media Director Dan Scavino.

P46 = PA GOP Chair Lawrence Tabas.

P47 = Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt.

P48 = former NYPD commissioner and Giuliani-Kerik partner Bernard B. Kerik (p. 40 tweet: https://x.com/BernardKerik/status/1334944478180888586).

P49 = WI Supreme Court Justice Brian Hagedorn.

P50 = Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Chris Krebs.

P51 = Tucker Carlson.

P52 = Trump admin Attorney General William "Bill" Barr.

P53 = AZ attorney Jack Wilenchik (p. 51).

P54 = Trump campaign staffer Tim Murtaugh--in text thread on fake electors with P3 Clark/P4 J Miller/P9 Herschmann "certifying illegal votes" (https://www.newsweek.com/arizona-gold-fake-electors-trump-allies-indictment-1894131).

P55 = ? ? "Star Wars bar" thread (Jason Miller quote).

P56 = ? "Star Wars bar" (p. 151: P56 but not P55 attends meeting at VA campaign HQ).

P57 = former US Rep & US Attorney elector nominee who opted out of fake elector scheme Thomas Marino (p. 53).

P58 = VP Pence Counsel Greg Jacob (p. 70) "Pence lawyer".

P59 = WH Counsel Pat Cippolone.

P60 = WH press secretary Kayleigh McEnany.

P61 = AZ Senate president Karen Fann.

P62 = TX AG Ken Paxton.

P63 = MO AG, now US Senator Eric Schmitt.

P64 = J6 Ellipse rally organizer Carolyn Wren.

P65 = J6 Ellipse rally funder Julie Fancelli. (https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-campaign-fundraiser-ellipse-rally)

P66 = ? Katrina Pierson ? campaign employee working on J6 Ellipse rally who had most contact with Trump and was a private citizen after December 31, 2020. (p. 119) (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/18/capitol-riot-panel-interview-katrina-pierson-00010154)

P67 = WH photographer Shealeah Craighead.

P68 = Gen Michael Flynn.

P69 = WH trade advisor Peter Navarro.

P70 = Ivan Raiklin (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-6-hearings-june-16#h_5cb75e4babd00cc7b68a62e35a09fa68) (p. 137).

P71 = Deputy WH Counsel Pat Philbin.

P72 = Matt Morgan (On pg. 151, P72 gives Herschmann a “tutorial on campaign basics and operations,” and is repeatedly mentioned along with P3, who is campaign attorney & Deputy Campaign Manager Justin Clark).

P73 = ? Michael Best ? assured Eric Herschmann he could trust P22 (p. 152)

P74 = ? J. Christian Adams or Matt Braynard ? (testified at December 10 Georgia hearing: https://www.gpb.org/news/2020/12/10/at-georgia-house-hearing-republicans-baseless-claims-of-voting-fraud-persist)

P75 = Ken Block, managing director of C2.

P76 = Jay Sekulow (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/22/pence-trump-grand-jury/ ).

P77 = Stefan Passantino (p. 151, WH Counsel’s office person “who handled ethics issues”; "former member of President Donald J. Trump’s Office of White House Counsel. In that capacity, Mr. Passantino was charged with overseeing compliance and ethics, policing conflicts of interest, and approving and enforcing ethics requirements" per the ethics complaint against him: https://ldad.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Ethics-Complaint-against-Stefan-Passantino.pdf ).

CC1 = Rudy Giuliani.

CC2 = John Eastman.

CC3 = Sidney Powell.

CC4 = Jeffrey Clark.

CC5 = Ken Chesebro.

CC6 = Boris Epshteyn.

C1 = Berkeley Research Group.

C2 = Simpatico Software Systems.

C3 = Dominion Voting Systems.

[p. 73, no P#--unnamed US Senator is likely Ron Johnson of WI].

Corrections gladly accepted.

Kevin Roberts' dog-killing story

Tue, 24 Sep 2024 22:44:00 +0000

Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation and head of Trump's Project 2025, was previously a history professor at New Mexico State University. While at the university, he told colleagues and dinner guests that he was irritated by the barking of a neighbor's dog, so he killed it with a shovel. Kenneth Hammond, then chairman of the history department, told The Guardian:

Tips on using OpenBSD's pledge and unveil in perl scripts

Sun, 04 Aug 2024 17:26:00 +0000

OpenBSD 5.9 (current as of this post is 7.5) introduced the "pledge" system call and 6.4 introduced the "unveil" system call, which together provide a means of more granular control of system access by processes running on the system to enforce least privilege. When a program calls "pledge", it provides a list of categories of system calls (called "promises") that it is planning to make during the life of the running process (children have to make their own pledges and are not restricted), and attempts to make calls outside of those areas will cause the call to be blocked and the process to be killed. Additional calls to pledge cannot add new categories but it can remove them, so access can become more restrictive but not less restrictive.

Wikipedia, Skeptical Inquirer, and AI on Robert A. Baker plagiarism accusations

Wed, 15 May 2024 01:22:00 +0000

The Wikipedia entry for University of Kentucky psychologist and skeptic Robert A. Baker recently (December 2023) restored a section on plagiarism accusations against him, which originated in a 1994 letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer from Jody Hey and were compounded by further accusations by Terence Hines and by me the same year. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia entry currently leaves the debate the same way the Skeptical Inquirer did in 1995, giving Baker the final word with a transparently false explanation. Here's how the Wikipedia entry currently presents the issue:

Bill Frist's cat-killing story

Sun, 05 May 2024 16:45:00 +0000

After adding a post about Kristi Noem's dog-killing story, I realized I hadn't mentioned former House Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) cat-killing story. Jeff Woods gave a quick overview of the story, which appeared in Frist's 1989 autobiography, Transplant, in his review of Frist's later book in The Nashville Scene in 2009:

Never say Frist doesn't learn from his mistakes. In his 1989 autobiography Transplant, he admitted that as a medical student he adopted cats from animal shelters, "treat[ed] them like pets for a few days," then took them to a lab to die in research experiments. He blamed this conduct on the pressures of med school.

Kristi Noem's dog-killing story

Sun, 05 May 2024 16:38:00 +0000

Before the release of South Dakota Governor (and prospective Trump VP running mate) Kristi Noem's book, No Going Back: The Truth on What's Wrong With Politics and How We Move America Forward, the Guardian published an account of her story in the book of becoming angered with her 14-month-old family dog Cricket when it (running loose off-leash) killed a farmer's chickens. She took the dog to a gravel pit and shot and killed it, and then, for good measure, decided to kill a goat as well. She wrote that the dog was "untrainable" and that she "hated that dog." She proudly described this impulsive act of killing a family pet without consulting with her family and in an inhumane manner as an illustration of her willingness to deal with things that are "difficult, messy, and ugly." But her first response to the Guardian story was to call it "fake news," then to defend herself by claiming that the dog was "a working dog and not a puppy. It was a dog that was extremely dangerous."

If embryos are babies, then in-vitro fertilization is immoral

Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:33:00 +0000

Alabama and the GOP are discovering what this blog pointed out 15 years ago--if you're going to adopt a policy that embryos are full bearers of moral personhood, then you can't allow in-vitro fertilization (IVF). From my five-part debate with Vocab Malone about abortion in 2009:

Once the zygote becomes a blastocyst, it forms into an outer layer of cells, which later becomes the placenta, and an inner cell mass of pluripotent embryonic stem cells, each of which is capable of differentiating into any kind of human cell. Only after this stage does the blastocyst implant in the wall of the uterus, about a week after fertilization, and begin taking nutrients directly from the blood of the mother--a dependency that can itself be of moral significance, as Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist argument shows. As already mentioned above, a great many fertilized ova do not reach this stage. Further, the percentages of implant failure are higher for in vitro fertilization (IVF), a procedure which Vocab's criteria would have to declare unethical, even though it is the only way that many couples can have their own biological offspring.

Books read in 2023

Mon, 01 Jan 2024 14:00:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here still, but here's my annual list of books read for 2023.

Angel Au-Yeung and David Jeans, Wonder Boy: Tony Hsieh, Zappos, and the Myth of Happiness in Silicon Valley
Isaac Butler, The Method: How the Twentieth Century Learned to Act (2022)
Cory Doctorow, Red Team Blues (fiction)
David Edmonds, Parfit: A Philosopher and His Mission to Save Morality
Zeke Faux, Number Go Up: Inside Crypto's Wild Rise and Staggering Fall
Kevin Fedarko, The Emerald Mile: The Epic Story of the Fastest Ride in History Through the Heart of the Grand Canyon (2013)
Roger Friedland and Harold Zellman, The Fellowship: The Untold Story of Frank Lloyd Wright & The Taliesin Fellowship (2006)
James Gleick, The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood (2011)
Penn Jillette, Random (2022) (fiction)
Mark Holloway, Utopian Communities in America, 1680-1880 (1966, 2nd edition, 1st edition was titled Heavens on Earth)
Claire Hughes Johnson, Scaling People: Tactics for Management and Company Building (2022)
R.A. Lafferty, The Best of R.A. Lafferty (2019) (fiction)
Kevin M. Levin, Searching for Black Confederates: The Civil War's Most Persistent Myth (2019)
Michael Lewis, Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon
Shane Murphy, John Hance: The Life, Lies, and Legend of Grand Canyon's Greatest Storyteller (2020)
Erik Reece, Utopia Drive: A Road Trip Through America's Most Radical Idea (2016)
Rudy Rucker and Bruce Sterling, Transreal Cyberpunk (2016) (fiction)
Chris A. Rutkowski, Canada's UFOs Declassified (2022)
Christa Sadler, editor, There's This River... Grand Canyon Boatman Stories (2nd ed., 2006)
Bruce Schneier, A Hacker's Mind: How the Powerful Bend Society's Rules, and How to Bend them Back
Will Sommer, Trust the Plan: The Rise of QAnon and the Conspiracy That Unhinged America
Katherine Stewart, The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism (2019)
Leonie Swann, Three Bags Full: A Sheep Detective Story (2005) (fiction)
Stephen Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic
Simon Winchester, Knowing What We Know: The Transmission of Knowledge: From Ancient Wisdom to Modern Magic
Tom Zoellner, Rim to River: Looking into the Heart of Arizona
Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol

Top for 2023 published in 2023: Edmonds, Zoellner, Sommer, Vladeck, Faux; other top reads for the year: Swann, Stewart, Friedland & Zellman, Edmonds, Lafferty, Holloway

A few planned reads for 2024 (already in progress):

G.A. Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (1995)

John Ferris, Behind the Enigma: The Authorised History of GCHQ, Britain's Secret Cyber-Intelligence Agency (2020)

Chris Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, vol. 2 (2016)

Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe's History (2017)

The Economist posted this chart of number of books read this year from a YouGov/Economist survey:

(Previously: 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

A short conversation with ChatGPT about the Grand Canyon

Fri, 07 Jul 2023 01:50:00 +0000

ChatGPT does fairly well with this, though its selected points don't include any of the more obscure points of interest, it's skewed to the popular highlights. Its claim that there weren't any historic crossings is pretty odd.

What are some of the most beautiful and interesting locations in the Grand Canyon along the Colorado River?

The Grand Canyon offers numerous beautiful and interesting locations along the Colorado River. Here are some notable ones:

AI vs. CEOs on Destroying the World

Thu, 15 Jun 2023 19:47:00 +0000

After seeing a CNN headline "Exclusive: 42% of CEOs say AI could destroy humanity in five to ten years," I thought it was only fair to get an AI opinion in response. Turns out, 50% of AIs consulted said CEOs of large corporations could destroy the world in five to ten years.

Google Bard:

How likely is it that CEOs of large corporations will destroy the world in the next five to ten years?

The likelihood of CEOs of large corporations destroying the world in the next five to ten years is low, but not impossible. The biggest threats to the planet come from climate change, pollution, and resource depletion. These are all problems that are caused by the activities of large corporations, and if they are not addressed, they could lead to catastrophic consequences.

However, there are also many CEOs who are committed to sustainability and environmental protection. These CEOs are working to develop new technologies, products, and practices that will help to reduce our impact on the planet. If these efforts are successful, it is possible to avoid the worst-case scenarios and create a more sustainable future.

Google Bard on file system immutability flags in OpenBSD

Wed, 19 Apr 2023 21:11:00 +0000

Unlike ChatGPT, Bard pretty much nailed it on the initial prompt. (However, Bard refused to answer my questions about the Mars Effect like the ones I gave to ChatGPT, even when reworded to be clear I was asking for descriptions of what the effect is and what explanations are offered rather than asking it to identify causes itself.)

It does lose points for grammar in the second sentence, though!

write a few paragraphs explaining immutable flags in OpenBSD including the commands for setting them and the difference between system and user immutable flags

Sure. Here is a few paragraphs explaining immutable flags in OpenBSD, including the commands for setting them and the difference between system and user immutable flags.

Trurl's Electronic Bard vs. ChatGPT

Fri, 31 Mar 2023 23:51:00 +0000

In Stanislaw Lem’s book, The Cyberiad: Fables for the Cybernetic Age (1974 English translation, page numbers from the 1985 Harvest/HBJ Book), he writes of Trurl’s Electronic Bard, a machine that generates poetry to specification. In the first example of a prompt, Klapaucius asks Trurl to (p. 50):

"Have it compose a poem–a poem about a haircut! But lofty, noble, tragic, timeless, full of love, treachery, retribution, quiet heroism in the face of certain doom! Six lines, cleverly rhymed, and every word beginning with the letter s!"

Here’s what ChatGPT came up with (which it titled “Haircut Horror”):

Compose a poem–a poem about a haircut! But lofty, noble, tragic, timeless, full of love, treachery, retribution, quiet heroism in the face of certain doom! Six lines, cleverly rhymed, and every word beginning with the letter s!

She sat in the salon chair, serene Scissors snipping, strands of hair careen Suddenly, a gasp, a scream She surveys the mirror, it would seem Sheer horror, a mistake extreme She’ll seek solace in a hair care regime.

ChatGPT and the Economist weekly trivia quiz

Sat, 04 Feb 2023 14:52:00 +0000

Each week The Economist runs a trivia quiz of five questions, one each weekday, which are linked by a common but not necessarily obvious theme. This week's quiz had a fairly obvious theme, and yesterday I decided to see if ChatGPT could answer the questions and identify the theme. The results show how ChatGPT is very good at directed search--it got four of the five answers on the first try and got the fifth answer with a small amount of guidance with a single question. But it is not so good at inference (and isn't actually engaged in inference)--it suggested themes, with seeming confidence, that did not link all five answers together, and I didn't successfully guide it to the best answer, a theme which was simple enough that I was able to identify it after the second day's question. The error at the end is likely because I stepped away and came back a few minutes later before adding the last question, rather than because ChatGPT couldn't handle it.

Some nonsense from ChatGPT about file system immutability flags in OpenBSD

Sat, 21 Jan 2023 18:19:00 +0000

I was thinking about writing a blog post about file system immutability flags in OpenBSD, and thought I'd ask ChatGPT to write it for me. It appears to have gleaned its content from OpenBSD man pages, but it is highly misleading and inaccurate, misrepresenting the key distinction between system and user immutability flags.

What it got right is that only the superuser (root) can set and unset the system immutability flag (schg/noschg) while users (if they own the file) can set and unset the user immutability flag (uchg/nouchg). But either flag can be set or unset on any kind of file.

Books read in 2022

Sun, 01 Jan 2023 15:10:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here still, but here's my annual list of books read for 2022.

Heather Adkins, Betsy Beyer, Paul Blankinship, Piotr Lewandowski, Ana Oprea, and Adam Stubblefield, Building Secure and Reliable Systems: Best Practices for Designing, Implementing, and Maintaining Systems (2020)
Oliver Bullough, Butler to the World: How Britain Helps the World's Worst People Launder Money, Commit Crimes, and Get Away with Anything
David Edmonds, The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle (2020)
Ada Ferrer, Cuba: An American History
Paul Fisher, House of Wits: An Intimate Portrait of the James Family (2008)
Robert W. Gehl and Sean T. Lawson, Social Engineering: How Crowdmasters, Phreaks, Hackers, and Trolls Created a New Form of Manipulative Communication (available via Open Access)
Adam Gorightly, Saucers, Spooks and Kooks: UFO Disinformation in the Age of Aquarius (2021)
Garrett M. Graff, Watergate: A New History
Andy Greenberg, Tracers in the Dark: The Global Hunt for the Crime Lords of Cryptocurrency
Jan T. Gregor with Tim Cridland, Circus of the Scars: The True Inside Odyssey of a Modern Circus Sideshow (1998)
Thomas Harman, Esq., A Caveat or Warning for Common Cursetors, Vulgarly Called Vagabonds (1814 reprint of 1566 pamphlet)
N.K. Jemisin, The City We Became (2020)
Thomas Levenson, Money for Nothing: The Scientists, Fraudsters, and Corrupt Politicians Who Reinvented Money, Panicked a Nation, and Made the World Rich (2020)
Michael Lewis, The Premonition: A Pandemic Story (2021)
Michael W. Lucas, OpenBSD Mastery: Filesystems
Alan C. Logan, The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Catching Truth, While We Can (2020)
David McRaney, How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion
Tim Miller, Why We Did It: A Travelogue from the Republican Road to Hell
Jefferson Morley, Scorpions' Dance: The President, the Spymaster, and Watergate
Wes Patience, From Bjäre to Bisbee: An Immigrant's Tale (2006)
Douglas Rushkoff, Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires
Sara Schaefer, Grand: A Memoir (2020)
P.W. Singer and August Cole, Burn-In: A Novel of the Real Robotic Revolution (2020)
Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, Don't Trust Your Gut: Using Data to Get What You Really Want In Life
Stuart Stevens, It Was All a Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump (2020)
Will Storr, The Status Game: On Human Life and How to Play It
Terry Teachout, The Skeptic: A Life of H.L. Mencken (2002)
Michal Zalewski, Practical Doomsday: A User's Guide to the End of the World

Top for 2022: Ferrer, Levenson, Graff, Greenberg, Miller, Zalewski, McRaney, Storr, Logan (even though it's a 2020 book), Jemisin (likewise)

A few planned reads for 2023 (mostly already started):

G.A. Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (1995)

John Ferris, Behind the Enigma: The Authorised History of GCHQ, Britain's Secret Cyber-Intelligence Agency (2020)

Final Report of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol

Kevin M. Levin, Searching for Black Confederates: The Civil War's Most Persistent Myth (2019)

Chris A. Rutkowski, Canada's UFOs: Declassified (2022)

Will Sommer, Trust the Plan: The Rise of QAnon and the Conspiracy That Unhinged America (pre-ordered, to be released in late Feb 2023)

Steve Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (pre-ordered, to be released in late May 2023)

Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe's History (2017)

(Previously: 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

ChatGPT on the Mars Effect

Thu, 22 Dec 2022 00:23:00 +0000

ChatGPT gets a lot of things wrong here. The Zelen Test is a test that expected to find that the Mars effect correlations in Gauquelin's data were due to the nycthemeral curve, a variation in the likelihood of birth at particular times of the day, but the test showed the opposite. (There is also a more generic Zelen test in statistics that is the source of some of what ChatGPT says here.) It did not debunk the Mars effect, it showed that any correlation must be due to something else. Dennis Rawlins was an opponent of the test because he thought there was a statistical artifact in the data that was a result of sampling bias or other cause, and expected this outcome. He fiercely argued against any idea that the Mars effect was a real "cosmobiological" phenomenon. The bibliography of Dennis Rawlins-authored articles is complete fiction, none of those articles exist. Here's the chat, with my prompts in red:

Books read in 2021

Sat, 01 Jan 2022 14:36:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here still, but here's my annual list of books read for 2021.

Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don't Talk About It) (2017)
Scott Anderson, The Quiet Americans: Four CIA Spies at the Dawn of the Cold War (2020)
J. M. Berger, Optimal
William Dalrymple, The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire (2019)
Philip L. Fradkin, Stagecoach: Wells Fargo and the American West (2002)
Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012)
Daniel Immerwahr, How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States (2019)
David Cay Johnston, The Big Cheat: How Donald Trump Fleeced America and Enriched Himself and His Family
Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, and Cass R. Sunstein, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment
Walter LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (2nd edition, 1993)
Peter Lamont and Jim Steinmeyer, The Secret History of Magic: The True Story of the Deceptive Art (2018)
Thomas Levenson, Newton and the Counterfeiter: The Unknown Detective Career of the World's Greatest Scientist (2009)
Norm MacDonald, Based on a True Story: Not a Memoir (2016)
Geoff Manaugh and Nicola Twilley, Until Proven Safe: The History and Future of Quarantine
Casey Michel, American Kleptocracy: How the U.S. Created the World's Greatest Money Laundering Scheme in History
Cheryl Misak, Frank Ramsey: A Sheer Excess of Powers (2020)
Anne Nelson, Shadow Network: Media, Money, and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right
Nicole Perlroth, This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: The Cyberweapon Arms Race
Ethan Persoff and Scott Marshall, Complete Series, John Wilcock, New York Years, 1954-1971 (limited edition via Kickstarter, #52/250)
Kevin Poulsen, Kingpin: How One Hacker Took Over the Billion-Dollar Cybercrime Underground (2011, re-read)
Eric Rauchway, Why the New Deal Matters
Mary Roach, Fuzz: When Nature Breaks the Law
Scott J. Roberts and Rebekah Brown, Intelligence-Driven Incident Response: Outwitting the Adversary (2017)
Mike Rothschild, The Storm is Upon Us: How QAnon Became a Movement, Cult, and Conspiracy Theory of Everything
P.W. Singer and August Cole, Ghost Fleet (2016)
David Skarbek, The Puzzle of Prison Order: Why Life Behind Bars Varies Around the World (2020)
Jon Talton, A Brief History of Phoenix (2015)

Top for 2021: Anderson; Dalrymple; Immerwahr; Kahneman, Sibony, and Sunstein; Levenson; Manaugh and Twilley; Michel; Misak; Perlroth.

A few planned reads for 2022 (mostly already started):

Heather Adkins, Betsy Beyer, Paul Blankinship, Piotr Lewandowski, Ana Oprea, and Adam Stubblefield, Building Secure and Reliable Systems: Best Practices for Designing, Implementing, and Maintaining Systems (2020)

G.A. Cohen, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (1995)

John Ferris, Behind the Enigma: The Authorised History of GCHQ, Britain's Secret Cyber-Intelligence Agency (2020)

Paul Fisher, House of Wits: An Intimate Portrait of the James Family (2008)

Terry Teachout, The Skeptic: A Life of H.L. Mencken (2002)

Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe's History (2017)

(Previously: 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

A false prophet for Trump

Sun, 28 Mar 2021 14:48:00 +0000

In the March 21st, 2021 Washington Post story “The rioter next door: How the Dallas suburbs spawned domestic extremists," Annie Gowen writes of a Texas pastor who claimed prophecy that Trump would remain in office:

Shortly before Biden’s inauguration, Pastor Brandon Burden of the KingdomLife church — a boxy, largely windowless sanctuary in Frisco — mounted the pulpit and gave a stemwinder of a sermon that went viral.

How Trump thinks he negotiates, versus how he actually does

Sat, 02 Jan 2021 15:39:00 +0000

In the 1980s, Trump was concerned about nuclear proliferation and thought that he could do a better job negotiating a nuclear deal with the Soviets. In a 1984 Washington Post interview (which I believe you can see excerpts from in the film "Bully. Coward. Victim. The Story of Roy Cohn" about his mentor, Roy Cohn), he said:

"Some people have an ability to negotiate," he says. "It's an art you're basically born with. You either have it or you don't."

Books read in 2020

Fri, 01 Jan 2021 16:55:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here still, but here's my annual list of books read for 2020.

Nicholson Baker, Baseless: My Search for Secrets in the Ruins of the Freedom of Information Act
John Bolton, The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir
Ben Buchanan, The Hacker and the State: Cyber Attacks and the New Normal of Geopolitics
Susannah Cahalan, The Great Pretender: The Undercover Mission That Changed Our Understanding of Madness
Michael Cohen, Disloyal: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J. Trump
Myke Cole, Legion versus Phalanx: The Epic Struggle for Infantry Supremacy in the Ancient World
Libby Copeland, The Lost Family: How DNA Testing Is Upending Who We Are
Barton Gellman, Dark Mirror: Edward Snowden and the Surveillance State
Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gaddy, Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin (2012)
James W. Johnson, Arizona Politicians: The Noble and the Notorious (2002)
Gene Kim, The Unicorn Project: A Novel about Developers, Digital Disruption, and Thriving in the Age of Data
Maria Konnikova, The Biggest Bluff: How I Learned to Pay Attention, Master Myself, and Win
Talia Lavin, Culture Warlords: My Journey Into the Dark Web of White Supremacy
Carol D. Leonnig and Philip Rucker, A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America
Ben Macintyre, The Spy and the Traitor: The Greatest Espionage Story of the Cold War (2018)
Nancy MacLean, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America (2017)
H. Keith Melton and Robert Wallace, with Henry R. Schlesinger, Spy Sites of New York City: A Guide to the Region's Secret History (2020)
Jefferson Morley, Morley v. CIA: My Unfinished JFK Investigation
Bastian Obermayer and Frederik Obermaier, The Panama Papers: Breaking the Story of How the Rich & Powerful Hide Their Money
Thomas Rid, Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare
Brad Smith and Carol Anne Browne, Tools and Weapons: The Promise and Peril of the Digital Age
Mary Trump, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World's Most Dangerous Man
Robert Wallace and H. Keith Melton with Henry R. Schesinger, Spy Sites of Washington, DC: A Guide to the Capital Region's Secret History (2017)
Anna Wiener, Uncanny Valley: A Memoir
Isabel Wilkerson, Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents

Top for 2020: Copeland, Macintyre, Cahalan, Smith and Browne, Buchanan, Obermayer and Obermaier, Gellman, Rid.

I started the following books I expect to finish in 2021 (yes, I also said that about LeFeber and Wilson last year--I'm well in to LaFeber's book and thought I might finish before the end of the year, but had only read Wilson's intro so it's barely started):

William Dalrymple, The Anarchy: The East India Company, Corporate Violence, and the Pillage of an Empire
Walter LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (2nd edition)
Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe's History

I've also pre-ordered and am looking forward to reading:

Nicole Perlroth, This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: The Cyberweapon Arms Race (due to be published on February 9)

(Previously: 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Donald Trump on coronavirus

Sat, 14 Mar 2020 17:09:00 +0000

This timeline has been updated with Trump rallies and golf playing since (as of March 31, 2020) he is now trying to create a narrative that claims he was trying hard to address the pandemic early on, but was distracted by his impeachment. He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, and his Senate trial ran from January 16, 2020 to his acquittal on February 5, 2020.

2015: Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, establishes the Global Health Security and Biodefense Unit in the White House National Security Council. (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-trump-fired-pandemic-team/partly-false-claim-trump-fired-entire-pandemic-response-team-in-2018-idUSKBN21C32M)

January 13, 2017: The joint Obama-Trump transition teams run an exercise for pandemic preparedness. Trump transition team attendees include: Steven Mnuchin, Rep. Mike Pompeo, Wilbur Ross, Betsy DeVos, Dr. Ben Carson, Elaine Chao, Stephen Miller, Marc Short, Reince Priebus (resigned), Rex Tillerson (fired), Gen. James Mattis (fired), Rep. Ryan Zinke (resigned), Sen. Jeff Sessions (resigned), Sen. Dan Coats (fired), Andrew Puzder (not confirmed), Dr. Tom Price (resigned), Gov. Rick Perry (resigned), Dr. David Shulkin (fired), Gen. John Kelly (resigned), Rep. Mick Mulvaney, Linda McMahon (resigned), Sean Spicer (fired), Joe Hagin (resigned), Joshua Pitcock (resigned), Tom Bossert (resigned), KT McFarland (resigned), Gen. Michael Flynn (awaiting criminal sentencing after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI), Gary Cohn (resigned), Katie Walsh (resigned), and Rick Dearborn (resigned). (https://www.justsecurity.org/69650/timeline-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic-and-u-s-response/)

May 2018: The Global Health Security and Biodefense Unit in the White House National Security Council is disbanded by National Security Advisor John Bolton after its head, Timothy Ziemer, leaves the Trump administration. Pandemic response functions are folded into other teams. (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-trump-fired-pandemic-team/partly-false-claim-trump-fired-entire-pandemic-response-team-in-2018-idUSKBN21C32M).

January-August 2019: Nineteen agencies of the federal government and twelve states conduct a pandemic functional exercise, “Crimson Contagion.” The scenario is a novel influenza virus that arises in China and spreads to the United States, but stockpiles of vaccines are not a match to enable the virus to be contained. (https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/crimson-contagion-2019-simulation-warned-of-pandemic-implications-in-us/2243832/) The Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Robert Kadlec, appointed by Donald Trump in 2017 and who played a key decision-making role in this exercise, downplayed the risk of pandemic, cut the budget, and cut the program for stockpiling personal protective equipment (PPE). Instead, he spent money on stockpiles of smallpox vaccine, purchasing $2.8 billion of it from a company that had previously employed him as a consultant. (Smallpox was eradicated in 1980.) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/before-pandemic-trumps-stockpile-chief-put-focus-on-biodefense-an-old-client-benefited/2020/05/04/d3c2b010-84dd-11ea-878a-86477a724bdb_story.html)

July 2019: The Trump administration made the decision to eliminate the position of CDC’s resident advisor to the U.S. Field Epidemiology Training Program in China, Dr. Linda Quick, in September 2019. She quit her job in July after receiving the news. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-cdc-exclusiv/exclusive-u-s-axed-cdc-expert-job-in-china-months-before-virus-outbreak-idUSKBN21910S)

September 2019: The Trump administration ends a $200 million pandemic early warning program, PREDICT, at the U.S. Agency for International Development, started in 2009, aimed at training scientists in China and other countries to detect and respond to new viruses. During its lifetime, the project identified 1,200 viruses with pandemic potential. The PREDICT program involved 60 foreign laboratories, including the Chinese lab in Wuhan which identified SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. (https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-04-02/coronavirus-trump-pandemic-program-viruses-detection)

October 25, 2019: Former Vice President Joe Biden tweets: “We are not prepared for a pandemic. Trump has rolled back progress President Obama and I made to strengthen global health security. We need leadership that builds public trust, focuses on real threats, and mobilizes the world to stop outbreaks before they reach our shores.” (https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1187829299207954437)

December 24, 2019: As of June 2021, this is now the earliest suspected date of COVID-19 infection in the United States, per antibodies in blood donated by nine individuals between January 2 and March 18, 2020. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/when-was-coronavirus-first-in-us/2021/06/15/1aaa6b56-cd2d-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html)

December 31, 2019: Donald Trump tells assembled guests at the Mar-a-Lago New Year’s Eve celebration that “We’re going to have a great year, I predict. I think it’s going to be a fantastic year.” (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444)

January 2-3, 2020: Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Director Robert Redfield has conversations about a virus outbreak in China with his counterpart at China’s CDC, Gao Fu, who warns him that it is extremely serious. (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3084092/us-cdc-had-very-good-interaction-china-after-coronavirus)

January 8, 2020: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issues its first warning about a novel coronavirus now known as COVID-19.

January 9: Trump holds a campaign rally in Toledo, Ohio.

January 9: Berlin, Germany scientist Olfert Landt’s company, TIB Molbiol, develops its first COVID-19 test based on existing SARS tests. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/24/asia/testing-coronavirus-science-intl-hnk/index.html)

January 10: The RNA sequence data for COVID-19 was published online: http://virological.org/t/novel-2019-coronavirus-genome/319

January 11: Olfert Landt sends a developed COVID-19 test to the Taiwan CDC and Roche in Hong Kong for validation. The test ends up working.

January 14: Trump holds a campaign rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

mid-January: The U.S. begins some screening of passengers from Wuhan, China, at airports in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York City. Prior to this event, at least 4,000 passengers arrived in the U.S. directly from Wuhan, China without any screening. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/coronavirus-china-travel-restrictions.html)

January 16: The U.S. House sends articles of impeachment to the Senate, starting Trump’s first impeachment trial.

January 17: WHO publishes Olfert Landt’s COVID-19 test protocol. TIB Molbiol manufactured four million tests by the end of February, and 1.5 million per week after that.

January 17: CDC announces that it has its own COVID-19 test. (See February 5.)

January 18: Dr. Rick Bright, director of the HHS Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority at HHS, sends an email to ASPR Robert Kadlec asking to convene a Disaster Leadership Group (DLG) meeting over COVID-19. Kadlec responds that he doesn’t think it is necessary and doesn’t see the urgency. (https://theintercept.com/2020/05/07/coronavirus-whistleblower-hhs-n95-ppe/)

January 18: Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar phones Trump at Mar-a-Lago to warn him about the risk of coronavirus, but “Even before the heath [sic] secretary could get a word in about the virus, Trump cut him off and began criticizing Azar for his handling of an aborted federal ban on vaping products, a matter that vexed the president.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/04/04/coronavirus-government-dysfunction/)

January 18: Trump plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida.

January 19: Trump (possibly) plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida.

January 21: CDC confirms first U.S. case of COVID-19. (https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0121-novel-coronavirus-travel-case.html) See December 24, 2019 above.

January 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine.” (https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-says-he-trusts-xis-word-on-coronavirus-its-all-under-control) 314 global cases in 4 countries, 309 China, 4 outside China (Thailand, Japan, South Korea).

January 26: Sen. Schumer calls on the Department of Health and Human Services for coronavirus to be designated a public health emergency. (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/30/how-coronavirus-shook-congress-complacency-155058)

January 27: Joe Biden writes an op-ed warning of the U.S.’s lack of preparedness for the coronavirus pandemic. (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/nobody-expected-the-coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-did.html)

January 28: Elizabeth Warren releases a plan for “Preventing, Containing, and Treating Infectious Disease Outbreaks at Home and Abroad."

January 28: Trump holds a campaign rally in Wildwood, New Jersey.

January 30: Trump holds a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa.

February 1: Trump plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida.

February 2: Trump (possibly) plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida.

February 2: Trump’s ordered restrictions on travel from China take effect. These restrictions do not apply to Americans returning from China. 279 flights from China occurred after this date, and screening of returning passengers was haphazard and inconsistent. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/coronavirus-china-travel-restrictions.html)

February 2: “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/02/us/coronavirus-airports.html) 14,557 global cases in 23 countries, 14,411 China, 146 outside of China (WHO). CDC starts sending out test kits in first week of February, which turn out to be faulty.

February 5: The U.S. Senate impeachment trial votes to acquit Trump on both articles.

February 5: CDC announces it will begin shipping COVID-19 tests to states. Shortly thereafter, it is determined that the CDC test kits don’t work.

February 6: Patricia Dowd of Santa Clara County, California, dies from COVID-19, though this is not determined until late April. (https://www.axios.com/first-us-coronavirus-death-earlier-autopsy-dbc72f86-30ed-47e5-b5d8-6811643f9853.html)

February 7: Trump to Bob Woodward, in an interview for his new book, Rage: “It’s also more deadly than your – you know, your – even your strenuous flus…This is 5%, versus 1% percent and less than 1%.” (https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump-coronavirus/index.html) 31,481 global cases in 24 countries, 31,211 China, 270 outside of China, 637 deaths in China, 1 death outside of China, U.S. 12 cases (WHO).

February 10: “You know in April, supposedly, it dies with the hotter weather.” Interview with Trish Regan, Fox Business. (https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-interview-trish-regan-fox-business-february-10-2020) 40,554 global cases in 24 countries, 40,235 China, 319 outside China, U.S. 12 cases (WHO).

February 10: Trump holds a campaign rally in Manchester, New Hampshire.

February 15: Trump plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida.

February 19: Trump holds a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona.

February 20: Trump holds a campaign rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

February 21: Trump holds a campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada.

February 23: Trump and the White House National Security Council is sent a memo from White House economic advisor Peter Navarro warning of coronavirus epidemic in the U.S. which could kill up to two million Americans. (https://www.axios.com/exclusive-navarro-deaths-coronavirus-memos-january-da3f08fb-dce1-4f69-89b5-ea048f8382a9.html)

February 24: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA… Stock Market starting to look very good to me!” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1232058127740174339) Dow closes down 227.51 points at 28,992.40. 79,331 global cases in 29 countries, 77,262 China, 2,069 outside China, 35 U.S. 12 labs other than CDC can perform coronavirus testing.

February 25: “CDC and my Administration are doing a GREAT job of handling Coronavirus.” (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1232492821501771776) 80,239 global cases in 33 countries, 77,780 China, 2,459 outside China, 53 U.S.

February 25: “I think that’s a problem that’s going to go away… They have studied it. They know very much. In fact, we’re very close to a vaccine." In India. (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-coronavirus-control-us-problem/story?id=69198905) The vaccine was, in fact, for Ebola, not COVID-19: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/25/white-house-says-trumps-vaccine-claims-about-ebola-not-coronavirus.html

February 25: “This president will always put Americans first. He will always protect American citizens. We will not see diseases like the coronavirus come here.” Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany to Trish Regan on Fox Business. (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444)

February 26: First confirmed community spread (from person to person unrelated to travel in China) within the United States (per evidence as of June 2021). (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/when-was-coronavirus-first-in-us/2021/06/15/1aaa6b56-cd2d-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html)

February 26: “The 15 (cases in the US) within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.” White House Press Conference. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-conference/) 81,109 global cases in 37 countries, 78,191 China, 2,918 outside China, 53 U.S. First day with more new cases outside China than in China. First two reported COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. in Seattle, Washington, though there had already been earlier deaths not yet attributed to COVID-19 (see February 6). (https://www.axios.com/first-us-coronavirus-death-earlier-autopsy-dbc72f86-30ed-47e5-b5d8-6811643f9853.html)

February 26: “So we’re at the low level. As they get better, we take them off the list, so that we’re going to be pretty soon at only five people. And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time. So we’ve had very good luck.” White House Press Conference (same link as above)

February 26: “We’re going very substantially down, not up.” White House Press Conference (same link as above)

February 26: “Low Ratings Fake News MSDNC (Comcast) & @CNN are doing everything possible to make the Caronavirus look as bad as possible, including panicking markets, if possible. Likewise their incompetent Do Nothing Democrat comrades are all talk, no action. USA in great shape! @CDCgov…..” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1232652371832004608)

February 27: “One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” At White House. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-miracle-stock-markets/index.html) 82,294 global cases in 46 countries, 78,630 China, 3,664 outside China, 59 U.S. More new cases in Korea than China.

February 27: Laura Ingraham on Fox News in front of screen that shows an NPR story “Italy Reports 650 Cases And 17 Deaths” with a Fox chyron reading “LEFT TRYING TO PANIC AMERICANS OVER CORONAVIRUS.” (Photo from Sean Howe on Bluesky.)

February 27: Sean Hannity in front of a screen that says “CORONAVIRUS DEATHS IN U.S.” with the number “0”. (Photo from Nothings Monstered on Bluesky.)

February 28: “We’re ordering a lot of, uh, elements that frankly we wouldn’t be ordering unless it was something like this. But we’re ordering a lot of different elements of medical.” At White House. (https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1233516512830459908) 83,652 global cases in 51 countries, 78,961 China, 4,691 outside China, 59 U.S.

February 28: Trump holds a campaign rally in North Charleston, South Carolina. At this rally, Trump said: “Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus, you know that, right? Coronavirus, they’re politicizing it. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. … ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.’ That didn’t work out too well… Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But we did something that’s pretty amazing. We have 15 people in this massive country and because of the fact that we went early. … So a number that nobody heard of recently, and I was shocked to hear it, 35,000 people on average die each year from the flu. Did anyone know that? 35,000, that’s a lot of people. And so far we have lost nobody to coronavirus in the United States. Nobody. And it doesn’t mean we won’t and we are totally prepared. It doesn’t mean we won’t, but think of it. You hear 35 and 40,000 people and we’ve lost nobody and you wonder the press is in hysteria mode. … My administration has taken the most aggressive action in modern history to prevent the spread of this illness in the United States. We are ready. We are ready. Totally ready. … A virus starts in China, bleeds its way into various countries all around the world, doesn’t spread widely at all in the U.S. because of the early actions that myself and my administration took against a lot of other wishes. … We had [to] quarantine some people. They weren’t happy, they weren’t happy about it. I want to tell you there are a lot of people that [were] not so happy, but after two weeks they got happy.” Trump’s statement that no one in the U.S. had been lost to COVID-19 was false both by not-yet-known deaths (see February 6) and by publicly reported deaths (see February 26), but the first officially confirmed COVID-19 death came on February 29. (https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1259119606955945986)

February 29: First confirmed U.S. COVID-19 death, a man in Kirkland, Washington. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/1st-coronavirus-death-u-s-officials-say-n1145931)

March 1: Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro warns Trump in a memo to “MOVE IN TRUMP TIME” to invest in preparations for coronavirus, including drug ingredients, tests, and other supplies. “There is NO downside risk to taking swift actions as an insurance policy against what may be a very serious public health emergency. If the COVID-19 crisis quickly recedes, the only thing we will have been guilty of is prudence.” Trump ignored these recommendations; on April 7, 2020 he said he hadn’t seen the memo. (Washington Post story, March 31, 2021: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/03/31/navarro-pandemic-supply-contracts-trump/) Navarro subsequently used his influence to push to award hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts to untested firms, including a $354 million contract from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA; also see January 21, 2021 entry below), a $96 million no-bid deal for respirators, and a $34.5 million deal from the VA which ended with a contractor pleading guilty to fraud, among other examples documented by ProPublica (https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-covid-pandemic-contracts).

March 2: “You take a solid flu vaccine, you don’t think that could have an impact, or much of an impact, on corona?” White House coronavirus task force meeting. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-members-coronavirus-task-force-meeting-pharmaceutical-companies/) 88,948 global cases in 64 countries, 80,174 China, 8,774 outside China, 62 U.S. CDC removes number of tests completed from its website (474 on March 1). (https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21161693/cdc-coronavirus-testing-numbers-website-disappear-expansion-us)

March 2: “A lot of things are happening, a lot of very exciting things are happening and they’re happening very rapidly.” White House coronavirus task force meeting, same as previous link.

March 2: Trump holds a campaign rally in Charlotte, North Carolina.

March 4: “If we have thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that get better just by, you know, sitting around and even going to work - some of them go to work, but they get better." (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/trump-disputes-coronavirus-death-rate-121892) 94,091 global cases in 76 countries, 80,422 China, 12,669 outside China, 108 U.S.

March 5: “I NEVER said people that are feeling sick should go to work.” (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/trump-disputes-coronavirus-death-rate-121892) 95,324 global cases in 85 countries/territories/areas, 80,565 China, 14,759 outside China, 129 U.S.

March 5: “The United States… has, as of now, only 129 cases… and 11 deaths. We are working very hard to keep these numbers as low as possible!” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1235604572850343937)

March 5: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control planned to post a global travel alert for all countries, but it was delayed by the White House until March 11. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/20/politics/coronavirus-travel-alert-cdc-white-house-tensions-invs/index.html)

March 6: “I think we’re doing a really good job in this country at keeping it down… a tremendous job at keeping it down.” At CDC. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-tour-centers-disease-control-prevention-atlanta-ga/) 98,192 global cases in 88 countries/territories/areas, 80,711 China, 17,481 outside China, 148 U.S.

March 6: “The tests are beautiful…. the tests are all perfect like the letter was perfect. The transcription was perfect. Right? This was not as perfect as that but pretty good.” At CDC, same as previous link.

March 6: “I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised that I understand it… Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability. Maybe I should have done that instead of running for president.” At CDC, same as previous link.

March 6: “I don’t need to have the numbers to double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault.” At CDC, same as previous link.

March 6: “It’s something that nobody expected.” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing/)

March 6: “Everybody who wants a test can get a test.” At CDC, same as previous link. In fact, tests are still hard to come by on March 23: https://thebulwark.com/where-are-the-tests/

March 6: “It’ll go away.” (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444)

March 7: Trump plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida.

March 8: “We have a perfectly coordinated and fine tuned plan at the White House for our attack on CoronaVirus.” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1236634209516752896) 105,586 global cases in 101 countries/territories/areas, 80,859 China, 24,727 outside China, 213 U.S.

March 8: Trump plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida.

Prior to March 9: CDC wanted to recommend people over 60 stay at home, but Trump administration said no. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/mismanagement-missed-opportunities-how-white-house-bungled-coronavirus-response-n1158746)

March 9: “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1237027356314869761) 109,577 global cases in 104 countries/territories/areas, 80,904 China, 28,673 outside China, 213 U.S.

March 9: “And we have a great economy, we have a very strong economy, but this came – this blindsided the world. And I think we’ve handled it very, very well. I think they’ve done a great job.” Press conference. (https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-remarks-coronavirus-briefing-march-9-2020)

March 10: “Be calm. It’s really working out. And a lot of good things are going to happen.” Press conference. (https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1237453485899223040)

March 11: “Health insurers have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments.” Press conference. (https://twitter.com/owermohle/status/1237922717699014658) In fact, this only applied to tests, not treatments.

March 11: CDC posts a global travel alert that had been intended for release six days earlier but was delayed by the White House. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/20/politics/coronavirus-travel-alert-cdc-white-house-tensions-invs/index.html)

March 12: White House says neither Trump nor Pence will be tested for coronavirus despite contacts with people who have tested positive. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/politics/trump-brazil-coronavirus.html)

March 12: “It’s going to go away.” (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444)

March 13: Trump repeatedly shakes hands at White House coronavirus press conference, despite knowing that he has recently been exposed to people who have now tested positive for the virus. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/13/trump-handshakes-coronavirus-press-conference/) 132,758 global cases in 122 countries/territories/areas, 80,991 China, 51,767 outside China, 1,264 U.S. Dow closes the week at 23,185.62.

March 13: “I don’t take responsibility at all.” White House press conference, in response to question about whether Trump takes any responsibility for the failures in U.S. coronavirus testing. (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/13/trump-coronavirus-testing-128971)

March 13: Trump says he likely will be tested for coronavirus. Same White House press conference. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/13/politics/donald-trump-emergency/index.html)

March 13 (evening just before midnight): White House doctor Sean Conley issues statement saying that Trump doesn’t need to be quarantined or even tested for coronavirus because he is at low risk. (http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/03/14/whmemo.png)

March 14: “SOCIAL DISTANCING!” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1238824050924883968) CDC has tested 3,958 specimens (not individuals). 142,539 global cases in 135 countries/territories/areas, 81,021 China, 61,618 outside China, 1,678 U.S.

March 14: “It’s something that nobody expected.” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing/)

March 14: Trump says he has been tested for coronavirus and is awaiting results expected in a day or two. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/politics/trump-press-conference-coronavirus/index.html)

March 14: New screening measures are introduced at airports, which lead to delays from processing bottlenecks and large crowds of people. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2020/03/14/europe-travel-ban-airport-delays/)

March 15: The White House announces Trump has tested negative for coronavirus. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/politics/trump-press-conference-coronavirus/index.html) The Fed announces $700B in quantitative easing as stock market futures hit circuit breakers after a 5% drop.

March 15: “We’re learning from watching other countries … This is a very contagious virus, it’s incredible, but it’s something that we have tremendous control over.” (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/15/politics/fact-check-trump-control-coronavirus/index.html)

March 16: “That’s not under control for any place in the world. … I’m not talking about the virus.” Press conference. (https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/1239637609309261826) 167,511 global cases in 151 countries/territories/areas, 81,077 China, 86,434 outside China, 1,678 U.S. (CDC count for U.S.: 3,487).

March 16: The Supreme Court announces that it is postponing its next argument sitting, for the first time since it did the same in 1918 due to the deadly global influenza outbreak.

March 16: “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves.” On conference call with U.S. governors. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/world/coronavirus-news.html)

March 16: “It’s so contagious. It’s so contagious. It’s like record-setting contagious.” White House press conference. (https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/16/donald-trump-admits-contagious-coronavirus-control-12407873/)

March 17: “I’ve always known, this is a real … this is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.” White House press conference. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/17/politics/fact-check-trump-always-knew-pandemic-coronavirus/index.html) (https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1239956622312701952) 179,112 global cases, 7,426 deaths (WHO), U.S. 4,226 cases, 75 deaths (CDC).

March 19: “You’re actually sitting too close. You should really – we should probably get rid of another 75%, 80% of you. I’ll have just two or three that I like in this room.” White House press conference. (https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1240678632361807873)

March 19: “I only signed the Defense Production Act to combat the Chinese Virus should we need to invoke it in a worst case scenario in the future. Hopefully there will be no need, but we are all in this TOGETHER!” Twitter (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1240391871026864130) Trump didn’t sign the Defense Production Act, which was signed into law in 1950 by Harry S Truman, who, as Kevin M. Kruse noted in response to this tweet (https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1240446891055251457), famously said “the buck stops here,” rather than the “I don’t take responsibility at all” of this president. As of March 23, Trump still hasn’t invoked the Defense Production Act. 209,839 global cases, 8,778 deaths (WHO), U.S. 10,442 cases, 150 deaths (CDC).

March 19: In an interview with Bob Woodward for his new book, Rage, Trump says of the coronavirus that “I always wanted to play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.” He admits he knew that it was deadly and worse than the flu. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump/2020/09/09/0368fe3c-efd2-11ea-b4bc-3a2098fc73d4_story.html)

March 20: Yamiche Alcindor asks Trump at his press conference: “When will everyone who needs a coronavirus test be able to get a test?” Trump’s response: “No-one is talking about this except you, which doesn’t surprise me.” Alcindor: “What about people w/ symptoms who cannot get a test?” Trump: “Yeah, well, OK. I’m not— I’m not hearing it.” (https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1241056026872426496) 234,073 global cases, 9,840 deaths (WHO), U.S. 15,219 cases, 201 deaths (CDC). Tests done to date: CDC: 4,524, public health labs: 49,681, commercial labs: 88,000. (https://twitter.com/davidalim/status/1241111313935458305)

March 20: “We haven’t been given the credit we’ve deserved.” White House press conference. (https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1241054458525765634)

March 22: “Ford, General Motors and Tesla are being given the go ahead to make ventilators and other metal products, FAST! @fema Go for it auto execs, lets see how good you are? @RepMarkMeadows @GOPLeader @senatemajldr” (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1241732681366482944) 292,142 global cases, 12,784 deaths, U.S. 15,219 cases, 201 deaths. This tweet apparently a reference to Ford making respirators in partnership with 3M and GE Healthcare: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/24/business/ford-3m-ge-ventilators-coronavirus-duplicate-2/index.html

March 23: 332,930 global cases, 14,510 deaths (WHO), U.S. 33,404 cases, 400 deaths (CDC). Dr. Fauci doesn’t appear at Trump’s daily press conference.

March 24: “Our people want to return to work. They will practice Social Distancing and all else, and Seniors will be watched over protectively & lovingly. We can do two things together. THE CURE CANNOT BE WORSE (by far) THAN THE PROBLEM! Congress MUST ACT NOW. We will come back strong!” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1242455267603877894) 372,757 global cases, 16,231 deaths (WHO), U.S. 44,183 cases, 544 deaths (CDC).

March 25: “Just reported that the United States has done far more “testing” than any other nation, by far! In fact, over an eight day span, the United States now does more testing than what South Korea (which has been a very successful tester) does over an eight week span. Great job!” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1242824631230308353?s=19) 414,179 global cases, 18,440 deaths (WHO), U.S. 68,440 cases, 994 deaths (CDC). While the U.S. has done a greater number of tests, it also has a much larger population – where Korea has tested 1 of every 170 people, the U.S. has tested 1 of every 1,090 people.

March 26: “I have a feeling that a lot of the numbers that are being said in some areas are just bigger than they are going to be. I don’t believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators.” Press conference. (https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1243354645927530498) 462,684 global cases, 49,219 deaths (WHO), U.S. 68,440 cases, 994 deaths (CDC).

March 27: 509,164 global cases, 23,335 deaths (WHO), U.S. 85,356 cases, 1,246 deaths.

Unknown date, likely after official launch of these machines on March 27: Trump secretly sends Abbott Point of Care COVID test systems to Vladimir Putin for his personal use, per Bob Woodward’s 2024 book, War. (https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/bob-woodward-book-war-joe-biden-putin-netanyahu-trump/index.html)

March 28: “You can call it a germ. You can call it a flu. You can call it a virus. You can call it many different names. I’m not sure anyone even knows what it is.” Press conference. (https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1243670348211654664) 571,678 global cases, 62,514 deaths (WHO), 103,321 cases, 1,668 deaths (CDC).

March 28: “I am giving consideration to a QUARANTINE of developing “hot spots”, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. A decision will be made, one way or another, shortly.” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1243953994743103489) Advance notice of a quarantine order caused many people to leave northern Italy and spread the virus (https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/italys-virus-lockdown-dash-train-69469683). The three states here already had shelter-in-place orders from their governors. Trump subsequently retracted his quarantine suggestion in a pair of tweets (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1244056559577071616).

March 29: “We sent thousands of generators to New York … the people in New York never distributed the generators.” Press conference, Trump means ventilators. (https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1244394071982051329) 634,835 global cases, 29,957 deaths (WHO), U.S. 122,653 cases, 2,112 deaths (CDC).

March 29: “You’re talking about 2.2 million deaths … So if we can hold that down, as we’re saying, to 100,000, it’s a horrible number, maybe even less, but to 100,000, so we have between 100 [thousand] and 200,000, we altogether have done a very good job.” (https://www.vox.com/2020/3/30/21199586/us-coronavirus-deaths-trump-200000-good-job)

March 30: “It will go away. You know it–you know it is going away, and it will go away, and we’re going to have a great victory.” (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444)

March 30: Dr. Stephen M. Hahn of the FDA tweets that the FDA has issued an authorization (on March 29) to Battelle for an N95 mask decontamination system recommended by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine; Trump retweets it with thanks to DeWine. The system does not work and the authorization is revoked by April 30, 2021. (https://twitter.com/SteveFDA/status/1244472087831552004)

March 31: “It’s going to go away, hopefully at the end of the month. And, if not, hopefully it will be soon after that.” (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444)

Books read in 2019

Wed, 01 Jan 2020 14:51:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here still, but here's my annual list of books read for 2019.

Graham T. Allison, Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?
Ross Anderson, Security Engineering (3rd edition, draft chapters)
Herbert Asbury, The Barbary Coast: An Informal History of the San Francisco Underworld
Heidi Blake, From Russia with Blood: The Kremlin's Ruthless Assassination Program and Vladimir Putin's Secret War on the West
Rutger Bregman, Utopia for Realists: How We Can Build the Ideal World
Oliver Bullough, Moneyland: The Inside Story of the Crooks and Kleptocrats Who Rule the World
Bryan Caplan and Zach Weinersmith, Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration
C.J. Chivers, The Fighters: Americans in Combat
Sefton Delmer, Black Boomerang
Nina J. Easton, Gang of Five: Leaders at the Center of the Conservative Crusade (bio of Bill Kristol, Ralph Reed, Clint Bolick, Grover Norquist, and David McIntosh)
Ronan Farrow, Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators
Ronan Farrow, War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence
Ian Frisch, Magic is Dead: My Journey into the World's Most Secretive Society of Magicians
Anand Giridharadas, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World
Reba Wells Grandrud, Sunnyslope (Images of America series)
Andy Greenberg, Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin's Most Dangerous Hackers
Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, She Said: Breaking the Sexual Harassment Story That Helped Ignite a Movement
Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq
Michael Lewis, Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt
Jonathan Lusthaus, Industry of Anonymity: Inside the Business of Cybercrime
Ben MacIntyre, A Spy Among Friends: Kim Philby and the Great Betrayal
Joseph Menn, Cult of the Dead Cow: How the Original Hacking Supergroup Might Just Save the World
Anna Merlan, Republic of Lies: American Conspiracy Theorists and Their Surprising Rise to Power
Jefferson Morley, Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA
Sarah T. Roberts, Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media
Hans Rosling, with Ola Rosling and Anna Rosling Rönnlund, Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think
Russell Shorto, Amsterdam: A History of the World's Most Liberal City
Alexander Stille, The Sack of Rome: Media + Money + Celebrity = Power = Silvio Berlusconi
Jamie Susskind, Future Politics: Living Together in a World Transformed by Tech
Erik Van De Sandt, Deviant Security: The Technical Computer Security Practices of Cyber Criminals (Ph.D. thesis)
Tom Wolfe, The Right Stuff
Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads

Top for 2019: Bullough, Farrow (Catch and Kill), Wu, Chivers, Rosling, Greenberg, Blake, Allison, Caplan and Weinersmith, Kinzer, Delmer.

I started the following books I expect to finish in early 2020:

Myke Cole, Legion versus Phalanx: The Epic Struggle for Infantry Supremacy in the Ancient World
Walter LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (2nd edition)
Brad Smith and Carol Anne Browne, Tools and Weapons: The Promise and Peril of the Digital Age
Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire: A Thousand Years of Europe's History

Two books I preordered and look forward to reading in 2020:

Anna Wiener, Uncanny Valley: A Memoir (due out January 14)
Thomas Rid, Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation and Political Warfare (due out April 21)

(Previously: 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

CIA torture program

Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:24:00 +0000

It was interesting to go back through the old posts on this blog about the CIA torture program in light of the new film, The Report, which can be seen on Amazon Prime.

One of the early posts on this blog resulted in a debate in the comments about the ethics and efficacy of torture, which the 2014 Senate torture report (PDF link) and the film resolve decisively against torture. The CIA torture program was ineffective and unethical.

Jeremy Scahill’s interview with Daniel Jones about the CIA program and the Senate investigations and report is quite illuminating, and highly recommended listening, as is the podcast associated with the film.

A couple other items of interest:

Jason Leopold’s exposure of an accidentally leaked draft letter from John Brennan to Dianne Feinstein apologizing for hacking the Senate investigation.

Senator Mark Udall’s questioning of CIA general counsel Caroline Krass during her Senate confirmation hearing.

New York Times book review of Frank Rizzo’s memoir, Company Man, which confirms that George W. Bush was not briefed on the torture program but was a “stand-up guy” by lying and claiming that he was.

The Phoenix Lights, 1945

Sat, 08 Jun 2019 22:27:00 +0000

From John Keeling, by way of the May 2019 Fortean Times (p. 28):

In 1945 a jittery American public was mistaking Venus for Japan’s FU-GO balloon bombs on an alarmingly regular basis. 9,000 of the 30 ft balloons with incendiary bomb payloads had been launched against the US in the hope of causing large-scale forest fires and spreading terror....On June 6^th, Phoenix and several other Arizona communities had their first ‘Jap balloon’ panic. Telephone lines to the press, police department, sheriff’s office and weather bureau were reportedly jammed....Luke Field and Williams Field fliers, checking the object from planes, were able to report back definitely that there was no balloon where reported. And Phoenix Junior college’s 5 inch refractor telescope clearly identified the object as Venus. According to the Associated Press, Tucson had the same experience, with Davis-Monthan fliers being ‘sent to cut down the invader.’

Books read in 2018

Tue, 01 Jan 2019 16:16:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here still, but here's my annual list of books read for 2018.

Charles Arthur, Cyber Wars: Hacks that Shocked the Business World
Radley Balko and Tucker Carrington, The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist: A True Story of Injustice in the American South
Mary Beard, SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome
Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts, Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics
Ronen Bergman, Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations
Rebecca Burns and David Dayen, Fat Cat: The Steve Mnuchin Story
John Carreyrou, Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup
Graydon Carter, George Kalogerakis, and Kurt Andersen, Spy: The Funny Years
Stephen Ellis, This Present Darkness: A History of Nigerian Organized Crime
Jason Fagone, The Woman Who Smashed Codes: A True Story of Love, Spies, and the Unlikely Heroine Who Outwitted America's Enemies
Paul French, City of Devils: The Two Men Who Ruled the Underworld of Old Shanghai
Diego Gambetta, Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate
Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War
Atul Gawande, Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End
David Golumbia, The Politics of Bitcoin: Software as Right-Wing Extremism
Richards J. Heuer Jr. and Randolph H. Pherson, Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis
Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin's War on America and the Election of Donald Trump
Sarah Jeong, The Internet of Garbage
Steven Johnson, Farsighted: How We Make the Decisions That Matter the Most
Louise M. Kaiser and Randolph H. Pherson, Analytic Writing Guide
Chuck Klosterman, But What If We're Wrong?: Thinking About the Present As If It Were the Past
Susan Landau, Listening In: Cybersecurity in an Insecure Age
Peter T. Leeson, WTF?! An Economic Tour of the Weird
Jeffrey Lewis, The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States
Michael Lewis, The Fifth Risk
Liliana Mason, Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity
Nick Mason, Inside Out: A Personal History of Pink Floyd (new updated 2017 edition)
Tim Maurer, Cyber Mercenaries: The State, Hackers, and Power
Jefferson Morley, The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton
Roger Naylor, The Amazing Kolb Brothers of Grand Canyon
Helen Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life
Ellen Pao, Reset: My Fight for Inclusion and Lasting Change
Dana Richards, editor, Dear Martin/Dear Marcello: Gardner and Truzzi on Skepticism
Louis Rossetto, Change Is Good: A Story of the Heroic Era of the Internet (1st edition, #1453, Kickstarter)
David E. Sanger, The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage, and Fear in the Cyber Age
Eli Saslow, Rising Out of Hatred: The Awakening of a Former White Nationalist
Harold Schechter, The Pirate (Amazon Prime Reading "Bloodlands Collection")
Harold Schechter, Little Slaughterhouse on the Prairie (Amazon Prime Reading "Bloodlands Collection")
Harold Schechter, The Brick Slayer (Amazon Prime Reading "Bloodlands Collection")
Harold Schechter, Panic (Amazon Prime Reading "Bloodlands Collection")
Harold Schechter, Rampage (Amazon Prime Reading "Bloodlands Collection")
Harold Schechter, The Pied Piper (Amazon Prime Reading "Bloodlands Collection")
Natasha Dow Schüll, Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas
Kevin Simler and Robin Hanson, The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life
P.W. Singer and Emerson T. Brooking, LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media
Ali Soufan, Anatomy of Terror: From the Death of Bin Laden to the Rise of the Islamic State
Robert Timberg, The Nightingale's Song (bio of John McCain, James Webb, Oliver North, Robert McFarlane, and John Poindexter)
Mick West, Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect
Rick Wilson, Everything Trump Touches Dies: A Republican Strategist Gets Real About the Worst President Ever
Michael Wolff, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House
Bob Woodward, Fear: Trump in the White House
Tim Wu, The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age

I made some progress on a few other books:

Herbert Asbury, The Barbary Coast: An Informal History of the San Francisco Underworld (will probably finish today)
Andrew Jaquith, Security Metrics: Replacing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander, Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking

Top for 2018: Singer and Brooking, Bergman, Balko and Carrington, Gawande, Carreyrou, Sanger, Simler and Hanson, Soufan, Isikoff and Corn, Fagone, French, Schüll, Michael Lewis, Mason, Benkler et al., West, Wu, Saslow, Naylor. I didn't care for the Klosterman book at all--quick read, but a waste of time.

(Previously: 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Hume's Ghost (2019-01-02):

Wow. I only overlapped one book with you this year: SPQR, which I thought was very good.

I was on a Rome kick. Read that, Rome's Last Citizen: The Life and Legacy of Cato, Mortal Enemy of Caesar and Dying Every Day: Seneca at the Court of Nero back-to-back-to-back.

Books read in 2017

Mon, 01 Jan 2018 15:24:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here still, but here's my annual list of books read for 2017. Items with hyperlinks are linked directly to the item online (usually PDF, some of these are reports rather than books, though I've made no attempt to collect all papers, blog posts, and reports I read here), with no paywall or fee.

Lilian Ablon, Andy Bogart, Zero Days, Thousands of Nights: The Life and Times of Zero-Day Vulnerabilities and Their Exploits
Ben Buchanan, The Cybersecurity Dilemma: Hacking, Trust and Fear Between Nations
J.D. Chandler, Hidden History of Portland, Oregon
Ted Conover, Newjack: Guarding Sing Sing
Richard A. Clarke and R.P. Eddy, Warnings: Finding Cassandras to Stop Catastrophes
Thomas H. Davenport and Julia Kirby, Only Humans Need Apply: Winners & Losers in the Age of Smart Machines
Mike Edison, Dirty, Dirty, Dirty: Of Playboys, Pigs, and Penthouse Paupers--An American Tale of Sex and Wonder
FINRA, Distributed Ledger Technology: Implications of Blockchain for the Securities Industry
Al Franken, Al Franken, Giant of the Senate
David Gerard, Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain: Bitcoin, Blockchain, Ethereum & Smart Contracts
Joscelyn Godwin, Upstate Cauldron: Eccentric Spiritual Movements in Early New York State
Jonathan Goldsmith, Stay Interesting: I Don't Always Tell Stories About My Life, But When I Do They're True and Amazing
Heidi Grant Halvorson, No One Understands You: And What To Do About It
Jon Lindsay, Tai Ming Cheung, and Derek S. Reveron, editors, China and Cybersecurity: Espionage, Strategy, and Politics in the Digital Domain
William MacAskill, Doing Good Better: Effective Altruism and How You Can Make a Difference
Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right
Nick Middleton, An Atlas of Countries That Don't Exist: A Compendium of Fifty Unrecognized and Largely Unnoticed States
Kevin Mitnick, The Art of Invisibility: The World's Most Famous Hacker Teaches You How to Be Safe in the Age of Big Brother and Big Data
Andrew Monaghan, "The New Russian Foreign Policy Concept: Evolving Continuity," Chatham House, 2013 (PDF)
Milton Mueller, Will the Internet Fragment? Sovereignty, Globalization and Cyberspace
Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
David Ronfeldt, Beware the Hubris-Nemesis Complex: A Concept for Leadership Analysis
Thomas Rid, Rise of the Machines: A Cybernetic History
Gabriel Sherman, The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News--and Divided a Country
Doug Stanhope, Digging Up Mother: A Love Story
Doug Stanhope, This Is Not Fame: A "From What I Re-Memoir"
Charles Stross, Halting State
Charles Stross, Rule 34
Sarah Vowell, Unfamiliar Fishes
Timothy Walton, Challenges in Intelligence Analysis: Lessons from 1300 BCE to the Present
Kristan J. Wheaton and Melonie K. Richey, Strawman
Ilya Zaslavskiy, How Non-State Actors Export Kleptocratic Norms to the West (PDF)

I may or may not have made progress on a few other books (first four from 2017, next two from 2016, one from 2015, next three from 2014, next three from 2013, last two still not finished from 2012--I have trouble with e-books, especially very long nonfiction e-books):

Helen Nissenbaum, Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life
Dana Richards, editor, Dear Martin/Dear Marcello: Gardner and Truzzi on Skepticism
Richards J. Heuer, Jr., Structured Analytics Techniques for Intelligence Analysis
Louis M. Kaiser, Analytic Writing Guide
Andreas Antonopoulos, Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies (now 2nd ed)
Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War
John Searle, Making the Social World
Andrew Jaquith, Security Metrics: Replacing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem
Steven Pinker, The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century
Richard Bejtlich, The Practice of Network Security Monitoring
James Grimmelmann, Internet Law: Cases & Problems (v2; v3 is out now)
Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander, Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking
Mark Dowd, John McDonald, and Justin Schuh, The Art of Software Security Assessment: Identifying and Avoiding Software Vulnerabilities
Michal Zalewski, The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications

Top for 2017: Rid, Buchanan, Sherman, Mayer, Clarke and Eddy, Conover, Middleton.

I completed three Coursera courses in 2017, two of which I recommend:

University of Michigan, Mindware: Critical Thinking for the Information Age (psychology, statistics, and philosophy; a companion to Richard E. Nisbett's book, Mindware: Tools for Smart Thinking which I read last year; the course is taught by Nisbett)
Universiteit Leiden, The Changing Global Order (international relations theory and history)

(Previously: 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Rep. Tom Graves' Active Cyber Defense Certainty Act

Sun, 12 Mar 2017 22:58:00 +0000

Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA14) has circulated a draft bill, the “Active Cyber Defense Certainty Act” (or ACDC Act), which amends the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC 1030) to legalize certain forms of “hacking back” for the purposes of collecting information about an attacker in order to facilitate criminal prosecution or other countermeasures.

The bill as it currently stands is not a good bill, for the following reasons:

Confusing the two Trump cybersecurity executive orders

Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:24:00 +0000

In Andy Greenberg’s Wired article on February 9, 2017, “Trump Cybersecurity Chief Could Be a ‘Voice of Reason," he writes:

But when Trump’s draft executive order on cybersecurity emerged last week, it surprised the cybersecurity world by hewing closely to the recommendations of bipartisan experts—including one commission assembled by the Obama administration.

The described timing and the link both refer to the original draft cybersecurity executive order, which does not at all resemble the recommendations of Obama's Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity or the recommendations of the Center for Strategic and International Studies Cyber Policy Task Force, which both included input from large numbers of security experts. Contrary to what Greenberg says, the executive order he refers to was widely criticized on a number of grounds, including that it is incredibly vague and high level, specifies an extremely short time frame for its reviews, and that it seemed to think it was a good idea to collect information about major U.S. vulnerabilities and defenses into one place and put it into the hands of then-National Security Advisor Michael T. Flynn. That original version of the executive order resembled the Trump campaign's website policy proposal on cybersecurity.

The positive remarks, instead, were for a revised version of the cybersecurity executive order which was verbally described to reporters on the morning of January 31, the day that the signing of the order was expected to happen at 3 p.m., after Trump met for a listening session with security experts. The signing was cancelled, and the order has not yet been issued, but a draft subsequently got some circulation later in the week and was made public at the Lawfare blog on February 9.

This executive order contains recommendations consistent with both the Cybersecurity Commission report and the CSIS Cyber Policy Task Force report, mandating the use of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework by federal agencies, putting the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in charge of enterprise risk assessment across agencies, promoting IT modernization and the promotion of cloud and shared services infrastructure, and directing DHS and other agency heads to work with private sector critical infrastructure owners on defenses.

One key thing it does not do, which was recommended by both reports, is elevate the White House cybersecurity coordinator role (a role which the Trump administration has not yet filled, which was held by Michael Daniel in the Obama administration) to an Assistant to the President, reflecting the importance of cybersecurity. Greenberg's piece seems to assume that Thomas Bossert is in the lead cybersecurity coordinator role, but his role is Homeland Security Advisor (the role previously held by Lisa Monaco in the Obama administration), with broad responsibility for homeland security and counterterrorism, not cybersecurity-specific.

Despite Greenberg's error confusing the two executive orders being pointed out to him on Twitter on February 9, the article hasn't been corrected as of February 16.

Anonymous (2017-03-06):

Dear Mr. Lippard,

I apologize for contacting you in this odd way, but as your email does not seem to be publicly available, I found it my only recourse.

Books read in 2016

Sun, 01 Jan 2017 16:14:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here still, but here's my annual list of books read for 2016. Items with hyperlinks are linked directly to the item online (usually PDF, some of these are reports rather than books), with no paywall or fee.

Andreas Antonopoulos, The Internet of Money
Herbert Asbury, The Gangs of New York: An Informal History of the Underworld
Rob Brotherton, Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories
Center for Cyber & Homeland Security, Into the Gray Zone: The Private Sector and Active Defense Against Cyber Threats
Michael D'Antonio, Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success
Henning Diedrich, Ethereum: Blockchains, Digital Assets, Smart Contracts, Decentralized Autonomous Organizations
Martin Ford, Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future
Emma A. Jane and Chris Fleming, Modern Conspiracy: The Importance of Being Paranoid
Roger Z. George and James B. Bruce, editors, Analyzing Intelligence: Origins, Obstacles, and Innovations
Peter Gutmann, Engineering Security
House Homeland Security Committee, Going Dark, Going Forward: A Primer on the Encryption Debate
Dr. Rob Johnston, Analytic Culture in the U.S. Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic Study
R.V. Jones, Most Secret War
Fred Kaplan, Dark Territory: The Secret History of Cyber War
Maria Konnikova, The Confidence Game: Why We Fall for It...Every Time
Adam Lee, hilarious blog commentary on Atlas Shrugged
Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory
Dan Lyons, Disrupted: My Misadventure in the Startup Bubble
Geoff Manaugh, A Burglar's Guide to the City
Felix Martin, Money: The Unauthorized Biography--From Coinage to Cryptocurrencies
Nathaniel Popper, Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money
John Allen Paulos, A Numerate Life: A Mathematician Explores the Vagaries of Life, His Own and Probably Yours
Mary Roach, Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War
Jon Ronson, The Elephant in the Room: A Journey into the Trump Campaign and the "Alt-Right"
Oliver Sacks, On the Move: A Life
Luc Sante, Low Life: Lures and Snares of Old New York
Adam Segal, The Hacked World Order: How Nations Fight, Trade, Maneuver, and Manipulate in the Digital Age
Steve Silberman, NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity
Richard Stiennon, There Will Be Cyberwar: How the Move to Network-Centric War Fighting Has Set the Stage for Cyberwar
Russell G. Swenson, editor, Bringing Intelligence About: Practitioners Reflect on Best Practices
U.S. Army Special Operations Command, "Little Green Men": A Primer on Modern Russian Unconventional Warfare, Ukraine, 2013-2014
Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent, American Conspiracy Theories
Paul Vigna and Michael J. Casey, The Age of Crypto Currency: How Bitcoin and the Blockchain Are Challenging the Global Economic Order

I made progress on a few other books (first four from 2016, one from 2015, next three from 2014, next three from 2013, last two still not finished from 2012--I have trouble with e-books, especially very long nonfiction e-books):

Andreas Antonopoulos, Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies
Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War
Jocelyn Godwin, Upstate Cauldron: Eccentric Spiritual Movements in Early New York State
Thomas Rid, Rise of the Machines: A Cybernetic History
John Searle, Making the Social World
Andrew Jaquith, Security Metrics: Replacing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem
Steven Pinker, The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century
Richard Bejtlich, The Practice of Network Security Monitoring
James Grimmelmann, Internet Law: Cases & Problems (v2; v3 is out now)
Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander, Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking
Mark Dowd, John McDonald, and Justin Schuh, The Art of Software Security Assessment: Identifying and Avoiding Software Vulnerabilities
Michal Zalewski, The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications

Top ten for 2016: Sacks, Silberman, Jane & Fleming, Konnikova, Manaugh, Lyons, Popper, Uscinski & Parent, Jones, Lipstadt.

(Previously: 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Hume's Ghost (2017-01-02):

Of those I've read Deyning the Holocaust and The Elephant in the Room.

Books read in 2015

Fri, 01 Jan 2016 17:40:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here lately, but here's my annual list of books read for 2015:

George A. Akerlof and Robert J. Shiller, Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation & Deception
Jeffrey S Bardin, The Illusion of Due Diligence: Notes from the CISO Underground
Bill Browder, Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man's Fight for Justice
Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton
Gabriella Coleman, Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous
Karen Dawisha, Putin's Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?
Laura DeNardis, The Global War for Internet Governance
Daniel C. Dennett and Linda LaScola, Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind
Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers
William J. Drake and Monroe Price, editors, Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap
Jon Friedman and Mark Bouchard, Definitive Guide to Cyber Threat Intelligence
Marc Goodman, Future Crimes: Everything is Connected, Everyone is Vulnerable, and What We Can Do About It
Marc Hallet, A Critical Appraisal of George Adamski: The Man Who Spoke to the Space Brothers
Shane Harris, @War: The Rise of the Military-Internet Complex
Peter T. Leeson, The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates
Reed Massengill, Becoming American Express: 150 Years of Reinvention and Customer Service
James Andrew Miller and Tom Shales, Live From New York: The Complete, Uncensored History of Saturday Night Live, as Told By Its Stars, Writers, and Guests (two new chapters)
David T. Moore, Critical Thinking and Intelligence Analysis
Richard E. Nisbett, Mindware: Tools for Smart Thinking
Tony Ortega, The Unbreakable Miss Lovely: How the Church of Scientology Tried to Destroy Paulette Cooper
Whitney Phillips, This is Why We Can't Have Nice Things: Mapping the Relationship Between Online Trolling and Mainstream Culture
Joseph M. Reagle, Jr., Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web
Jon Ronson, Lost at Sea: The Jon Ronson Mysteries
Jon Ronson, So You've Been Publicly Shamed
Bruce Schneier, Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World
P.W. Singer and Allan Friedman, Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know
David Skarbek, The Social Order of the Underworld: How Prison Gangs Govern the American Penal System
Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan, The Red Web: The Struggle Between Russia's Digital Dictators and the New Online Revolutionaries
Philip E. Tetlock and Dan Gardner, Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction
Richard H. Thaler, Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics

I made progress on a few other books (first two last year, next four from 2014, next three from 2013, last two still not finished from 2012--I have trouble with very long nonfiction e-books):

Roger Z. George and James B. Bruce, editors, Analyzing Intelligence: Origins, Obstacles, and Innovations
John Searle, Making the Social World
Peter Gutmann, Engineering Security
Andrew Jaquith, Security Metrics: Replacing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem
Steven Pinker, The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century
Richard Bejtlich, The Practice of Network Security Monitoring
James Grimmelmann, Internet Law: Cases & Problems (v2; v3 is out now)
Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander, Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking
Mark Dowd, John McDonald, and Justin Schuh, The Art of Software Security Assessment: Identifying and Avoiding Software Vulnerabilities
Michal Zalewski, The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications

Top ten for 2015: Browder, Chernow, Coleman, Ronson (Shamed), Schneier, Phillips, Nisbett, Ortega, Miller and Shales, Thaler. I bought and read Bardin's book because Richard Bejtlich identified it as a "train wreck," and it was.

(Previously: 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Hume's Ghost (2016-01-02):

The only book on your list I've read is The Unbreakable Miss Lovely (excellent.) I bought a copy of Chernow's Hamiliton in 2006 but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

A few thoughts on OpenBSD 5.8

Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:37:00 +0000

I’ve been using OpenBSD since way back at release 2.3 in 1998, so I’ve gone through upgrades that took a fair amount of work due to incompatible changes, like the switch from ipf to pf for host firewalling or the change to ELF binaries. The upgrade from 5.7 to 5.8 was a pretty smooth and easy one, for the most part. The two most painful changes for me were the replacement of sudo with doas and the dropping of support in the rc.conf for the pf_rules variable. While sudo is still available as a package, I like the idea of reducing attack surface with a simpler program, so I made the switch. The two things I miss most about sudo are the ability to authenticate for a period of time and the ability to have a single config file across a whole set of servers. The former I’m just living with, the latter I’ve adjusted to by having a single config file that has lines commented out depending on which server it’s on. I did have one moment of concern about the quality of doas when it incorrectly reported the line number on which I had a syntax error in the config file–fortunately, this was just a failure to increment the line count on continuation lines (ending with a “") which is fixed in the -current release.

The removal of the pf_rules variable support from rc.conf was a bigger issue–I used to just put the default pf.conf rules file in place with each release and upgrade, and keep my changes in a pf.conf.local file that was specified in the pf_rules variable. The effect was that from the period after the upgrade until I noticed the change, my systems were using the default rules and thus more exposed than they were supposed to be. This wasn’t the first time an incompatible change decreased my level of security–the removal of tcpwrappers support from SSH was another. I used to use a combination of pf rules and hosts.allow as additional layers of protection on my SSH access, and had a set of tools that allowed me to easily add IP addresses to or remove them from my hosts.allow files. This would have been a layer of defense still in place with the loss of my pf rules, had it still been in existence. Fortunately, I also have SSH on a non-standard port and only allow SSH key logins, not user/password logins, and most of my systems can’t be reached on any port without first making a VPN connection, which requires two-factor authentication.

A minor annoying change that was made in 5.8 was putting the file /var/unbound/db/root.key into /etc/changelist, so that the file gets checked daily by the security script. The issue with this is that if you are actually using unbound with DNSSEC, this file changes daily, though only in the comments. My “reportnew” log monitoring tool has a feature that allows you to be notified if files that are expected to change on some periodic schedule do not change, and that would be more appropriate than getting daily notifications that yes, the autotrust anchor file has been updated yet again. But what would really be ideal here would be a check that the non-comment components have not changed. (Others have also complained about this.)

A final issue I’ve run into with OpenBSD 5.8 is not a new issue, but it’s one that still hasn’t been fixed with pf. That is that pf logs certain traffic (IGMP in particular) when it matches a rule that does not call for logging. This appears to be the same issue that was fixed earlier this year in pfsense, which is derived from an older fork of pf.

Al Seckel exposed

Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:14:00 +0000

"I believe that we are rapidly transitioning from an Age of Information to an Age of Misinformation, and in many cases, outright disinformation." -- Al Seckel, in an interview published on Jeffrey Epstein's website, "Jeffrey Epstein Talks Perception with Al Seckel"

Mark Oppenheimer's long-awaited exposé on Al Seckel, "The Illusionist," has now been published and I urge all skeptics to read it. Seckel, the former head of the Southern California Skeptics and a CSICOP Scientific and Technical Consultant who was listed as a "physicist" in every issue of the Skeptical Inquirer from vol. 11, no. 2 (Winter 1987-88) to vol. 15, no. 2 (Winter 1991) despite having no degree in physics, has long been known among skeptical insiders as a person who was misrepresenting himself and taking advantage of others. Most have remained silent over fear of litigation, which Seckel has engaged in successfully in the past.

An example of a legal threat from Seckel is this email he sent to me on May 27, 2014:

Dear Jim,

News has once again reached me that you are acting as Tom McIver's proxy in
spreading misinformation and disinformation about me. Please be aware that
I sued McIver in a Court of Law for Defamation and Slander, and after a
very lengthy discovery process, which involved showing that he fabricated
letters from my old professors (who provided notarized statements that they
did not ever state nor write the letters that McIver circulated, and the
various treasures who were in control of the financial books of the
skeptics, also came forth and testified that no money was taken, and McIver
was unable to prove any of his allegations. The presiding Judge stated that
this was the "worst case of slander and defamation" that he had ever seen.

Nevertheless, even with such a Court Order he is persisting, and using (and
I mean the term "using") you to further propagate erroneous misinformation.
Lately, he has been making his defamatory comments again various people,
and posting links to a news release article by the Courthouse News (a press
release service) that reports the allegations set forth in complaints. Just
because something is "alleged" does not mean it is True. It has to be
proven in a Court of Law. In this case, after a lengthy discovery process
(and I keep excellent records) the opposite of what was alleged was
discovered, and the opposing counsel "amicably" dismissed their charges
against me. The case was officially dismissed. In fact, the opposing
counsel has been active in trying to get the Courthouse News to actively
remove the entire article, and not just add a footnote at the end.

I note that you have been trying to add this link to my wikipedia page. I
have never met you, and am not interested in fighting with you. I am
attaching the official Court document that this case was filed for
dismissal by the opposing counsel. You can verify yourself that this is an
accurate document with the Court. So, once again, McIver has used you.
My attorneys are now preparing a Criminal Complaint against McIver for so
openly violating the Court Order (it is now a criminal offense), and will
once again open the floodgates of a slander and defamation lawsuit against
him and his family, and anyone else, who aids him willing in this process.
This time he will not have his insurance company cover his defense. This
time that axe will come down hard on him.

For now, I will just think you are victim, but please remove any and all
references to me on any of your websites, and that will be the end of it.
You don't want to be caught in the crossfire.

Yours sincerely,
Al Seckel
--
Al Seckel
Cognitive neuroscientist, author, speaker

Contrary to what Seckel writes, we have, in fact, met--I believe it was during the CSICOP conference, April 3-4, 1987, in Pasadena, California. I am not an agent of Tom McIver, the anthropologist, librarian, and author of the wonderful reference book cataloging anti-evolution materials, Anti-Evolution, who Seckel sued for defamation in 2007, in a case that was settled out of court (see Oppenheimer's article). I have never met Tom McIver, though I hope I will be able to do so someday--he seems to me to be a man of good character, integrity, and honesty.

The news release Seckel mentions is regarding a lawsuit filed by Ensign Consulting Ltd. in 2011 against Seckel charging him with fraud, which is summarized online on the Courthouse News Service website. I wrote a brief account of the case based on that news article on Seckel's Wikipedia page in an edit on March 13, 2011, but it was deleted by another editor in less than an hour. Seckel is correct that just because something is alleged does not mean that it is true; my summary was clear that these were accusations made in a legal filing.

Seckel and his wife, Isabel Maxwell (daughter of the deceased British-Czech media mogul, Robert Maxwell), rather than fighting the suit or showing up for depositions, filed for bankruptcy. Ensign filed a motion in their bankruptcy case on December 2, 2011, repeating the fraud allegations. But as Seckel notes, Ensign did dismiss their case in 2014 prior to his sending me the above email.

So why should anyone care? Who is Al Seckel, and what was he worried that I might be saying about him? This is mostly answered by the Oppenheimer article, but there is quite a bit more that could be said, and more than what I will say here to complement "The Illusionist."

Al Seckel was the founder and executive director of the Southern California Skeptics, a Los Angeles area skeptics group that met at Caltech. This was one of the earliest local skeptical groups, with a large membership and prominent scientists on its advisory board. Seckel has published numerous works including editing two collections of Bertrand Russell's writings for Prometheus Books (both reviewed negatively in the Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies, see here and here). He has given a TED talk on optical illusions and authored a book with the interesting title, Masters of Deception, which has a forward by Douglas R. Hofstadter. Seckel was an undergraduate at Cornell University, and developed an association with a couple of cognitive psychology labs at Caltech--in 1998 the New York Times referred to him as a "research associate at the Shimojo Psychophysics Laboratory." His author bios have described him as author of the monthly Neuroquest column at Discover magazine ("About the Author" on Masters of Deception; Seckel has never written that column), as "a physicist and molecular biologist" (first page of Seckel's contribution, "A New Age of Obfuscation and Manipulation" in Robert Basil, editor, Not Necessarily the New Age, 1988, Prometheus Books, pp. 386-395; Seckel is neither a physicist nor a molecular biologist), and, in his TED talk bio, as having left Caltech to continue his work "in spatial imagery with psychology researchers as Harvard" (see Oppenheimer's exchanges with Kosslyn, who has never met or spoken with him and Ganis, who says he has exchanged email with him but not worked with him).

At Cornell, Seckel associated with L. Pearce Williams, a professor of history of science, who had interesting things to say when McIver asked him about their relationship. While in at least one conference bio, Seckel is listed as having been Carl Sagan's teaching assistant, I do not believe that was the case. The Cornell registrar reported in 1991 in response to a query from Pat Linse that Seckel only attended for two semesters and a summer session, though a few places on the web list him as a Cornell alumnus.

Seckel used to hang out at Caltech with Richard Feynman. As the late Helen Tuck, Feyman's administrative assistant, wrote in 1991, Seckel "latched on to Feynman like a leach [sic]." Tuck wrote that she became suspicious of Seckel, and contacted Cornell to find that he did not have a degree from that institution. You can see her full letter, written in response to a query from Tom McIver, here.

As the head of the Southern California Skeptics, Seckel managed to get a column in the Los Angeles Times, titled "Skeptical Eye." Most of his columns were at least partially plagiarized from the work of others, including his column on Sunny the counting dalmation (plagiarized from Robert Sheaffer), his column on tabloid psychics' predictions for 1987 (also plagiarized from Sheaffer), and his column about Martin Reiser's tests of psychic detectives (plagiarized directly from Reiser's work). When Seckel plagiarized Sheaffer, it was brought to the attention of Kent Harker, editor of the Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet (BASIS), who contacted Seckel about it. Seckel apparently told Harker that Sheaffer had given his permission to allow publication of his work under Seckel's name, which Sheaffer denied when Harker asked. This led to Harker writing to Seckel in 1988 to tell him about Sheaffer's denial, and inform him that he, Seckel, was no longer welcome to reprint any material from BASIS in LASER, the Southern California Skeptics' newsletter. While most skeptical groups gave each other blanket permission to reprint each others' material with attribution, Harker explicitly retracted this permission for Seckel.

This is, I think, a good case study in how the problem of "affinity fraud"--being taken in by deception by a member of a group you self-identify with--can be possible for skeptics, scientists, and other educated people, just as it is for the more commonly publicized cases of affinity fraud within religious organizations.

This just scratches the surface of the Seckel story. I hope that those who have been fearful of litigation from Seckel will realize that, given the Oppenheimer story, now is an opportune time for multiple people to come forward and offer each other mutual support that was unhappily unavailable for Tom McIver eight years ago.

(BTW, one apparent error in the Oppenheimer piece--I am unaware of Richard Feynman lending his name for use by a skeptical group. He was never, for example, a CSICOP Fellow, though I'm sure they asked him just as they asked Murray Gell-Mann, who has been listed as a CSICOP Fellow since Skeptical Inquirer vol. 9, no. 3, Spring 1985.)

"Oh, like everyone else, I used to parrot, and on occasion, still do." -- Al Seckel (interview with Jeffrey Epstein)

Corrected 22 July 2015--original mistakenly said Maxwell was Australian.

Update 22 September 2015--an obituary has been published for Al Seckel, stating that he died in France on an unspecified date earlier this year, but there are as yet no online French death records nor French news stories reporting his death. The obituary largely mirrors content put up on alseckel.net, a domain that was registered on September 18 by a user using Perfect Privacy LLC (domaindiscreet.com) to hide their information. (That in itself is not suspicious, it is generally a good practice for individuals who own domain names to protect their privacy with such mechanisms and I do it myself.)

Update 24 September 2015: French police, via the U.S. consulate, confirmed the death of Al Seckel on July 1, 2015. His body was found at the bottom of a cliff in the village of Saint-Cirq-Lapopie.

Update 21 December 2015: A timeline of Al Seckel's activities may be found here.

Update 14 April 2022: Al Seckel's death has been declared a suicide.

Update 19 November 2025: Robert Sheaffer's recollections of Al Seckel including being plagiarized by him as noted above can be found here.

Geoff Coupe (2015-07-22):

Robert Maxwell, while deceased, was not Australian - he was born in Czechoslovakia and became British. I think you are confusing him with another R. M. - Rupert Murdoch

Books read in 2014

Thu, 01 Jan 2015 14:00:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here lately, but here's my annual list of books read for 2014:

James Altucher, The Choose Yourself Stories
Nate Anderson, The Internet Police: How Crime Went Online, and the Cops Followed
David V. Barrett, A Brief History of Secret Societies: An Unbiased History of Our Desire for Secret Knowledge
Peter Burke, A Social History of Knowledge, vol. 2, From the Encyclopedie to Wikipedia
Danielle Keats Citron, Hate Crimes in Cyberspace
Harry Collins, Are We All Scientific Experts Now?
Christopher Hitchens, Hitch 22
Christopher Hitchens, Mortality
Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer, Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers
Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs
Brian Krebs, Spam Nation: The Inside Story of Organized Cybercrime--From Global Epidemic to Your Front Door
Kembrew McLeod, Pranksters: Making Mischief in the Modern World
China Miéville, The City and the City
Roger Pielke, Jr., The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming
Michael Sacasas, The Tourist and the Pilgrim: Essays on Life and Technology in the Digital Age
Oliver Sacks, Uncle Tungsten: Memories of a Chemical Boyhood
James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed
Karen Stollznow, God Bless America: Strange and Unusual Religious Beliefs and Practices in the United States
Daniel Suarez, Daemon
Daniel Suarez, Freedom
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile
Sabrina Verney, XTUL: An Experience of The Process
Timothy Wyllie, Love Sex Fear Death: The Inside Story of the Process Church of the Final Judgment
Kim Zetter, Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World's First Digital Weapon

I made progress on a few other books (first five this year, next four from last year, last two still not finished from two years ago):

Gabriella Coleman, Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous
Peter Gutmann, Engineering Security
Andrew Jaquith, Security Metrics: Replacing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem
Steven Pinker, The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century
Richard Bejtlich, The Practice of Network Security Monitoring
Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers
James Grimmelmann, Internet Law: Cases & Problems (v2; v3 is out now)
Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander, Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking
Mark Dowd, John McDonald, and Justin Schuh, The Art of Software Security Assessment: Identifying and Avoiding Software Vulnerabilities
Michal Zalewski, The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications

Top ten for 2014: Sacks, Miéville, Isaacson, Hitchens (both), Wyllie, Zetter, Collins, Pielke Jr., Pigliucci and Boudry.

(Previously: 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Historical Comments

Hume's Ghost (2015-01-17):

This is the first time I can remember there being zero overlap with the books I've read in the year. I've always wanted to read Uncle Tungsten, though.

Summary of 1994 CSICOP conference

Wed, 15 Oct 2014 02:15:00 +0000

I just stumbled across an old Usenet post of mine which summarizes a small part of the CSICOP conference held in Seattle June 23-26, 1994 (PDF of conference program; PDF of conference announcement mailing) with Robert Sheaffer’s reply. I don’t recall if I wrote the further followups, and didn’t find any in a brief search. My 1992 Dallas CSICOP conference summary and a number of others may be found at the Index of Conference Summaries on this blog.

Spam email from Christine Jones for governor campaign

Fri, 25 Apr 2014 20:37:00 +0000

I received the following spam email today (a link on the email claims, falsely, that I opted in for it in October 2013) from the Christine Jones for governor campaign. Jones is a former GoDaddy executive who looks like a terrible candidate for governor of Arizona.

Dear James,

As a Republican candidate for Governor, I am frequently

asked where I stand on the issues important to our state-issues

ranging from immigration and education to economic development

and healthcare.

At a recent forum I was asked one of the single-most

important questions that a candidate for political office can

face. The question was, "Where does your moral compass come

from?"

At three years old, I climbed onto the Sunday School bus

that drove the neighborhood kids to the local evangelical church.

It was there that I learned about God and His Son, Jesus. Since

then, I have let my personal relationship with Him be my moral

compass.

One of my life phrases is, "Do the right thing because

it's the right thing to do." I am not interested in making

excuses or politicizing important issues. I am interested in

doing things based on conviction and personal belief. As

Governor, I can promise you that I will adhere to my moral

compass.

If you would like to hear more about my story and why I

am running for Governor, I invite you to join me Tuesday, April

29th, from 6:30-8:00pm at New Life Community Church of the

Nazarene in Show Low. I hope you can make it!

Best,

Jones for Governor, Inc · Primary

PO Box 13087

Phoenix, AZ 85002-3087, United States

Books read in 2013

Wed, 01 Jan 2014 17:06:00 +0000

Not much blogging going on here lately, but here's my annual list of books read for 2013:

Ross Anderson, Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems (2nd ed)
Deborah Blum, Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death
Peter Burke, A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot
J.C. Carleson, Work Like a Spy: Business Tips from a Former CIA Officer
Ronald J. Deibert, Black Code: Inside the Battle for Cyberspace
Daniel Dennett, Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking
Cory Doctorow, Homeland
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Complete Sherlock Holmes (re-read, thanks to free Kindle edition)
Roger Ebert, Life Itself: A Memoir
John Forester, Novelist & Storyteller: The Life of C.S. Forester, vol. 1 & vol. 2
Martin Gardner, Undiluted Hocus-Pocus: The Autobiography of Martin Gardner
Adam Gorightly, The Prankster and the Conspiracy: The Story of Kerry Thornley and How He Met Oswald and Inspired the Counterculture
Jason Healey, editor, A Fierce Domain: Conflict in Cyberspace, 1986 to 2012
Jenna Miscavige Hill: Beyond Belief: My Secret Life Inside Scientology and My Harrowing Escape
Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow
Gene Kim, Kevin Behr, and George Spafford, The Phoenix Project: A Novel About IT, DevOps, and Helping Your Business Win
Dani Kollin and Eytan Kollin, The Unincorporated Man
Jon Krakauer, Three Cups of Deceit: How Greg Mortenson, Humanitarian Hero, Lost His Way
Phil Lapsley, Exploding the Phone: The Untold Story of the Teenagers and Outlaws Who Hacked Ma Bell
Daniel Loxton and Donald R. Prothero, Abominable Science! Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids
David W. Maurer, The Big Con: The Story of the Confidence Men
Philip Metcalfe, Whispering Wires: The Tragic Tale of an American Bootlegger
Torin Monahan, editor, Surveillance and Security: Technological Politics and Power in Everyday Life
Dale K. Myers, With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit
Adam Penenberg, Virtually True
Lewis Pinault, Consulting Demons: Inside the Unscrupulous World of Corporate Consulting
Stephen Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
Ann Rowe Seaman, America's Most Hated Woman: The Life and Gruesome Death of Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Karl Sabbagh, Shooting Star: The Brief and Brilliant Life of Frank Ramsey
Oliver Sacks, Hallucinations
Jim Schnabel, Remote Viewers: The Secret History of America's Psychic Spies
Tom Standage, Writing on the Wall: Social Media, The First 2,000 Years
Will Storr, Heretics: Adventures with the Enemies of Science
John Sweeney, The Church of Fear: Inside the Weird World of Scientology
Jesse Walker, The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory
Lawrence Wright, Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, & the Prison of Belief

I made progress on a few other books (first three still not finished from last year):

Mark Dowd, John McDonald, and Justin Schuh, The Art of Software Security Assessment: Identifying and Avoiding Software Vulnerabilities
James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed
Michal Zalewski, The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications
Richard Bejtlich, The Practice of Network Security Monitoring
Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers
James Grimmelmann, Internet Law: Cases & Problems (v2; v3 is out now)
Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander, Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking

Top ten for 2013: Ebert, Kahneman, Wright, Anderson, Pinker, Seaman, Walker, Sacks, Deibert, Dennett. Runners Up: Blum, Kim, Miscavige Hill.

(Previously: 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Historical Comments

Hume's Ghost (2014-01-02):

The only books on your list I have read is The Church of Fear and the complete Sherlock Holmes - and I'm only half done with that collection.

There are several books on this list that I intend to read, however. Particularly Better Angels; Going Clear; and Thinking, Fast and Slow.

How to use Google Authenticator with OpenBSD, OpenSSH, and OpenVPN--and why you might not want to

Thu, 31 Oct 2013 00:44:00 +0000

I thought that Google Authenticator might be a quick and easy two-factor authentication solution for VPN access to my personal network, so I did some Google searches to see if that were so. I found quite a few sources describing how to set it up with systems that use Linux Pluggable Authentication Modules (PAM), but very little about using it with BSD Authentication on OpenBSD.

The most promising link I came across was to an implementation of Google Authentication for OpenBSD that was last updated in early 2013, based on Google’s PAM code, but I couldn’t get it to work. It compiled and installed, and the googleauth code for generating a secret (and a very insecure way of generating a QR code to use to import it into the Google Authenticator application) worked fine, but I couldn’t successfully use it for console login, OpenSSH login, or OpenVPN login.

I also found the standard OpenBSD port for openvpn_bsdauth, which compiled, installed, and worked successfully for password authentication by adding these lines to my OpenVPN configuration:

Matt Dillahunty and disbelief by default

Sat, 06 Apr 2013 00:08:00 +0000

In his recent talk at the American Atheist convention on skepticism and atheism, Matt Dillahunty states (at about five minutes in) that skepticism does tell us what to believe in the case of untestable claims–that the default position is disbelief.

But no, the default position has to be nonbelief, not disbelief. To disbelieve in a proposition is to believe in the negation of the proposition, to believe that the original proposition is false. And Dillahunty already said that (a) we should proportion our belief to the evidence and that (b) the proposition in question is untestable, meaning there is no evidence for or against it.

The position he describes is logically inconsistent.

We know that there are untestable propositions that are true. We shouldn’t believe that they are false simply because they are untestable. We should only believe they are false if we have good reasons to believe they are false; in the absence of that we should be agnostic.

(Added 5:36 p.m.: What are the implications for the above argument if it is the case that untestability does not entail lack of evidence or reasons? What about if we distinguish evidential from non-evidential reasons? And if we take the latter course, what does that say about proposition (a), above? Left as an exercise for commenters.)

Isaac Funk and the Widow's Mite

Sat, 09 Mar 2013 17:31:00 +0000

One of the more interesting and better documented cases of surprisingly accurate information from a spirit medium that is described in Deborah Blum's fascinating book, Ghost Hunters: William James and the Search for Scientific Proof of Life After Death (2006, Penguin Books), is the case of Isaac Funk and the Widow's Mite (pp. 260-262).

Funk, of Funk & Wagnall's Dictionary, had been visiting a medium in Brooklyn, New York in February 1903. About his third visit, he subsequently described the following (in Isaac K. Funk, The Widow's Mite and Other Psychic Phenomena (1904, Funk & Wagnalls), pp. 159-160, now in the public domain due to copyright expiration):

About eleven o'clock the control named "George," in his usual strong masculine voice, abruptly asked: "Has anyone here got anything that belonged to Mr. Beecher?" There was no reply. On his emphatic repetition of the question, I replied, being the only one present, as I felt sure, who had ever had any immediate acquaintance with Mr. Beecher: "I have in my pocket a letter from Rev. Dr. Hillis, Mr. Beecher's successor. Is that what you mean?"

The answer was: "No; I am told by a spirit present, John Rakestraw, that Mr. Beecher, who is not present, is concerned about an ancient coin, 'The Widow's Mite.' This coin is out of its place, and should be returned. It has long been away, and Mr. Beecher wishes it returned, and he looks to you, doctor, to return it."

I was considerably surprised, and asked: "What do you mean by saying that he looks to me to return it? I have no coin of Mr. Beecher's!"

"I don't know anything about it except that I am told that this coin is out of place, and has been for a number of years, and that Mr. Beecher says you can find it and return it."
I remembered then that when we were making "The Standard Dictionary," some nine years before, I had borrowed from a gentleman in Brooklyn--a close friend of Mr. Beecher's, who died several years ago--a valuable ancient coin known as "The Widow's Mite." He told me that this coin was worth hundreds of dollars, and, under promise that I would see that it was returned to the collection where it belonged, he would loan it to me. ...

I said to the control, "The only 'Widow's Mite' that has ever been in my charge was one that I borrowed some years ago from a gentleman in Brooklyn; this I promptly returned"; to which the control replied:

"This one has not been returned." And then, after a moment's silence, he said: "Do you know whether there is a large iron safe in Plymouth Church?"

I answered: "I do not."

He said: "I am impressed that this coin is in a large iron safe, that it has been lost sight of; it is in a drawer in this safe under a lot of papers, and that you can find it, and Mr. Beecher wishes you to find it."

I said: "Do you mean that this safe is in Plymouth Church?"

He said: "I don't know where it is. I am simply impressed that it is in a large iron safe in a drawer under a lot of papers, and has been lost sight of for years, and that you can find it, and Mr. Beecher wishes you to find it. That is all that I can tell you."

Funk goes on to inquire of his business manager, who insists that it was returned, and of Mr. Wagnalls and Wheeler, who knew nothing of the coin, but Wheeler, a skeptic, suggests that it's a good test. Funk asks a cashier, who remembers the coin, but also says that it had been returned, to investigate. After twenty minutes, the cashier returns with an envelope containing two "Widow's Mites," which was located in one of two safes (the large iron one), in a drawer under papers.

The two coins are a smaller light-colored one and a larger black one, and Funk recalls that the smaller one was used for the illustration in the dictionary and that it was the genuine article, while the other was a fake. He returns to the medium, and asks which coin is the right one. Contrary to his belief, the medium (as "George") says that it is the black one, and that the friend of Mr. Beecher's to whom it belongs is a man associated with a large ladies' school in Brooklyn Heights. Funk recalls that it was borrowed from Prof. Charles E. West, head of a ladies' school in Brooklyn Heights.

Funk sends both coins to the Philadelphia Mint for examination, and they determine that the medium is correct, the black one is the correct one, and the wrong one was used for the illustration in the dictionary.

Funk notes that the preface of the dictionary notes, regarding the illustrations, contains the description "The Widow's Mite (which was engraved from an excellent original coin in the possession of Prof. Charles E. West of Brooklyn, N.Y.)."

Funk's book provides a number of affidavits supporting the recounting of events, including that only two people present with the medium knew of Funk's connection to the coin (Funk and Irving Roney, the latter of whom provided an affidavit), that no one knew that the coin had not been returned, and that the cashier staff had no knowledge of the coin which was in the safe in their office.

The coin was returned to West's son, who also provides an affidavit stating that he was unaware that the coin had not been returned and assumed that it had been. Funk says he dined repeatedly with the elder West prior to his death, and the coin was never brought up.

Funk proceeds to list a series of facts about the case and some possible explanations (pp. 168ff), and finds difficulties with fraud, coincidence, telepathy and clairvoyance, and spirit communications as explanations, though he appears to favor the last of these.

Funk presented the case to a number of eminent scientists of the day, including William James, Alfred Russell Wallace, and William Crookes, of which those listed were all associated with the SPR or ASPR and each suggested spirits as a possible explanation. Many of the other scientists and philosophers, however, suggested fraud or deception (see table in Funk's book, pp. 177-178).

As presented in Blum's book, this case seems more impressive than it does with all of the details in Funk's account. What I find suspicious are that the medium is located in the same city as the person from whom the coin was borrowed, that the connection between the owner of the coin and the illustration was published in Funk's dictionary (omitted by Blum), and that although the son had forgotten about the coin being loaned out, he thought "it altogether likely that his father told at the time other members of his family, and possibly some persons outside the family" (Funk, p. 174). All that it would take for the fraud hypothesis would be that the medium had heard, second-hand, about the never-returned coin, and speculated that it had been forgotten and was kept in a safe (and perhaps offered a guess about which coin was genuine; that information has no clear source from the details recounted). Funk infers that because West never brought up the coin that he had forgotten about it, but that is an assumption on his part--perhaps West made periodic complaints about it not having been returned, but didn't mention it to his son. Funk suggests, based on class distinctions, that no one in the medium circle other than himself would have known that West even existed, which seems a highly questionable assumption.

The Decline (and Probable Fall) of the Scientology Empire

Thu, 07 Mar 2013 03:22:00 +0000

My talk from January 19, 2013 to the National Capitol Area Skeptics is now online!

Thanks very much to the NCAS for professionally recording and editing this video.

I’ve included some notes and comments below.

0:50 & 42:29 "Advanced Teachings" available at all Advanced Orgs are up to OT V. Advanced Orgs can deliver through OT V; OT VI & VII can only be obtained at the Flag Service Organization (FSO) in Clearwater, FL, and OT VIII can only be obtained on Scientology's cruise ship, the Freewinds. See: http://www.xenu.net/archive/ot/
8:01 German U-boat -- I should have said Japanese submarine
9:14 Photo is often claimed to be from 1968 but is really from 1959-60, so Cleve Backster probably wasn't the source of Hubbard's claim, as I originally said in the talk (also see my previous blog post on this topic).
10:53 Aleister Crowley is pronounced "crow-lee," not "craugh-lee" (I have apparently have not broken a bad habit of following Ozzy Osbourne's pronunciation).
13:59 the Fraser Mansion, though referred to by Scientology as the "founding church" from the 1970s to 2010, wasn't the original building. The original building, at 1812 19th St. NW, is now a museum called the L. Ron Hubbard House (though his house was across the street), which the church acquired in 2004. The Fraser Mansion is now Scientology's National Affairs Office.
14:11 The first use of the name "Church of Scientology" was by the Church of Scientology founded in Camden, N.J. in Dec. 1953; the first Church of Scientology corporation was in Los Angeles (Feb. 1954, which became the Church of Scientology of California in 1956), the Church of Scientology of Arizona was incorporated that same year. Hubbard's organization while he lived in Phoenix was the Hubbard Association of Scientologists, International (HASI), founded in Sep. 1952. All HASI assets were folded into the Church of Scientology of California in 1966.
31:07 "Division 20" should have been "Department 20."
32:43 "bad status" -- Scientology "conditions" are a scale, like the tone scale, that your "ethics" are in, which are positive or negative. For each condition there is a "conditions formula" you are supposed to apply to get to the next better condition. Those assigned to the RPF are put in a condition of "liability" (the rag on arm mentioned is a sign of the condition of liability). See: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-11.html
41:07 PIs following the Broekers--mainly Pat Broeker; after one apparent attempt to leave (described in Lawrence Wright's book, Going Clear), Annie Broeker remained in Scientology until her death. Tony Ortega describes the testimony of the two PIs, who spoke out for one day before their lawsuit with Scientology was settled: http://tonyortega.org/2012/11/29/scientologys-master-spies/
43:22 Lawrence Wright's book says that "Int Base" and "Gold Base" are two different bases at the same location; "Int" being the international headquarters and "Gold" named after Golden Era Studios.
1:05:35 "dog was drowned" -- Judge Swearinger's dog, Duke, a miniature collie, drowned, it's not certain that it "was drowned."
1:07:10 "unable to attend uncle's funeral" -- Hubbard died on January 24, 1986; the Challenger explosion was January 28, 1986.
1:17:43 St. Louis Ideal Org. The pictured Masonic Temple is not the St. Louis Ideal Org, which is still under construction. (Thanks to ThetanBait on YouTube for this correction.)
Narconon's drug purification program involves vitamin (esp. niacin) megadoses, but "injections" is not correct.

Historical Comments

Alan (2013-03-10):

Saw your last presentation in town, and was great seeing it again with the updates. I think you got better questions this time, too. Thanks for posting this.

– Alan

Books read in 2012

Tue, 01 Jan 2013 15:20:00 +0000

Books read in 2012:

Scott Atran, In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion
Andrew Blum, Tubes: A Journey to the Center of the Internet
Henry A. Crumpton, The Art of Intelligence: Lessons from a Life in the CIA's Clandestine Service
Robin Dreeke, It's Not All About "Me": The Top Ten Techniques for Building Quick Rapport with Anyone
David Edmonds and John Eidinow, Rousseau's Dog: Two Great Thinkers at War in the Age of Enlightenment
Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
Misha Glenny, DarkMarket: How Hackers Became the New Mafia
Grant Foster, Noise: Lies, Damned Lies, and Denial of Global Warming
Torkel Franzén, Gödel's Theorem: An Incomplete Guide to Its Use and Abuse
Andy Greenberg, This Machine Kills Secrets: How WikiLeakers, Cypherpunks, and Hacktivists Aim to Free the World's Information
James Hannam, God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science
Sam Harris, Lying
Joseph Heath, Economics Without Illusions: Debunking the Myths of Modern Capitalism
Edward Humes: Monkey Girl: Evolution, Education, Religion, and the Battle for America's Soul
Ronald Kessler, The Secrets of the FBI
Susan Landau, Surveillance or Security? The Risks Posed by New Wiretapping Technologies
Declan McHugh, Bloody London: A Shocking Guide to London's Gruesome Past and Present
Robert A. Melikian, Vanishing Phoenix
Mike McRae, Tribal Science: Brains, Beliefs, and Bad Ideas
P.T. Mistlberger, The Three Dangerous Magi: Osho, Gurdjieff, Crowley
Evgeny Morozov, The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom
Eduardo Obregón Pagán, Historic Photos of Phoenix
Parmy Olson, We Are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous, and the Global Cyber Insurgency
Bruce Schneier, Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive
Ali H. Soufan, with Daniel Freedman, The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against Al-Qaeda
Neal Stephenson, REAMDE
Cole Stryker, Epic Win for Anonymous: How 4chan's Army Conquered the Web
Tim Weiner: Enemies: A History of the FBI
Jon Winokur (compiler & editor), The Big Curmudgeon
Tim Wu, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires

I made substantial progress on a few large books:

Ross Anderson, Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems (2nd ed)
Mark Dowd, John McDonald, and Justin Schuh, The Art of Software Security Assessment: Identifying and Avoiding Software Vulnerabilities
Stephen Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed
Michal Zalewski, The Tangled Web: A Guide to Securing Modern Web Applications

(Previously: 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Misanthrope (2013-01-02):

Top 3?

Capitalist vs. socialist bombs

Sun, 23 Sep 2012 00:42:00 +0000

While reading Ross Anderson’s massive tome, Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Systems (second edition), I came across this paragraph in section 19.7 on “Directed Energy Weapons” (p. 584):

Western concern about EMP grew after the Soviet Union started a research program on non-nuclear EMP weapons in the mid-80s. At the time, the United States was deploying 'neutron bombs' in Europe--enhanced radiation weapons that could kill people without demolishing buildings. The Soviets portrayed this as a 'capitalist bomb' which would destroy people while leaving property intact, and responded by threatening a 'socialist bomb' to destroy property (in the form of electronics) while leaving the surrounding people intact.

This reminded me of a science fiction story I read in Omni magazine at about the time in question, which Google reveals was "Returning Home" by Ian Watson in the December 1982 issue. In the story, the Americans and the Soviets attacked each other, the Americans using neutron bombs which killed all of the Soviets, and the Soviets using some kind of bomb which destroyed essentially everything except the people. The ending twist was that the surviving Americans ended up migrating to the Soviet Union and adopting the Soviet culture.

Historical Comments

wakawakwaka (2012-11-20):

hey my skeptic friend can you take a look at the book written by johanna michaelsen who wrote the foreword to lauren stradford's satan underground? its really messed up...is their a way to investigate what really happened with her ?

The myth of fingerprints

Sat, 11 Aug 2012 02:26:00 +0000

I’ve been reading Ross Anderson’s epic tome, Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems (2nd edition, 2008, Wiley), and have just gotten into the chapter on biometrics (ch. 15). Section 15.5.2, on Crime Scene Forensics, points out three major criminal cases where fingerprint matches have been in error, including the Brandon Mayfield case which I wrote about at this blog back in 2007. Anderson points out that law enforcement agencies have claimed to juries “that forensic results are error-free when FBI proficiency exams have long had an error rate of about one percent, and misleading contextual information can push this up to ten percent or more” (pp. 470-471). It’s probability at work:

"In God We Teach" documentary

Sun, 27 May 2012 22:12:00 +0000

Now on YouTube, “In God We Teach," a documentary about Matt LaClair’s exposure of his U.S. History teacher’s proselytization in the public school classroom.

Historical Comments

Alan (2012-05-31):

Very well done documentary. Well worth the time to watch. Thanks for the link.

– Alan

Ed Darrell (2013-01-30):

Amazing to me that in 2011 that was still a controversy:

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/fisking-paszkiewicz-or-virtual-carnage-in-kearny-nj/#more-447

Document leak from the Heartland Institute

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 02:45:00 +0000

Documents leaked from the Heartland Institute reveal its funding sources (including Charles G. Koch and an unnamed single donor providing about 20% of their total revenue) and recipients of funding (including $5,000/mo to Fred Singer and a plan to raise $90,000 for blogger Anthony Watts in 2012).

The Heartland Institute is essentially the Tobacco Institute for climate change denial. See previous posts as this blog with the Heartland Institute tag.

UPDATE (February 18, 2012): It appears that one of the documents, the one with the most embarrassing statements, was a forgery–but the statements I’ve made above all appear to be confirmed.

UPDATE (February 21, 2012): Climate scientist Peter Gleick has confessed to being the leaker of the documents, but claims the apparently forged document was mailed to him anonymously and he scanned it in before distributing it with the others which he obtained by subterfuge after receiving the anonymous mailing. The oddities and errors in the forged document, however, strongly suggest Gleick himself forged the document after receiving the others.

Work-at-home scams

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:00:00 +0000

I was asked earlier today if I could give my opinion on whether the work-from-home opportunity advertised at the domain onlineprofitmasterssystem.com is a scam. A quick bit of research produced some interesting results, my conclusion is that it is almost definitely a scam, by people with a history of promoting scams.

First, the domain registration:

Registrant:
Phillip Gannuscia
1780 W. 9000 South
#315
West Jordan, Utah 84088
United States

Registered through: Go Daddy
Domain Name: ONLINEPROFITMASTERSSYSTEM.COM
Created on: 04-Nov-11
Expires on: 04-Nov-12
Last Updated on: 29-Nov-11

Administrative Contact:
Gannuscia, Phillip nate@essentmedia.com
1780 W. 9000 South
#315
West Jordan, Utah 84088
United States
(801) 803-5769 Fax –

The very domain and URL and web content of the page are already screaming red flags, and there are more to be found in the above data. It’s a recently registered domain, and the contact physical address appears to be a private mail drop service. Both the address and telephone number listed are associated with multiple other companies (e.g., BBB F-rated eVenture International, run by Richard Scott Nemrow, who was cited multiple times by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection in 2009) and domain names (e.g., makerichesfromhome.com, educationtrainingsonline.com, executivelearningonline.com, learningresourceontheweb.com, and lightlifemaster.com) which also look like scams,. This particular company, Online Profit Masters, has an F rating from the BBB. The named contact, Phillip Gannuscia, has an email address with someone else’s name, nate@essentmedia.com, apparently Essent VP Nathan L. Kozlowski, a former Mormon missionary. Does Gannuscia even exist, or is the name just an alias for Kozlowski? The company whose domain is used here for the contact email address, Essent Media LLC, another Richard Scott Nemrow company, has a corporate registration which expired in 2010.

I’d steer clear of any business with these guys. And if you come across this blog post because you’ve already been ripped off by them (like this guy reports), I suggest you file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center as well as contacting your local law enforcement agency.

Miscellanea

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:17:00 +0000

I recently had a few opportunities on a plane to catch up on some reading and podcasts. A few of the more interesting things I came across:

A bunch of interesting articles in The Economist for the past few weeks:

January 28-February 3, 2012:

"Saving Lives: Scattered Saviors" -- harnessing social media and mobile devices to deploy first aid faster than an ambulance can arrive (United Hatzalah in Israel believes it will be able to have first responders on the scene within 90 seconds).

"China's new tribes: Ant tribes and mortgage slaves" -- a new vocabulary in Mandarin describing emerging social groups in China. (Reminds me of Cory Doctorow's Eastern Standard Tribe.)

"Affinity fraud: Fleecing the flock" -- the rise in affinity fraud, especially religious affinity fraud, during the economic downturn, and why it works so effectively. (Also see my blog post from 2008 and another on the same topic from the Secular Outpost in 2006.) Briefly mentioned is the Baptist Foundation of Arizona affinity fraud, which victimized my step-grandfather by stealing most of his retirement savings.

"Visible-light communication: Tripping the light fantastic" -- an update on where we stand with Li-Fi (using LED lighting as a mechanism for data transmission).

February 4-10, 2012:

"Synaesthesia: Smells like Beethoven" -- A new study finds correlations between odors and sounds, even among people who are not synaesthetes.

"Scientific publishing: The price of information" -- On the boycott of Elsevier by scientists tired of excessive charges for journals, and the competition from arXiv and PLoS.

"Biomimetics: Not a scratch" -- lessons from the microstructure of scorpion armor for reducing wear rates on aircraft engines and helicopter rotors.

Podcasts:

Philosophy Bites interview with Alain de Botton on Atheism 2.0: de Botton, author of Religion for Atheists, argues that there are good and useful components of religion which can be secularized, and that it is as legitimate to borrow things we like from religion while discarding what we don't as it is to prefer different kinds of art and music. (Also see the Token Skeptic interview with de Botton and watch his TED talk.) I think his picture of religion, like that of Scott Atran (In Gods We Trust) and Pascal Boyer (Religion Explained) makes more sense than the way some atheists talk about it as though fundamentalist religion is the essence of religion, and should be discarded completely (which doesn't seem likely to happen as long as we live in social communities).

Rationally Speaking interview with Joseph Heath: Heath, author of Economics without Illusions: Debunking the Myths of Modern Capitalism (Canadian title: Filthy Lucre: Economics for People who Hate Capitalism, which the publishers decided wouldn't sell in the U.S.), talks about misunderstandings of economics on both the right and the left. (Also see this BloggingHeads TV interview of Heath by Will Wilkinson, who writes: "The section on right-wing fallacies is largely on the money and a great challenge for rote libertarians and conservatives. The section of left-wing fallacies is terrific, and it would be terrific if more folks on the left were anywhere near as economically literate as Heath.") Heath's "Rationally Speaking pick" also sounds fascinating, Janos Kornai's The Socialist System: The Political Economy of Communism, which explains the creative but ultimately futile ways that human beings tried to replace markets with planning and design.)

The Decline and (Probable) Fall of the Scientology Empire!

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:15:00 +0000

The title of this post is the title of my multi-book review article in the current issue of Skeptic magazine, which is primarily about last year’s Inside Scientology: The Story of America’s Most Secretive Religion by Janet Reitman and The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion by Hugh Urban. It’s a very long article for a book review in the magazine, running from pp. 18-27 with a couple of sidebars and a couple pages of footnotes. What I had in mind when I started writing it wasn’t what I ended up with–my envisioned article would probably be more like a book that tells the story of Scientology’s two wars with the Internet, which Reitman only devoted a few paragraphs to. (If that never happens, the best place to find the information in question is in the writings of Village Voice editor Tony Ortega, who has done more than anyone to cover those topics.) I also would have liked to have done a bit more analysis of Urban’s book, which I think is a bit wishy-washy in places in the name of academic objectivity, and makes a few promises at the beginning that it fails to deliver on as though it were rushed to completion. But I think it came out OK, and I recommend Reitman’s book as the best and most up-to-date single overview of Scientology and its history, and Urban’s for its coverage of Scientology’s battles with the IRS for religious tax exemption and its contribution to explaining what Hubbard was up to when he created Scientology. I think Hubbard died believing his own nonsense, because some Scientology doctrines literally became true for him–he was the one person in Scientology who really could dream things up and make them happen around him, through the efforts of his devotees.

I also hoped to devote a bit more space to what I allude to in my first footnote, referencing John Searle’s The Construction of Social Reality, pp. 90-93 and 117-119, about how institutions can quickly collapse when collective agreement about social facts is undermined, as seems to be happening at an accelerating pace within the Church of Scientology.

(All posts on Scientology at this blog–65 so far since 2005–can be found here. An overview of my involvement in Scientology’s battles with the Internet is in my 2006 “Scientology Sampler” post, which was updated with a 2009 post, “Scientology v. the Internet history lesson.")

UPDATE (26 January 2012): Tony Ortega, editor-in-chief at the Village Voice and prolific investigative journalist on the subject of Scientology, says very nice things about my article and Michael Shermer’s associated article in Skeptic at his “Runnin’ Scared” blog, where there are lots of comments.

This issue of Skeptic should be available in all Barnes & Noble stores beginning around the first of February.

Books Read in 2011

Sat, 31 Dec 2011 03:00:00 +0000

I picked up the pace a bit in 2011, with a little help from acquiring a Kindle in July...

Books read in 2011:

David Allen, Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity
Dan Ariely, The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic
Kevin Behr, Gene Kim, and George Spafford, The Visible Ops Handbook: Implementing ITIL in 4 Practical and Auditable Steps
John W. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Third Edition
Gordon R. Dickson, The Alien Way
Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Inside Wikileaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World's Most Dangerous Website
John Duignan with Nicola Tallant, The Complex: An Insider Exposes the Covert World of the Church of Scientology
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong, Updated Edition
Floyd J. Fowler, Jr., Survey Research Methods, 4th Edition
Benjamin Franklin, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
Jefferson Hawkins, Counterfeit Dreams: One Man's Journey into and out of the World of Scientology
Alan Haworth, Anti-Libertarianism: Markets, Philosophy and Myth
Marc Headley, Blown for Good: Behind Scientology's Iron Curtain
Gene Kim, Paul Love, and George Spafford, Visible Ops Security: Achieving Common Security and IT Operations in 4 Practical Steps
Jon Krakauer, Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith
Peter D. Kramer, Should You Leave?
Lawrence M. Krauss, Quantum Man: Richard Feynman's Life in Science
Patrick Lencioni, The Three Signs of a Miserable Job: A Fable for Managers (and their employees)
Stephen L. Macknik and Susana Martinez-Conde, Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals About Our Everyday Deceptions
Nancy Many, My Billion Year Contract: Memoir of a Former Scientologist
Robert McLuhan, Randi's Prize: What Sceptics Say About the Paranormal, Why They Are Wrong and Why It Matters
Ben Mezrich, The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook: A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal
Delbert C. Miller and Neil J. Salkind, Handbook of Research Design & Social Measurement, 6th Edition
Kevin Mitnick with William L. Simon, Ghost in the Wires: My Adventures as the World's Most Wanted Hacker
Harry Markopolos, No One Would Listen: A True Financial Thriller
Milton L. Mueller, Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance
Ronald L. Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion
Judith Pintar and Steven Jay Lynn, Hypnosis: A Brief History
Kevin Poulsen, Kingpin: How One Hacker Took Over the Billion-Dollar Cybercrime Underground
Janet Reitman, Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion
Mary Roach, Packing for Mars: The Curious Science of Life in the Void
Jon Ronson, The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry
Benjamin Rosenbaum and Cory Doctorow, True Names
Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
David Schmidtz and Robert E. Goodin, Social Welfare and Individual Responsibility: For and Against
Amy Scobee, Scientology: Abuse at the Top
Robert Sellers, Hellraisers: The Life and Inebriated Times of Richard Burton, Richard Harris, Peter O'Toole, and Oliver Reed
Tom Standage, The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century's On-Line Pioneers
John Steinbeck, Travels with Charley in Search of America
Jim Steinmeyer, The Last Greatest Magician in the World: Howard Thurston versus Houdini & the Battles of the American Wizards
Donald Sturrock, Storyteller: The Authorized Biography of Roald Dahl
Nassim Nicolas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (Second Edition)
Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Hugh B. Urban, The Church of Scientology: A History of a New Religion

(Previously: 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Hume's Ghost (2012-01-01):

Of those I've only read Huck Finn, Under the Banner of Heaven, and Demon Haunted World.

Time and Newsweek magazine covers, U.S. vs. rest of world

Sat, 26 Nov 2011 16:49:00 +0000

This recent comparison has been making the rounds:

As have a few other recent examples:

But this has gone on for many years. A few others from a few years back:

I suspect the weekly news magazines are simply basing their cover decisions on what sells in the U.S. Sad.

Historical Comments

Michael C. Rush (2011-11-27):

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Skeptics and Bayesian epistemology

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 14:35:00 +0000

A few prominent skeptics have been arguing that science and medicine should rely upon Bayesian epistemology. Massimo Pigliucci, in his book Nonsense on Stilts, on the Rationally Speaking podcast, and in his column in the Skeptical Inquirer, has suggested that scientists should best proceed with a Bayesian approach to updating their beliefs. Steven Novella and Kimball Atwood at the Science-Based Medicine blog (and at the Science-Based Medicine workshops at The Amazing Meeting) have similarly argued that what distinguishes Science-Based Medicine from Evidence-Based Medicine is the use of a Bayesian approach in accounting for the prior plausibility of theories is superior to simply relying upon the outcomes of randomized controlled trials to determine what’s a reasonable medical treatment. And, in the atheist community, Richard Carrier has argued for a Bayesian approach to history, and in particular for assessing claims of Christianity (though in the linked-to case, this turned out to be problematic and error-ridden).

It’s worth observing that Bayesian epistemology has some serious unresolved problems, including among them the problem of prior probabilities and the problem of considering new evidence to have a probability of 1 [in simple conditionalization]. The former problem is that the prior assessment of the probability of a hypothesis plays a huge factor in the outcome of whether a hypothesis is accepted, and whether that prior probability is based on subjective probability, “gut feel,” old evidence, or arbitrarily selected to be 0.5 can produce different outcomes and doesn’t necessarily lead to concurrence even over a large amount of agreement on evidence. So, for example, Stephen Unwin has argued using Bayes’ theorem for the existence of God (starting with a prior probability of 0.5), and there was a lengthy debate between William Jefferys and York Dobyns in the Journal of Scientific Exploration about what the Bayesian approach yields regarding the reality of psi which didn’t yield agreement. The latter problem, of new evidence, is that a Bayesian approach considers new evidence to have a probability of 1, but evidence can itself be uncertain.

And there are other problems as well–a Bayesian approach to epistemology seems to give special privilege to classical logic, not properly account for old evidence [(or its reduction in probability due to new evidence)] or the introduction of new theories, and not be a proper standard for judgment of rational belief change of human beings for the same reason on-the-spot act utilitarian calculations aren’t a proper standard for human moral decision making–it’s not a method that is practically psychologically realizable.

The Bayesian approach has certainly been historically useful, as Desiree Schell’s interview with Sharon Bertsch McGrane, author of The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes’ Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, and Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy, demonstrates. But before concluding that Bayesianism is the objective rational way for individuals or groups to determine what’s true, it’s worth taking a look at the problems philosophers have pointed out for making it the central thesis of epistemology. (Also see John L. Pollock and Joseph Cruz, Contemporary Theories of Knowledge, 2nd edition, Rowman & Littlefield, 1999, which includes a critique of Bayesian epistemology.)

UPDATE (August 6, 2013): Just came across this paper by Brandon Fitelson (PDF) defending Bayesian epistemology against some of Pollock’s critiques (in Pollock’s Nomic Probability book, which I’ve read, and in his later Thinking About Acting, which I’ve not read). A critique of how Bayesianism (and not really Bayesian epistemology in the sense defended by Fitelson) is being used by skeptics is here.

Rarely-used cliche on the Token Skeptic podcast

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:56:00 +0000

My favorite part of the Token Skeptic podcast #76’s interview with Sara Mayhew and Jack Scanlan is 28:30-28:42, where Scanlan says “everyone hates pop songs.” That’s a self-annihilating sentence along the lines of “No one goes there anymore; it’s too crowded."

That reminds me of Saul Gorn’s compendium, “Self-Annihilating Sentences: Saul Gorn’s Compendium of Rarely Used Cliches," which I have in the original hardcopy but is now available online for everyone’s enjoyment.

The origins of Screaming Trees?

Sat, 03 Sep 2011 15:47:00 +0000

Here’s a famous photograph of pulp fiction author and Scientology creator L. Ron Hubbard holding a tomato plant connected to an E-Meter. Hubbard claimed in 1968 that tomatoes would “scream when sliced," as detected by the E-Meter. [UPDATE: The photo appeared in “30 Dumb Inventions” on Life magazine’s website, attributed to the Evening Standard of January 1, 1968, but the claims and the photo appear to be from 1959, see below.]

Scott Atran on violent extremism and sacred values

Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:32:00 +0000

Chris Mooney has a very interesting interview with anthropologist Scott Atran on the Point of Inquiry podcast, in which Atran argues that terrorism is not the product of top-down, radical religious extremist organizations recruiting the poor and ignorant, but of groups of educated (and often educated in secular institutions) individuals who become disaffected, isolated, and radicalized. Much U.S. counterterrorism and “homeland security” activity assumes the former and thus is attacking the wrong problem.

He also argues that reason and rationalism are the wrong tools for attacking religion, defends a view of religion as a natural by-product of the sorts of minds we’ve evolved to have (very similar to Pascal Boyer’s account, which I think is largely correct), and throws in a few digs at the new atheists for making claims about religion that are contrary to empirical evidence.

Some of the commenters at the Point of Inquiry/Center for Inquiry forums site seem to be under the misapprehension that Atran is a post-modernist. I don’t see it–he’s not making the argument that reason doesn’t work to find out things about the world, he’s making the argument that the tools of science and reason are human constructions that work well at finding things out about the world, but not so much for persuading people of things, or as the basis for long-term institutions for the sort of creatures we are. Atran shows up in the comments to elaborate on his positions and respond to criticism.

My compliments to Chris Mooney for having consistently high-quality, interesting guests who are not the same voices we always hear at skeptical conferences.

Obama conspiracy theories debunked

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:21:00 +0000

Yesterday I received an email that contained yet another argument that Obama’s birth certificate (the PDF’d scan of the “long form” certificate) was a fake, based on erroneous claims about the name of Kenya in 1961 and the name of the hospital which were already debunked at Snopes.com four months ago. But this prompted me to see if there were any more advocates of wild claims about the birth certificate, and I came across Douglas Vogt’s alleged analysis of the birth certificate and, more importantly, a very well-done, detailed debunking of that analysis by Kevin Davidson (known on his blog as “Dr. Conspiracy”), who has done a great job of responding to numerous Obama conspiracy claims.

Check out his “The Debunker’s Guide to Obama Conspiracy Theories."

Vogt, the author of the analysis which Dr. Conspiracy debunks, is also an example of “crank magnetism”–he is the author of Reality Revealed: The Theory of Multidimensional Reality, a 1978 book which looks like a classic work of crackpottery. Vogt bills himself as a “geologist and science philosopher” who:

Counterfeit Dreams

Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:25:00 +0000

Jeff Hawkins was a Scientologist and member of the Sea Org from 1967 to 2005. He was responsible for 1980s marketing campaigns that brought L. Ron Hubbard’s book Dianetics back to the New York Times bestseller lists. Beginning in 2008, he wrote a book-length series of blog posts about his experiences which has led to many further defections from the Church of Scientology. The blog posts have been edited into a hardback book, one of several by long-time high-ranking recent defectors (others include Nancy Many’s My Billion-Year Contract, Marc Headley’s Blown For Good, and Amy Scobee’s Abuse at the Top).

I’ve read the first few chapters at his blog–it’s quite well-written and the comments from others who have shared some of his experiences are fascinating.

Bowlarama Fundraising Time!

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:23:00 +0000

I have just a few more weeks (until July 31st) to reach my fundraising goal. Please donate any amount you can - just as RESCUE saves one life at a time, we reach our goal one dollar at a time. If you are unable to make a donation, please reach out to another animal loving friend, family member or co-worker and ask them to support our efforts.

Just this morning Maricopa County Animal Care & Control announced that:

Desert Air podcast

Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:05:00 +0000

A group of Tucson atheists and skeptics have started the Desert Air podcast, available via iTunes. Three episodes available so far.

Anonymous (2011-07-12):

I know it's unrelated, but I just wanted to compliment you as a great source of atheist resources. It's not easy finding any- the internet is dominated by apologists and theologians. It's easy to accidently run into sites. like, say, this one:

http://akma.disseminary.org/?s=theology

Skeptics and "backward masking"

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:50:00 +0000

Below these two videos is a post I made (perhaps to the Kate Bush fans’ “love-hounds” mailing list, I don’t recall) back in 1986 regarding a 1985 Christian “rock music seminar” about alleged Satanic backwards messages in rock music. I was familiar with the claims of supposed “backwards masking” where the sounds of ordinary lyrics were interpreted to have different messages when reversed, as well as actual examples of recordings that were put into songs in reverse. The former seemed to me to be examples of subjective validation, and I tested it myself by closing my eyes and covering my ears when the presenter gave their claims about what we were supposed to hear prior to playing the samples. Subsequently, this became one of the first tests the Phoenix Skeptics conducted as a student group at Arizona State University in October 1985. We invited the speaker to give his demonstrations before our group, but required him to play the samples first without explanation and have everyone write down what they heard. The result was that on the first pass, those unfamiliar with the samples had a wide variety of responses; on a second pass, once the expectation was set, everybody heard what they were supposed to hear.

It’s interesting that this demonstration, the key example of which was a sample from Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven,” made a comeback two decades later–being used by skeptics to show the power of suggestion and expectation, as these two videos from Simon Singh and Michael Shermer demonstrate.

Simon Singh, 2006:

TSA security loophole exploited

Sun, 03 Jul 2011 18:44:00 +0000

As this blog has reported on multiple prior occasions (in 2006, 2008, and 2009, at the very least), the fact that U.S. airport security separates the checking of the boarding pass by TSA from the use of a boarding pass to check in to board makes it easy to get through security with a boarding pass that matches your ID while flying under a boarding pass on a ticket purchased in a different name.

Now, as The Economist (July 2, 2011) reports, Olajide Oluwaseun Noibi, a 24-year-old Nigerian American, has been arrested after successfully doing something along these lines to fly around the country, apparently on multiple occasions. Only Noibi wasn’t even using boarding passes valid for the flights he was on–he was caught with a boarding pass in another person’s name for a flight from a day prior. And he wasn’t caught because the boarding pass was detected at check-in–he had already successfully boarded the flight and was seated. He was only caught because of his extreme body odor and a fellow passenger complained, which led to his boarding pass being checked and found to be invalid.

Cory Maye to be released from prison

Sun, 03 Jul 2011 00:17:00 +0000

As a result of the investigative reporting of Radley Balko, Cory Maye is about to be released from prison after ten years of incarceration and seven years after being sentenced to death on the basis of a terrible defense and kooky testimony from a now discredited and removed medical examiner. Maye shot and killed a police officer during a no-knock drug raid against a duplex property in which Maye resided, on the basis of a report of unusual traffic at the other unit of the duplex by an unreliable informant. Maye was defending his daughter from an unknown intruder kicking his door in.

Through the efforts of Balko and a legal team from Covington & Burling, Maye was removed from death row in 2006.

5-4 bad decision against Arizona Clean Elections law

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 15:25:00 +0000

The decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett came out today (PDF), a 5-4 decision ruling Arizona’s Clean Election laws unconstitutional. The dissent, it seems to me, has a much better case than the majority:

the program does not discriminate against any candidate or point of view, and it does not restrict any person's ability to speak. In fact, by providing resources to many candidates, the program creates more speech and thereby broadens public debate. ...
At every turn, the majority tries to convey the impression that Arizona's matching fund statute is of a piece with laws prohibiting electoral speech. The majority invokes the language of "limits," "bar[s]," and "restraints." ... It equates the law to a "restrictio[n] on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign." ...

There is just one problem. Arizona's matching funds provision does not restrict, but instead subsidizes, speech. The law "impose[s] no ceiling on [speech] and do[es] not prevent anyone from speaking." ... The statute does not tell candidates or their supporters how much money they can spend to convey their message, when they can spend it, or what they can spend it on. ...

In the usual First Amendment subsidy case, a person complains that the government declined to finance his speech, while financing someone else's; we must then decide whether the government differentiated between these speakers on a prohibited basis--because it preferred one speaker's ideas to another's. ... But the speakers bringing this case do not make that claim--because they were never denied a subsidy. ... Petitioners have refused that assistance. So they are making a novel argument: that Arizona violated their First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though they could have received (but chose to spurn) the same financial assistance. Some people might call that chutzpah.

Indeed, what petitioners demand is essentially a right to quash others' speech through the prohibition of a (universally available) subsidy program. Petitioners are able to convey their ideas without public financing--and they would prefer the field to themselves, so that they can speak free from response. To attain that goal, they ask this court to prevent Arizona from funding electoral speech--even though that assistance is offered to every state candidate, on the same (entirely unobjectionable) basis. And this court gladly obliges.

(See my previous argument against the Institute for Justice's position on this, with some subsequent clarifications on other aspects of the law.)

The majority position on this issue is that the unconstitutionality arises from the way that the subsidy to clean elections candidates is tied to campaign spending by the non-clean-elections candidates; I take it that had the subsidy been a fixed amount the argument would not have worked at all.

There's a good overview of the issues at the SCOTUS blog.

Arizona Department of Public Service's security breach

Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:27:00 +0000

LulzSec breached the security of the Arizona Department of Public Service (DPS) at some point in the past, and on June 23 around 4 p.m. Arizona time, posted some or all of what they had acquired. This included the names, email addresses, and passwords of several DPS officers as well as a number of internal documents which appeared to have been obtained from email attachments or perhaps from the compromise of end user systems. The documents included a PowerPoint presentation on gang tattoos that purported to be a way of identifying Islamic radicals, which was reminiscent of similar ludicrous law enforcement presentations from the 1980s about identifying Satanic cult members by their black clothing and occult symbols. (Some police departments still promote such nonsense, citing exposed fraud “Lauren Stratford” as a source). The documents also included a bulletin which expresses concern about the “Cop Recorder” iPhone application.

On June 24, DPS posted a press release responding to the attacks, accusing LulSec of being a “cyber terrorist group”–a term better reserved for the use of criminally disruptive activities intended to cause physical harm or disruption of critical infrastructure, not embarrassing organizations that haven’t properly secured themselves. In the press release, DPS enumerates the steps they’ve taken to secure themselves and the safeguards they’ve put in place. It’s an embarrassing list which suggests they’ve had poor information security and continue to have poor information security.

First, their press release has a paragraph suggesting that the damage is limited, before they’re probably had time to really determine that’s the case. They write:

There is no evidence the attack has breached the servers or computer systems of DPS, nor the larger state network. Likewise, there is no evidence that DPS records related to ongoing investigations or other sensitive matters have been compromised.

Just because they have “no evidence” of something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen–what records did they review to make this determination? Were they doing appropriate logging? Have logs been preserved, or were they deleted in the breach? Do they have centralized logging that is still secure? When did the compromise take place, and when did DPS detect it? The appearance is that they didn’t detect the breach until it was exposed by the perpetrators. What was the nature of the vulnerability exploited, and why wasn’t it detected by DPS in a penetration test or vulnerability assessment? LulzSec has complained about the number of SQL injection vulnerabilities they’ve found–was there one in DPS’s web mail application?

Next, they report what they’ve done in response, and again make statements about how “limited” the breach was:

Upon learning that a limited number of agency e-mails had been disclosed, DPS took action. In addition to contacting other law enforcement agencies, the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center (ACTIC) has been activated. Remote e-mail access for DPS employees remains frozen for the time-being. The security of the seven DPS officers in question remains the agency’s top priority and, since a limited amount of personal information was publicly disclosed as part of this breach. Steps are being taken to ensure the officers’ safety and that of their families.

They’ve disabled the e-mail access that they believe was used in the breach–that’s good. Presumably the exposed officer passwords were discovered to be from this system. Perhaps they will not re-enable the system until they have a more secure mechanism that requires VPN access and two-factor authentication–or at least intrusion prevention, a web application firewall, and effective security monitoring. They’ve notified ACTIC–presumably in part because of their overblown claim that this breach constitutes “terrorism” and in part because there are some ACTIC personnel who have good knowledge of information security. And they’re doing something to protect the safety of officers whose personal information (including some home addresses) was exposed.

In the final paragraph of the press release, they list some of the safeguards they have in place:

Help Talk Origins bid for "Expelled"?

Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:26:00 +0000

The assets of Premise Media, including rights to “Expelled,” are going up for auction. The Talk Origins Foundation plans to bid for the film, which includes production materials. Their stated plan seems to be just to determine what interesting information might be in the production materials or raw footage and make that known, not, as I’ve suggested, make an “MST3K”-style version, or a version that points out and corrects the errors.

UPDATE (June 28, 2011): The winning bid for “Expelled” was $201,000. My guess is that the film would only be worth that much to somebody who plans to promote it as-is without any significant re-editing, and thinks they can extract at least that much value out of it–perhaps via charitable deduction by giving it to a creationist organization. There was a bidding war at the end between two bidders that drove the price up this morning from $43,000 (last night’s high bid) to $201,000, which caused the bid to be extended 10 minutes beyond it’s scheduled end time in one or two minute extension increments. It was at $122,000 at the original auction end time, so that last $79,000 increase occurred in the last 10 minutes.

Expelled up for auction

Mon, 06 Jun 2011 19:26:00 +0000

Premise Media Holdings LP is in bankruptcy, and its assets are going up for auction online between June 23 and 28. Those assets include the film “Expelled." Perhaps a few of us should get together and buy it, and reissue it in a “Mystery Science Theatre 3000” format?

UPDATE: As Damian Howard and Bob Vogel pointed out on Facebook, this adds financial bankruptcy to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the film.

Challenge for Harold Camping followers

Sun, 15 May 2011 19:20:00 +0000

On May 22, 2011, we will either see that many Christians have disappeared and we've been left behind, or that the claims of billboards like this are completely false. If any individual or group of Camping followers have a strong belief that the former is the case, I challenge you to sign an agreement to transfer to me $100,000, effective May 22, 2011, in return for one of two things. In the case that you have, in fact, been raptured, I promise to use those funds to evangelize in support of your beliefs to try to save as many of those left behind as possible. In the far more likely case that you remain behind, I promise not to engage in public ridicule and humiliation of your nonsense for a year. So it's a win-win. Any takers?

UPDATE (May 20, 2011): Via Tom McIver: "Camping has a very idiosyncratic scheme: basically amillennial, and a hybrid of his own Bible numerology and a variant of the World Week (world lasts 6,000 yrs after Creation) framework. Camping puts Creation at 11,013 BC, Flood at 6,000 + 23 yrs later at 4,990 BC, Christ's birth 7 BC, and end of Church Age / beginning of Tribulation 13,000 yrs after Creation. 7,000 yrs after Flood (13,000 + 23 yrs after Creation) is 2011. 1988--13,000 yrs after Creation--was beginning of Tribulation (and also the year Camping left the established church, deciding it was heretical and that all churches had been taken over by Antichrist). 2011 is 23 yrs after 1988 (previously, Camping had predicted a shorter Tribulation ending in 1994). May 21 is Rapture and Judgment Day, world is destroyed Oct 21." And: "Camping also made much of 1948 (founding of Israel), with next Jubilee supposedly 1994. He has much more numerology as well. Interestingly, he doesn't focus on political leaders or natural disasters (although I think the news reports of catastrophes and wars has increased his following)."

Eamon Knight (2011-05-15):

Predictions (which I guarantee you have more chance of coming true than Camping's):

No one will take you up on your offer.
Come next Sunday, there will be dead silence from the Camping, um, camp. Few or none will say "Oops, we were wrong; sorry" – same as they did in 1994.

My lousy Android experience

Sat, 14 May 2011 21:48:00 +0000

I’ve been a holdout on upgrading to a smart phone, in part because I haven’t paid over $100 for a mobile phone since they were the size of a brick. But after finding that I could get a Droid 2 Global on Verizon for $20 via Amazon Wireless a couple of months ago, I made the leap.

My initial experience was negative–Amazon sent me a phone with instructions to go to Verizon’s web site to activate. Verizon’s website wanted me to enter a code from a Verizon invoice. No such invoice was included, and none of the numbers from the Amazon invoice worked. So I had to talk get through to a human being, at which point activation was fairly simple. But one more hurdle arose when I had to login to a Google account, which was an obstacle of my own creation–I use very long randomly generated passwords with special characters, and have independent Google accounts for different services, so I had to choose which one to use with the phone before I knew what all the implications would be. (I chose my GMail account, which has worked out OK.)

I wanted to set the phone up to use my own email servers, and to connect over VPN to gain access. This proved to be an obstacle that took a few days to resolve, due to inadequacies and bugs in Droid applications. The default VPN client doesn’t support OpenVPN, so I had to gain root access to install an OpenVPN client. This turned out to be the only reason I needed root access on the phone, and I managed to get that working without much difficulty.

The Email application, however, refused to send outbound mail through my mail server, which allows outbound port 25 client connections from internal hosts with no authentication but requiring TLS. This combination simply doesn’t work–I ended up setting up port 587 (submission port) with username/password authentication via Dovecot. Though I would have preferred using client certificate authentication, I couldn’t get it to work. I still run into periodic problems with Email refusing to send outbound messages for no apparent reason–and the server shows no attempts being made. There doesn’t seem to be a way to select an individual message in the outbox for an attempt to re-send.

I managed to get contact and calendar synchronization working with my Mac, but I ended up exporting my iCal calendars to Google Calendar and using them as my primary calendars. Most of the correlation of contacts in the phone from multiple sources (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, and my Address Book) worked fairly well, but some contacts are duplicated due to name variations. Synchronization with LinkedIn is somewhat buggy, with first and last names showing up in contacts as “null null." The Calendar app is even more buggy–I’ve created events on the phone that disappear, I’ve seen error messages in Portuguese and events with names that appear to be leftover debugging messages. I was also surprised to see that spelling correction was performed, without any prompts, on events I imported into the Calendar app from GMail (it incorrectly turned an acronym, “JAD,” into the word “HAD”).

I’ve received an SMS text message from one person which was identified as being from another person–looking at the specific contact information showed that the telephone number of the sender was associated with the correct contact, yet the name and photo displayed on the phone was of a different contact that had no association with that telephone number.

The phone’s camera capability is pretty good, but when I connect the phone to my Mac, it launches iPhoto but doesn’t find any photographs. I have to import them manually by pointing iPhoto to the correct location on the SD card.

I’ve seen the phone crash repeatedly, especially when using location services (Google Navigation, Maps, and Yelp have been repeat offenders). There also seems to be some caching of location information that gets out of sync with other location information. For example, I saw Yelp correctly show me nearby restaurants, but refuse to allow me to check in to the one I was sitting in because I was “too far away”–and Maps showed my location being somewhere else I had been earlier. In one case, thousands of miles away–an attempted Yelp check-in after returning from a vacation in Hawaii showed my location on the map as still being in Hawaii. In at least one case, I was unable to get my location to update for Yelp until I rebooted the phone.

I’ve had issues doing things as simple as copying and pasting a URL from Firefox to Facebook or Twitter. I copy the URL, verify that it’s in the clipboard correctly, but when I go into Facebook or Twitter to paste it, it is truncated.

The number of bugs I run into seems awfully high for very basic applications. The problem is no doubt in part due to the way development occurs between Google, Motorola, and Verizon, and Linux development, which also seems to be an obstacle to fixing security vulnerabilities. The May 2011 issue of CSO magazine reports that Coverity has done two scans of Android source code for the HTC Incredible, finding 359 defects (88 critical) on the first scan last November and 149 defects (106 unfixed from the previous scan) on a more recent scan. Accountability for the code is distributed across the aforementioned groups. (Also see this CNet story, or the Coverity report itself.)

I wonder if I would run into problems like this with an iPhone.

UPDATE (May 19, 2011): And now there’s a security vulnerability identified in version 2.3.3 of Android and earlier (I’m on 2.2, and can’t update until Verizon pushes an update), which potentially exposes contacts, calendar events, pictures, and other items stored in Google-hosted services, if users access those services via unencrypted WiFi. Although the connections to those services are over SSL-encrypted HTTP, there is a returned authToken that can be intercepted and used for subsequent logins to those services. I’ve never used my Droid on unencrypted WiFi networks, but I’ll now take extra care to make sure that I don’t. Version 2.3.4 fixes the problem for contacts and calendars but not for Picasa photos.

UPDATE (November 16, 2011): It’s still been a horrible experience, and I still see regular crashes, particularly when using map and location-related applications. A new discovery today while traveling is that the World Clock widget does not know when Daylight Saving Time occurs–the option labeled “Daylight Savings[sic] Time: Adjust displayed time for Daylight Savings” appears to just set the clock forward one hour, not display the correct current time taking into account the date and whether Daylight Saving Time is in effect in the given location. I traveled to the east coast and saw that my World Clock widget time for New York was one hour ahead of the actual time in New York. It’s utterly ridiculous that this widget requires the user to check and uncheck this option manually when Daylight Saving Time is in effect or not–that’s exactly sort of simple task that computers are equipped to do on our behalf.

Chris Rodda's Liars for Jesus available free online

Sun, 08 May 2011 14:05:00 +0000

After witnessing the despicable pseudo-historian David Barton on “The Daily Show,” inadequately rebutted by Jon Stewart, author Chris Rodda decided to take action. She’s giving away her book, Liars for Jesus, which carefully documents the historical revisionism of Barton and others, online as a PDF.

You can download Rodda’s book here. You can also purchase a paper or Kindle copy of the book from Amazon.com.

Rodda depends on income from her book, but felt it was important enough to give it away. I suspect she’ll see an increase in sales along with the free distribution.

UPDATE:
Rodda’s book seems to be selling well:

Paperback:

Salt therapy: Where's the evidence?

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 23:03:00 +0000

Today there was a Groupon offer for salt therapy from the “Salt Chalet Arizona." Sufferers of respiratory illnesses are offered the chance to sit in a room containing salt for claimed relief of symptoms. I posted the following at the Salt Chalet Arizona’s blog, which is awaiting moderation:

“Although there have been few clinical studies” — are there any that provide any empirical support for the claims made on this site? It seems to me that solid empirical support for safety and efficacy are absolutely essential requirements for any medical claim. What is the mechanism of relief, is that relief more than would be expected from a placebo effect, does it last, and are there any harmful short or long term consequences?

To its credit, the blog's repost of a newspaper article about a similar service offered via a Pakistani salt mine includes the following skeptical passage:

But Shahid Abbas, a doctor who runs the private Allergy and Asthma Centre in Islamabad, said that although an asthma or allergy sufferer may get temporary relief, there is no quick-fix cure.

“There is no scientific proof that a person can permanently get rid of asthma by breathing in a salt mine or in a particular environment,” he said.

Alex (2011-04-30):

Even without reading the article, I knew that the answer to the the question in the title was 'nowhere'

Information security threat models, folk & expert

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:02:00 +0000

I’ve written a pair of blog posts for Global Crossing’s “Defense in Depth Security” blog based on recent work by Rick Wash and by multiple people at Intel including Timothy Casey about modeling the agents behind information security threats. The first post is about non-expert home computer users’ “folk models” of the threats from viruses and hackers,which makes the point that seemingly irrational decisions about security may in fact be completely rational based on their conceptual understanding of the threat they believe they are combatting. Only by changing their understanding of the threat, which requires not just information but appropriately salient information and the right incentives, are we likely to see changes in user behavior. I point out an example of a recent news story that might help provide both elements with regard to one type of vulnerability, open wireless access points.

The second blog post, which will appear tomorrow, is about expert models of threat agents–the Intel Threat Agent Library. Intel created a large set of attacker personas and identified their attributes, for use in matching against vulnerabilities and prioritizing controls as part of a broader risk assessment process.

I’m happy to discuss these further either here or at the Global Crossing blogs.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shot at Tucson grocery store event

Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:53:00 +0000

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ CD8) was shot this morning at an event at a Tucson grocery store, along with several other people. The Tucson Citizen reports that she was “shot point blank in the head." This brings to mind a previous gun incident at another Tucson event at a grocery store in August 2009.

The image below is from Sarah Palin’s website, “Take Back the 20." The lower right target sight image on Arizona is Congressional District 8, which was one of the “targets” for candidates who supported the Health Care Reform bill to be defeated.

Global Crossing blogging

Thu, 06 Jan 2011 15:07:00 +0000

I’ve joined the team of Global Crossing bloggers–please check out my initial post at Global Crossing blogs, “Forget passwords!"

(BTW, my friend and colleague Glen Walker independently wrote a blog post making a very similar recommendation.)

Books Read in 2010

Fri, 31 Dec 2010 01:31:00 +0000

This was a good year for getting a lot of reading done, including a number of fairly lengthy books, thanks to going back to school full-time for the fall of 2009 and spring of 2010.

Books read in 2010:

David Aaronovitch, Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History
Daniel Ariely, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, Revised and Expanded Edition
James Bamford, The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America
Mark B. Brown, Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation
Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
Werner Callebaut, Taking the Naturalistic Turn, or, How Real Philosophy of Science is Done
Nicholas Carr, The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google
I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
Harry Collins and Robert Evans, Rethinking Expertise
Michael J. Crowe, Mechanics from Aristotle to Einstein
Heather E. Douglas, Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal
Peter Fenton, Eyeing the Flash: The Making of a Carnival Con Artist
Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason
Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World
Richards J. Heuer, Jr., Psychology of Intelligence Analysis (also on the CIA's website as HTML or PDF)
Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States
Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (re-read)
Bruno Latour, We Have Never Been Modern
Michael Lewis, The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine
James Menn, Fatal System Error: The Hunt for the New Crime Lords Who Are Bringing Down the Internet
Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
John Allen Paulos, Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up
Massimo Pigliucci, Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk
Paul Provenza and Dan Dion, Satiristas!: Comedians, Contrarians, Raconteurs & Vulgarians
Dave Pratt, Behind the Mic: 30 Years in Radio
Benjamin Radford, Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries
Chris Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History, Vol. I
Rebecca Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
David Schmidtz, Elements of Justice
Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England
David Shenk, The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong
Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations
Adrian J. Slywotski, The Upside: The 7 Strategies for Turning Big Threats Into Growth Breakthroughs
Neal Stephenson, Anathem
Cass Sunstein, Why Societies Need Dissent
Margaret Thaler Singer, Cults in Our Midst: The Continuing Fight Against Their Hidden Menace (revised and updated edition)
Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts
Vernor Vinge, The Collected Stories of Vernor Vinge
Richard S. Westfall, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics
Michal Zalewski, Silence on the Wire: A Field Guide to Passive Reconnaissance and Indirect Attacks
John H. Zammito, A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-Positivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour

(Previously: 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Historical Comments

Hume's Ghost (2011-01-02):

I've read two of those books: - Irreligion & Mistakes were made.

I own three of those books:

Review of CMI's "Voyage That Shook the World"

Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:05:00 +0000

John Lynch and I have co-authored a review of the Creation Ministries International film on Darwin which will be appearing in vol. 30 of Reports of the National Center for Science Education and which may be found on their website.

My previous blogged review of the film is here.

I gave a little more background on the film here. John Lynch has said more about it here, here, here, and here, mostly about the deception used to get interviews by prominent historians.

What to think vs. how to think

Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:20:00 +0000

While listening to a recent Token Skeptic podcast of a Dragon*Con panel on Skepticism and Education moderated by D.J. Grothe of the James Randi Educational Foundation, I was struck by his repeated references to Skepticism as a worldview (which I put in uppercase to distinguish it from skepticism as a set of methods of inquiry, an attitude or approach). I wrote the following email to the podcast:

I am sufficiently irritated by D.J. Grothe's repeated reference to skepticism as a "worldview" that I will probably be motivated to write a blog post about it.

There is a growing ambiguity caused by overloading of the term "skepticism" on different things--attitudes, methods and processes, accumulated bodies of knowledge, a movement. To date, there hasn't really been a capital-S Skepticism as a worldview since the Pyrrhonean philosophical variety. A worldview is an all-encompassing view of the world which addresses how one should believe, how one should act, what kinds of things exist, and so forth. It includes presuppositions not only about factual matters, but about values.

The skepticisms worth promoting are attitudes, methods and processes, and accumulated bodies of knowledge that are consistent with a wide variety of world views. The methods are contextual, applied against a background of social institutions and relationships that are based on trust. There is room in the broader skeptical movement for pluralism, a diversity of approaches that set the skepticisms in different contexts for different purposes--educational, political, philosophical, religious. An unrestricted skepticism is corrosive and undermines all knowledge, for there is no good epistemological response to philosophical skepticism that doesn't make some assumptions.

Trying to turn skepticism into a capital-S Skeptical worldview strikes me as misguided.

To my mind, what's most important and useful about skepticism is that it drives the adoption of the best available tools for answering questions, providing more guidance on how to think than on what to think, and on how to recognize trustworthy sources and people to rely upon. There's not a completely sharp line between these--knowledge about methods and their accuracy is dependent upon factual knowledge, of course.

I think the recent exchanges about the Missouri Skepticon conference really being an atheist conference may partly have this issue behind them, though I think there are further issues there as well about the traditional scope of "scientific skepticism" being restricted to "testable claims" and the notion of methodological naturalism that I don't entirely agree with. Skepticism is about critical thinking, inquiry, investigation, and using the best methods available to find reliable answers to questions (and promoting broader use of those tools), while atheism is about holding a particular position on a particular issue, that no gods exist. The broader skeptical movement produces greater social benefits by promoting more critical thinking in the general public than does the narrower group of skeptical atheists who primarily argue against religion and especially the smaller subset who are so obsessed that they are immediately dismissed by the broader public as monomaniacal cranks. The organized skeptical groups with decades of history have mainly taken pains to avoid being represented by or identified with the latter, and as a result have been represented by skeptics of a variety of religious views in events of lasting consequence. Think, for example, of the audience for Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" and his subsequent works, or of the outcome of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

In my opinion, the distinction between skepticism and atheism is an important one, and I think Skepticon does blur and confuse that distinction by using the "skeptic" name and having a single focus on religion. This doesn't mean that most of the atheists participating in that conference don't qualify as skeptics, or even that atheist groups promoting rationality on religious subjects don't count as part of the broader skeptical movement. It just means that there is a genuine distinction to be drawn.

(BTW, I don't think atheism is a worldview, either--it's a single feature of a worldview, and one that is less important to my mind than skepticism.)

Previous posts on related subjects:
"A few comments on the nature and scope of skepticism"
"Skepticism, belief revision, and science"
"Massimo Pigliucci on the scope of skeptical inquiry"

Also related, a 1999 letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer from the leaders of many local skeptical groups (Daniel Barnett, North Texas Skeptics, Dallas, TX; David Bloomberg, Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land, Springfield, IL; Tim Holmes, Taiwan Skeptics, Tanzu, Taiwan; Peter Huston, Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York, Schenectady, NY; Paul Jaffe, National Capitol Area Skeptics, Washington, D.C.; Eric Krieg, Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking, Philadelphia, PA; Scott Lilienfeld, Georgia Skeptics, Atlanta, GA; Jim Lippard, Phoenix Skeptics and Tucson Skeptical Society, Tucson, AZ; Rebecca Long, Georgia Skeptics, Atlanta, GA; Lori Marino, Georgia Skeptics, Atlanta, GA; Rick Moen, Bay Area Skeptics, Menlo Park, CA; Steven Novella, New England Skeptical Society, New Haven, CT; Bela Scheiber, Rocky Mountain Skeptics, Denver, CO; and Michael Sofka, Inquiring Skeptics of Upper New York, Troy, NY).

UPDATE (December 1, 2010): D.J. Grothe states in the most recent (Nov. 26) Point of Inquiry podcast (Karen Stollznow interviews James Randi and D.J. Grothe), at about 36:50, that he has been misunderstood in his references to skepticism as a "worldview." This suggests to me that he has in mind a narrower meaning, as Barbara Drescher has interpreted him in the comments below. My apologies to D.J. for misconstruing his meaning.

Michael C. Rush (2010-11-20):

You make some good points, but ultimately I am unconvinced, I think. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to use "skeptic" in a manner analogous to how we would use "cynic," "idealist," or "epicure" in the modern sense, as general categories expressing one's dominant tendencies in approaching and assessing the world without requiring absolute fidelity to some ancient philosophy or formulation. Being open to questioning everything does not, it seems to me, imply rejection of everything.

As for the skepticism/atheism issue, I think a person could be an atheist without being a skeptic, but I think it would be pretty silly. A "faith-based" atheism isn't of much interest or use. Can a person, conversely, be a skeptic without being an atheist? Clearly, but not, I would argue, a very good one.

Does Vocab Malone understand the implications of his own position?

Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:23:00 +0000

Vocab Malone, with whom I had a blog debate about abortion and personhood last year, recently came across this comment of mine on the Point of Inquiry podcast with Jen Roth, an atheist who argues for the immorality of abortion:

Was Jen Roth ultimately arguing that personhood is something that a human organism has for its entire lifecycle? At what starting point? Conception, implantation, or something else?

I find it completely implausible that an organism at a life stage with no capacity for perception, let alone reason, counts as a person. Nor that a particular genetic code is either necessary or sufficient for personhood.

I think every point that she made was brought up in a debate I had with a Christian blogger on the topic of abortion, who similarly argued for an equation between personhood and human organism. I wonder if she has any better rejoinders. Does she think that IVF and therapeutic cloning are immoral? IUDs?

Vocab claimed that my argument was a "Chewbacca argument," a smoke screen, or a slippery slope argument, but in fact it is none of these. I posted the following comment in response to him:

Vocab:

The argument I made is not a slippery slope argument, it's a reductio ad absurdum. Your position is that the human organism is a person and has a right to life from fertilization to death (and presumably beyond), so you've already gone down the "slippery slope" and must of necessity say that IVF, therapeutic cloning, and IUDs are immoral because they result in the destruction and death of fertilized ova. My position is that it is absurd to think that these things are immoral, and if you were to avoid the slippery slope by agreeing with me, you would have contradicted a logical consequence of your own position--thus, a reductio ad absurdum by being committed to a proposition and its negation.

A slippery slope argument is an argument that says your position is committed to some consequence because there is no criterion that you can use to draw a line to avoid. For example, if I argued that your position committed you to giving a right to life to all animals, and required you to be a vegetarian, or that it required you to give a right to life to every organism with DNA, and required you to hold a position like the Jain religion that all killing is wrong.

As it happens, you never did supply an account of just what it is about the human organism that gives it a right to life or personhood--you offered no constitutive account of what properties entail a right to life or personhood, other than a genetic one. I made the case near the end of our debate that you are probably implicitly assuming that personhood comes from a soul, and that souls are connected to human organisms at the point of fertilization, but there's clearly no evidence for that position, scientific, philosophical, or theological.

BTW, my argument is also clearly not a Chewbacca argument or smoke screen, which is a simple non sequitur. To think that, you would have to fail to understand that the items I identified all result in the destruction of fertilized human ova.

It's important to note that not all slippery slope arguments are fallacious--if there really is no criterion to stop the fall down the slope, the argument is valid. As Vocab never did explain what it is about human organisms that make them rights-bearers, I think he does face the slippery slope argument I presented unless he can offer some criterion for distinguishing human organisms from other organisms with respect to having a right to life.

M! (2010-11-17):

Let me be concise and clear: I do think *most* forms of IVF (there's a way to do it that hypothetically would be ethical), therapeutic cloning, and IUD's (they act as abortifacients) are unethical.

This is the only logically consistent position to take if one understands that the ontology of the human being is such that all humans are persons and all persons have inherent and inalienable rights, the foremost of which is the right to life.

Pamela Gorman edits her own Wikipedia entry?

Thu, 04 Nov 2010 04:38:00 +0000

Former Arizona state legislator Pamela Gorman, or someone claiming to be her, took issue with the following passage in her Wikipedia entry:

Also in 2005, Gorman was one of several Arizona legislators who supported parental rights legislation which was also supported by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. She attended the grand opening of the Church of Scientology's "Psychiatry: An Industry of Death" exhibition in Los Angeles in December 2005 at the request of Robin Read, President of the National Federation for Women Legislators.

The edit, which was described as "clarification of falsehoods entered about me and other organizations" and came from Cox Communications Phoenix IP 68.231.27.68, added the following right after that text:

It was a quick visit which did not include any meals or other "fluff." The goal of the trip was to determine what the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights was about, as they were becoming heavily involved in NFWL. The cost of the roundtrip flight for the small group to tour the museum was reported by CCHR, according to Arizona disclosure laws. Gorman's political enemies have tried for years to make a leap from her touring a museum as a favor to the president of her professional organization to her actually being a Scientologist. Further attempts to alter this page with falsehoods of this nature may be met with legal action.

I'm not aware of any online claims that Gorman, who is an evangelical Christian, is a Scientologist, only that she was one of several Arizona legislators who sponsored legislation on behalf of a Scientology front group and accepted gifts from the Church of Scientology.

It's good that Gorman was willing to give a bit more context, but it should be noted that this was not simple "parental rights legislation which was also supported by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights," it was a bill that was at least partly written by CCHR. As the Arizona Republic reported at the time, the original text required not only parental consent before mental health evaluations by schools, it required that parents read CCHR anti-psychiatry propaganda before signing a consent form:

Another bill introduced this year would have required written consent from parents for any mental-health screenings in schools. The bill was similar to other measures passed in previous years and vetoed by the governor. Sponsored by Sen. Karen Johnson, a member of the commission's international advisory group, the bill had a bipartisan group of 36 co-sponsors. Still, it failed by a tie vote in the Education Committee, in part because of testimony of mental-health advocates.

The original text of the bill would have required parents to sign a lengthy consent form that contained paragraph after paragraph of negative information about psychiatric practices.

Information about CCHR is easy to come by on the Internet (e.g., at Wikipedia or xenu.net), so it's unclear why Gorman needed to accept a round trip flight to Los Angeles on the CCHR's dime to find out "what the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights was about," or why she sponsored their bill.

James Dobson's dog-beating story

Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:56:00 +0000

In James Dobson’s 1978 book, The Strong-Willed Child, he writes about using a belt to beat his dachshund into submission:

Please don't misunderstand me. Siggie is a member of our family and we love him dearly. And despite his anarchistic nature, I have finally taught him to obey a few simple commands. However, we had some classic battles before he reluctantly yielded to my authority.

The greatest confrontation occurred a few years ago when I had been in Miami for a three-day conference. I returned to observe that Siggie had become boss of the house while I was gone. But I didn't realize until later that evening just how strongly he felt about his new position as Captain.

At eleven o'clock that night, I told Siggie to go get into his bed, which is a permanent enclosure in the family room. For six years I had given him that order at the end of each day, and for six years Siggie had obeyed.

On this occasion, however, he refused to budge. You see, he was in the bathroom, seated comfortably on the furry lid of the toilet seat. That is his favorite spot in the house, because it allows him to bask in the warmth of a nearby electric heater...

When I told Sigmund to leave his warm seat and go to bed, he flattened his ears and slowly turned his head toward me. He deliberately braced himself by placing one paw on the edge of the furry lid, then hunched his shoulders, raised his lips to reveal the molars on both sides, and uttered his most threatening growl. That was Siggie's way of saying. "Get lost!"

I had seen this defiant mood before, and knew there was only one way to deal with it. The ONLY way to make Siggie obey is to threaten him with destruction. Nothing else works. I turned and went to my closet and got a small belt to help me "reason" with Mr. Freud.

What developed next is impossible to describe. That tiny dog and I had the most vicious fight ever staged between man and beast. I fought him up one wall and down the other, with both of us scratching and clawing and growling and swinging the belt. I am embarrassed by the memory of the entire scene. Inch by inch I moved him toward the family room and his bed. As a final desperate maneuver, Siggie backed into the corner for one last snarling stand. I eventually got him to bed, only because I outweighed him 200 to 12!

Dobson's book is a promotion of corporal punishment in child rearing. This story is complementary to Jerry Falwell's cat-killing story, written at a time when Christian fundamentalists didn't seem overly concerned about abuse of animals--the 1970s. It's also complementary to the story of Mike Huckabee's son killing a dog, and Mormon Mitt Romney's dog abuse story.

Thankfully, most of us today recognize that abusing animals is a sign of psychopathy.

UPDATED: To lengthen quote and correct source book title, as per Snopes. The original 1978 hardcover version of the book is available for $0.01 on Amazon.com Marketplace.

Historical Comments

Bartimaeus (2010-09-28):

They probably thought Sigmund's behavior was "cute" up to the point that he started biting them. Sad that he did not realize he was creating a monster and then resorted to physical violence as his first and only option. Even more disturbing that he uses it as an example for raising children.

Here is an interesting post by someone who actually understands dogs better than most, just for a little contrast; http://cynography.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2010-09-16T18%3A49%3A00-04%3A00&max-results=7

Gun-toting, Scientology-supporting, Bible-thumping, climate change-denying Pamela Gorman wants to be elected to Congress

Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:54:00 +0000

~~Former~~ Arizona State Representative Pamela Gorman, whose promo video proudly proclaims her to be a gun-toting Bible thumper, spent some of her time in the Arizona legislature supporting Scientology front groups and denying the existence of human-caused global warming through her affiliation with the sleazy Heartland Institute. Here’s her video:

Would you like some Scientology with your libertarianism?

Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:42:00 +0000

A few years ago, I noted that popular and wealthy libertarian investment writer Douglas Casey was making tacit references to L. Ron Hubbard doctrine in his writing. For example, I noted that he wrote (in an article titled “The New Praetorians” in the March 1996 issue of Liberty magazine):

I have long believed that about 80% of the human race are basically people of good will. About 17% can be classified as potential trouble sources--PTS's--who will basically bend with whatever wind prevails. Only 3% are actively destructive sociopaths. But that 3% tend to gravitate toward politics, the military, the media, the financial system, and other centers of power."

I noted that the term "potential trouble source" (PTS) derives from Hubbard, who also identifies a similar percentages of the population into the categories of PTS and "suppressive persons" (SPs). In a letter to Liberty which they refused to publish, I noted:

L. Ron Hubbard wrote much about "potential trouble sources" (PTS's) and "suppressive persons" (SP's) whom he claimed made up 17.5 and 2.5 percent of the population, respectively (see Jon Atack, A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed, 1990, Carol Publishing Group. p. 155). Hubbard's views on PTS's and SP's are set out at length in his book An Introduction to Scientology Ethics, where his definitions of crimes and suppressive acts make it clear that he is no friend of liberty. The Church of Scientology has a long history of harassment and barratrous litigation against its critics which continues to this day on the Internet (see Spy, February 1996; Wired, December 1995; Skeptic, June 1995; and the Internet resources linked from http://www.thecia.net/~rnewman/scientology/home.html).

I've further noted that Casey was on the financial committee of Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne in 1996, along with Michael Baybak. Baybak is a Scientology OTVIII who played a major role in a sidebar story to Time magazine's famous 1991 "Cult of Greed and Power" article about Scientology, titled "Mining Money in Vancouver."

Finally, I noted that a Scientology-critical website that publishes Scientology service completions shows multiple Scientology courses completed by a Douglas Casey, who may well be the same libertarian investment writer.

My objection is not that Casey is a Scientologist, though I think it is legitimate to criticize anyone who knowingly supports the unethical activities of the Church of Scientology. Rather, my objection is to his making unfounded claims based on Scientology and Hubbard doctrines without being open about his sources. It's a common tactic by the Church of Scientology and other cults to use front groups and try to conceal their nature until after they've persuaded someone to participate in a program--the Unification Church calls it "heavenly deception." I've also wondered to what extent Scientology principles are used in Casey's investment advice, and whether Casey has promoted investment in Scientology-related companies, and whether there were any other Scientologists on Browne's financial committee, but I haven't seen any evidence of those things.

A recent interview with Casey on his own website points out that he is something of an apologist for the Church of Scientology and Hubbard:

L: It actually sparked something of a religion for a time. People were adopting Heinlein's Martian philosophy and starting "crèches" around the country. Do you know if it's true that L. Ron Hubbard, another SF author, founded the church of Scientology as a result of Heinlein betting him he couldn't do it and make it stick?

Doug: There's no way to know the actual facts, of course, other than Hubbard started researching Dianetics just after World War II. But they were friends, after all, and both SF writers. The model for the character of Michael Valentine Smith was supposed to have been Hubbard – there were supposed to be a lot of similarities between the two. The religion racket can be an easy way to make a million dollars, but I don't think that was on Hubbard's mind when he founded Scientology. A surprisingly large percentage of the human potential movement was a direct result of his work. He was sincere in promoting it, notwithstanding a lot of negative PR surrounding the subject.

Hubbard's sincerity may be legitimately questioned by anyone familiar with his biography. And I'm not sure "a surprisingly large percentage of the human potential movement" being inspired by Scientology (e.g., est, Landmark Forum, Eckankar, etc.) is to its credit.

Last month, the website The Daily Bell published an interview with Casey titled "Doug Casey Revisits the Greater Depression" in which Casey referred to the Roman emperor Tiberius as "a degraded being," another use of Scientology terminology. This prompted a commenter who identified as an ex-Scientologist to ask if Casey was a Scientologist, and another commenter to point to my website on Casey. This prompted a response from The Daily Bell:

Doug Casey is the author of numerous hard-money/free-market best-sellers and has established himself as a reliable and prominent libertarian-oriented commentator over years and years.

He may or may not have Scientology connections (we have no idea) but unlike DC we don't see any overt or even covert evidence of specific dogma infecting his commentary - which is concise, to-the-point and in-line with the free-market message that he's been purveying for decades.

Scientology is alleged to be a "bad church." But modern Western governments inflate economies to ruination, cost tens of millions pensions and savings, freely wiretap, prosecute and imprison millions, foment endless authoritarian regulations and illogical laws, mandate poisonous vaccines, engage in punitive taxation and serial warfare, etc. ...

We think we would be more concerned if Casey were an apologist for modern Western regulatory democracy rather than a courageous and principled opponent of it. We are grateful for his voice and message, especially during the 20th century when very few spoke out.

Again, we have no knowledge of any affiliation of his with Scientology, but we do know what we can read on the printed page. We believe that Casey has contributed greatly to an understanding of free-markets, especially in the 20th century when he emerged courageously as a prominent spokesperson at a time when there were very others.

But let us reverse the issue. What is the agenda of those who are bringing up a Scientology link? Casey doesn't mention it. His arguments are the same as they have always been - lucid, elegant and inspiring.

In fact, it seems to us a despicable canard - and an obscene red-herring - to read an honest interview freely given and then drag someone's alleged religion into it. It is like questioning one's veracity simply because he or she is Jewish or Roman Catholic.

Please respond to what is on the page, not to some malicious or false gossip about someone's supposed religious affiliation with a church that is alleged by some to do bad things - with many accusations coming from Western governments such as France, Germany or the United States.

I've submitted the following response comment to The Daily Bell:

Since I am here accused of "some malicious or false gossip about someone's supposed religious affiliation with a church that is alleged by some to do bad things" and of "a despicable canard - and an obscene red-herring" and asked "What is the agenda of those who are bringing up a Scientology link?" I would like to respond.

My criticism of Casey is not for being a Scientologist, but for injecting Scientology doctrine and claims from L. Ron Hubbard into his writing without being explicit or open about it. This criticism is neither malicious nor false, but is backed up with specific citations. Further, the Church of Scientology is not merely "alleged by some to do bad things," it has been caught doing so, which has been repeatedly and thoroughly documented (e.g., its breaking into numerous government offices and engaging in wiretapping, its attempt to frame author Paulette Cooper for a bomb threat which led to her arrest, its illegal covert operations against the mayor of Clearwater, FL, its attempt to cover up its responsibility in the death of Lisa McPherson, its formal policy of harassment using the legal system, and on and on). Many of the documents that expose Scientology's involvement in such activities were seized in FBI raids in the mid-1970s or have been leaked by ex-members and are available on the Internet at locations such as http://shipbrook.com/jeff/CoS/index.html, http://www.xenu.net/, and http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Secrets/index.html

This week will offer an opportunity for many to hear Doug Casey speak at the FreedomFest in Las Vegas, July 7-11 at Bally's/Paris. If you have some familiarity with Scientology and the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, listen carefully, and let me know if you hear anything of interest.

Einzige (2010-07-05):

Your point is apparently too subtle for most people, Jim.

The whole problem would go away if Casey were just up front about things - "Yes, I am a Scientologist" or "No, I am not, but they have some good things to say." Refusing to comment at all just seems odd.

Bowlarama 2010

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 22:46:00 +0000

I have about 5 weeks to reach my fund-raising goal for this year's Bowlarama.

Please visit my donation page and make a donation, big or small. All money goes to the care and feeding of cats and dogs rescued from the euthanasia list at the county pound. Phoenix area people know that area shelters are taking in record numbers of animals so far this year. RESCUE helps reduce euthanasia rates at the county pound.

All three of our dogs were given a second change by RESCUE. I've attached pictures of a few others that are currently in RESCUE's care, waiting for their forever homes.

Did you know that the number one killer of healthy dogs in this country is "euthanasia?" RESCUE is the last voice for dogs and cats awaiting this terrible fate at Animal Control and the Humane Society. RESCUE is a "no kill" organization and animals stay with RESCUE for as long as it takes to find them a home that meets their needs. RESCUE has only one paid staff member and over 275 volunteers. Our veterinary, boarding and food expenses run about $9-12,000 a month.

RESCUE has saved and placed over 9,400+ dogs and cats, and for every animal we adopt, we are back to save another.

Discredited doctor comes to Phoenix

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:31:00 +0000

British former surgeon Andrew Wakefield, whose discredited and abusive research was responsible for the resurgence of measles outbreaks in the UK and the U.S., is not just coming to Phoenix this Saturday, he is being celebrated by the Autism Society of Greater Phoenix at the Ritz Carlton Hotel. Wakefield’s 1998 paper in The Lancet reported symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease in twelve children with autism, and speculated that the cause was the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine. What it didn’t report was that Wakefield had a financial interest in his own alternative vaccine, that he had been paid by attorneys who were trying to prove that MMR vaccines were harmful, that his test subjects were recruited by those attorneys from among their plaintiffs, or that Wakefield engaged in unnecessary colonoscopies, colon biopsies, and spinal taps on children in his study. Ten of Wakefield’s 12 co-authors published a retraction of his interpretation of the paper, and the original paper was withdrawn by the journal this year. Wakefield’s name has been struck from the register of British medical doctors as a result of his unethical behavior.

The publication of his paper was responsible for a significant drop in UK vaccination rates due to fear of a link to autism, which was accompanied by a rise in measles outbreaks (but no drop in autism diagnosis rates).

It is a pity that the Autism Society of Greater Phoenix is promoting an unethical, discredited quack.

Abe Heward's new blog on software testing

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 15:20:00 +0000

Veteran software tester Abe Heward has started up a blog on software testing, which I’m sure will also include many items of epistemological, economic, and skeptical interest. He’s already got posts on how the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is relevant to software testing, why good testers aren’t robots (and the flaws in one company’s attempt to treat them as if they were), and on opportunity cost and testing automation.

Check it out at www.abeheward.com.

The market for creationism

Mon, 31 May 2010 19:22:00 +0000

Todd Wood of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College has gotten around to doing what I haven’t done, updating my analysis of the market for creationism that I did in early 2007. He confirms some of the trends I noted, such as that the market for creationism has been growing and is dominated by Answers in Genesis. His update goes further, and includes a comparison to the National Center for Science Education, noting that he market for criticism of creationism has grown along with the market for creationism. He also points out that the groups involved got a boost revenue in 2005 during the Dover trial, that the AiG split from Creation Ministries International doesn’t appear to have hurt AiG, and that “Godquest,” formerly known as Creation Science Evangelism, the Hovind organization, is the #3 creationist organization for revenue behind AiG and the Institute for Creation Research.

Wood reports the following numbers for recent years:

Martin Gardner, RIP

Sun, 23 May 2010 01:04:00 +0000

The prominent skeptic Martin Gardner, mathematician, philosopher, magician, and writer, died today at the age of 95 (b. October 21, 1914, d. May 22, 2010). He was one of the founders of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (now Committee for Skeptical Inquiry), and had been part of the earlier Resources for the Scientific Evaluation of the Paranormal along with CSICOP founding members Ray Hyman, James Randi, and Marcello Truzzi. Long before that, he wrote one of the classic texts debunking pseudoscience, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (the Dover 2nd edition was published in 1957). For many years (1956-1981) he was the author of the Scientific American column, “Mathematical Games” (taken over by Douglas Hofstadter and retitled “Metamagical Themas”), and he wrote a regular “Notes of a Psi-Watcher” column for the Skeptical Inquirer right up to the present. His 70+ books included a semi-autobiographical novel, The Flight of Peter Fromm, a book explaining his philosophical positions including why he wasn’t an atheist, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener, and an annotated version of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland works, The Annotated Alice.

He had been scheduled to appear by video link at the upcoming The Amazing Meeting 8 in Las Vegas, where a number of other skeptical old timers will be appearing on discussion panels. His death is a great loss.

I never met Gardner, but was first introduced to his work reading his “Mathematical Games” column in the late 70’s, and then his Fads and Fallacies and Skeptical Inquirer columns. Gardner, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, and James Randi were the first major figures I identified as skeptical role models. One of the great honors of my life was receiving the Martin Gardner Award for Best Skeptical Critic from the Skeptics Society in 1996.

A Martin Gardner documentary that is part of “The Nature of Things” may be found online, and Scientific American has republished online its December 1995 profile of Gardner. Here’s a transcript of a February 1979 telephone interview between Martin Gardner and five mathematicians (thanks to Anthony Barcellos for transcribing it and bringing it to my attention in the comments below).

Various tributes:

Origin of the term "woo"

Thu, 06 May 2010 23:04:00 +0000

Earlier today on Twitter, Adam Bourque (@A_Damn_Bourque) asked if anyone knew the origin of the term “woo” as applied to the paranormal. I know I’ve heard the term used for at least a decade (or two or three?), but after seeing that neither the Skeptics Dictionary entry on “woo woo” nor threads at the JREF Forums had an etymology, I decided to take a look at Google Books.

“Woo” wasn’t a good search due to the homonym, and “woo woo” led to lots of matches in stories of children imitating fire engine sirens, but adding “astrology” and “occult” as additional terms led to some useful matches.

On my first pass, the oldest reference I found was in Nicholas Evans’ novel The Loop (1999), p. 244:

Chinese astronomy and scientific anti-realism

Thu, 06 May 2010 15:14:00 +0000

On the last day of my class on Scientific Revolutions and the law, one of the students in the class, Lijing Jiang, gave a presentation titled “To Consider the Heavens: The Incorporation of Jesuit Astronomy in the Seventeenth Century Chinese Court."

Her presentation was about how Jesuit missionaries in China brought western astronomy with them, and how it was received. This added a very interesting complement to the course, as much of the early part of the semester was about the Copernican revolution (using Kuhn’s book of the same name). Part of what happened early on in astronomy was a division between cosmology and positional astronomy, with the former being about the actual nature of the heavens, and the latter being about creating mathematical models for prediction, to be used for navigation and calendar-setting that incorporated features not intended to represent reality (like epicycles). These two types of astronomy didn’t really get reconnected (aside from the occasional realist depiction of epicycles in crystalline spheres) until Galileo argued for a realist interpretation of the Copernican model. And that didn’t fully catch on until Newton.

In China, calendar reform was very important as they used a combination of a lunar month (based on phases of the moon) and tropical year that had to be synchronized annually, and an unpredicted eclipse was considered to be a bad omen. The Chinese had gone through many calendar reforms as a result of these requirements, and they considered that theories needed to be revised about every 300 years (in other realms as well, not just astronomy).

The Jesuits happened to bring Copernican astronomy to China in the late 16th/early 17th century, with a goal of impressing and converting the Emperor. They got their big chance to make a splash in 1610, when the Chinese court astronomers mispredicted a solar eclipse by one day, which the Jesuits predicted correctly in advance. But this turned out in a way to be poorly timed, as the Counter-Reformation decided to start cracking down on Copernican heliocentrism after 1610, making it a formal doctrinal issue in 1616. The Jesuits in China thus switched to the Tychonic system which was geometrically equivalent to the Copernican model but geocentric.

Multiple factors persuaded the Chinese to maintain a relativistic, anti-realist understanding of positional astronomy beyond the Scientific Revolution. In addition to Taoist and Buddhist views of life involving constant change and their past experience with calendars suggesting revisions every 300 years, the Jesuits presented another example of apparent arbitrariness in cosmological model selection, and they continued to stick with the Tychonic model as the western world switched to heliocentrism.

You can read Lijing Jiang’s blogging at Science in a Mirror, where she may post something about her presentation in the future.

Social psychology done wrong

Wed, 05 May 2010 23:42:00 +0000

The work of ASU emeritus professor of psychology Robert Cialdini, author of the classic book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, has shown that if a sign or card suggesting that somebody do something also indicates that most other people are likely to do that, it increases compliance with the request. The wording of this sign, put up in ASU bathrooms all over campus by the Health and Counseling Student Action Committee, may well have the opposite of its intended effect. Somebody should have read their Cialdini before making these signs!

Historical Comments

Einzige (2010-05-31):

Someone should do a study on this particular bathroom's hand-washing stats and see what the deviation from "normal" is--if any.

Politics and science in risk assessment

Sun, 02 May 2010 15:36:00 +0000

There’s a widespread recognition that public policy should be informed by both scientifically verifiable factual information and by social values. It’s commonly assumed that science should provide the facts for policy-makers, and the policy-makers should then use those facts and social and political values of the citizens they represent to make policy. This division between fact and value is institutionalized in processes such as a division between risk assessment performed by scientists concerned solely with the facts and subsequent risk management that also involves values, performed in the sphere of politics. This neat division, however, doesn’t actually work that well in practice.

“Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously,” a 2007 “Report by the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research” of the European Commission, spends much of its third chapter criticizing this division and the idea that risk assessment can be performed in a value-free way. Some of the Report’s objections are similar to those made by Heather Douglas in her book Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal, and her analysis of a topography of values is complementary to the Report. The selection of what counts as input into the risk assessment process, for example, is a value-laden decision that is analogous to Douglas’ discussion of problem selection. Health and safety concerns are commonly paramount, but other potential risks–to environment, to economy, to social institutions–may be minimized, dismissed, or ignored. Selection of methods of measurement also can implicitly involve values, as also is observed by Douglas. The Report notes, “health can be measured alternatively as frequency or mode of death or injury, disease morbidity, or quality of life,” and questions arise as to how to aggregate and weight different populations, compare humans to nonhumans, and future generations to present generations.

In practice, scientists tend to recognize questions of these sorts, as well as that they are value-laden. This can lead to the process being bogged down by scientists wanting policy-makers to answer value questions before they perform their risk assessment, while policy-makers insist that they just want the scientific facts of the matter before making any value-based decisions. Because science is a powerful justification for policy, it’s in the interest of the policy-maker to push as much as possible to the science side of the equation. We see this occur in Congress, which tends to pass broad-brush statutes which “do something” about a problem but push all the details to regulatory agencies, so that Congress can take credit for action but blame the regulatory agencies if it doesn’t work as expected. We see it in judicial decisions, where the courts tend to be extremely deferential to science. And we see it within regulatory agencies themselves, as when EPA Administrator Carol Browner went from saying first that “The question is not one of science, the question is one of judgment” (Dec. 1996, upon initially proposing ozone standards) to “I think it is not a question of judgment, I think it is a question of science” (March 1997, about those same standards). The former position is subject to challenge in ways that the latter is not.

In reality, any thorough system of risk management needs to be iterative and involve both scientific judgments about facts and political decisions that take into account values, taking care not to use values in a way to achieve predetermined conclusions, but to recognize what sets of interests and concerns are of significance. This doesn’t preclude the standardization of methods of quantification and assessment, it just means that they need to be able to evolve in response to feedback, as well as to begin from a state where values are explicitly used in identifying what facts need to be assessed.

[A slightly different version of the above was written as a comment for my Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology core seminar. Thanks to Tim K. for his comments.]

Science fiction scenarios and public engagement with science

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 03:26:00 +0000

Science fiction has been a popular genre at least since Jules Verne’s 19th century work, and arguably longer still. But can it have practical value as well as be a form of escapist entertainment? Clark Miller and Ira Bennett of ASU suggest that it has potential for use in improving the capacity of the general public “to imagine and reason critically about technological futures” and for being integrated into technology assessment processes (“Thinking longer term about technology: is there value in science fiction-inspired approaches to constructing futures?" Science and Public Policy 35(8), October 2008, pp. 597-606).

Miller and Bennett argue that science fiction can provide a way to stimulate people to wake from “technological somnambulism” (Langdon Winner’s term for taking for granted or being oblivious to sociotechnical changes), in order to recognize such changes, realize that there may be alternative possibilities and that particular changes need not be determined, and to engage with deliberative processes and institutions that choose directions of change. Where most political planning is short-term and based on projections that simply extend current trends incrementally into the future, science fiction provides scenarios which exhibit “non-linearity” by involving multiple, major, and complex changes from current reality. While these scenarios “likely provide…little technical accuracy” about how technology and society will actually interact, they may still provide ideas about alternative possibilities, and in particular to provide “clear visions of desirable–and not so desirable–futures.”

The article begins with a quote from Christine Peterson of the Foresight Institute recommending that “hard science fiction” be used to aid in “long-term” (20+ year) prediction scenarios; she advises, “Don’t think of it as literature,” and focus on the technologies rather than the people. Miller and Bennett, however, argue otherwise–that not only is science fiction useful for thinking about longer-term consequences, but that the parts about the people–how technologies actually fit into society–are just as, if not more important than the ideas about the technologies themselves.

It ends with some examples of use of science fiction in workshops for nanotechnology researchers which have been conducted by Bennett and suggested uses in science education and in “society’s practices and institutions for public engagement and technology assessment.” About the former suggested use, the authors write that “The National Science Foundation, which has by and large not been in the business of supporting science fiction, might be encouraged to fund training and/or networking exercises that would foster greater interaction among scientists and fiction writers.”

While some steps have been taken to promote interaction between scientists and fiction writers–most notably the National Academy of Sciences’ Science and Entertainment Exchange project headed by executive director Jennifer Ouellette who spoke at last year’s The Amazing Meeting 7–this interaction is mostly one-way. The project is conceived of as a way for science to be accurately communicated to the general public through entertainment, rather than facilitating the generation of ideas for technological innovation and scientific development from the general public or the entertainment stories that are created. The SEE promotes the idea of collaboration between scientists and entertainment producers on the creative works of entertainment, but not necessarily directing creative feedback into science or building new capacities in science and technology, except indirectly by providing the general public with inspiration about science. Similarly, the Skeptrack and Science Track at the annual Dragon*Con science fiction convention in Atlanta provide ways for scientists and skeptics to interact with science fiction fans (and creators of science fiction works), but the communication is primarily in one direction via speakers and panels, with an opportunity for Q&A. (Unlike the notion of a SkeptiCamp, where all participants are potentially on an equal basis, with everyone given the opportunity to be a presenter.)

[P.S. The Long Now Foundation is an organization that makes the Foresight Institute’s time horizon look short–their time frame is the next 10,000 years, with a focus on how to make extremely long-term projects work and how to create an institutional framework that can persist for extremely long periods of time. (The obligatory science fiction references are Walter M. Miller, Jr.’s A Canticle for Leibowitz and Neal Stephenson’s Anathem.)]

[A slightly different version of the above was written for my Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology core seminar. Thanks to Judd A. for his comments–he raised the concern that SkeptiCamp is connected to a rationalist form of skepticism that is concerned to “narrow the range of ‘acceptable’ beliefs” rather than widen it. While this may be true, depending on what the class of “acceptable” beliefs is prior to applying a skeptical filter, it need not be–applying scientific methodology and critical thinking can also open up possibilities for individuals. And if the initial set of beliefs includes all possibilities, converting that set to knowledge must necessarily involve narrowing rather than expanding the range, as there are many more ways to go wrong than to go right. But this criticism points out something that I’ve observed in my comparison of skepticism to Forteanism–skepticism is more concerned about avoiding Type I errors than Type II errors, while Forteans are more concerned about avoiding Type II errors than Type I errors, and these are complementary positions that both need representation in society.]

Haven't we already been nonmodern?

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:25:00 +0000

Being modern, argues Bruno Latour in We Have Never Been Modern (1993, Harvard Univ. Press), involves drawing a sharp distinction between “nature” and “culture,” through a process of “purification” that separates everything into one or the other of these categories. It also involves breaking with the past: “Modernization consists in continually exiting from an obscure age that mingled the needs of society with scientific truth, in order to enter into a new age that will finally distinguish clearly what belongs to atemporal nature and what comes from humans, what depends on things and what belongs to signs” (p. 71).

But hold on a moment–who actually advocates that kind of a sharp division between nature and culture, without acknowledging that human beings and their cultures are themselves a part of the natural order of things? As the 1991 Love and Rockets song, “No New Tale to Tell,” said: “You cannot go against nature / because when you do / go against nature / it’s part of nature, too.” Trying to divide the contents of the universe into a sharp dichotomy often yields a fuzzy edge, if not outright paradox. While Latour is right to object to such a sharp distinction (or separation) and to argue for a recognition that much of the world consists of “hybrids” that include natural and cultural aspects (true of both material objects and ideas), I’m not convinced that he’s correctly diagnosed a genuine malady when he writes that “Moderns … refuse to conceptualize quasi-objects as such. In their eyes, hybrids present the horror that must be avoided at all costs by a ceaseless, even maniacal purification” (p. 112).

Latour writes that anthropologists do not study modern cultures in the manner that they study premodern cultures. For premoderns, an ethnographer will generate “a single narrative that weaves together the way people regard the heavens and their ancestors, the way they build houses and the way they grow yams or manioc or rice, the way they construct their government and their cosmology,” but that this is not done for modern societies because “our fabric is no longer seamless” (p. 7). True, but the real problem for such ethnography is not that we don’t have such a unified picture of the world (and we don’t) but that we have massive complexity and specialization–a complexity which Latour implicitly recognizes (pp. 100-101) but doesn’t draw out as a reason.

The argument that Latour makes in the book builds upon this initial division of nature and culture by the process of “purification” with a second division between “works of purification” and “works of translation,” “translation” being a four-step process of his advocated framework of actor-network theory that he actually doesn’t discuss much in this book. He proposes that the “modern constitution” contains “works of translation”–networks of hybrid quasi-objects–as a hidden and unrecognized layer that needs to be made explicit in order to be “nonmodern” (p. 138) or “amodern” (p. 90) and avoid the paradoxes of modernity (or other problems of anti-modernity, pre-modernity, and post-modernity).

His attempt to draw the big picture is interesting and often frustrating, as when he makes unargued-for claims that appear to be false, e.g., “as concepts, ‘local’ and ‘global’ work well for surfaces and geometry, but very badly for networks and topology’” (p. 119); “the West may believe that universal gravitation is universal even in the absence of any instrument, any calculation, any decoding, any laboratory … but these are respectable beliefs that comparative anthropology is no longer obliged to share” (p. 120; also p. 24); speaking of “time” being reversible where he apparently means “change” or perhaps “progress” (p. 73); his putting “universality” and “rationality” on a list of values of moderns to be rejected (p. 135). I’m not sure how it makes sense to deny the possibility of universal generalizations while putting forth a proposed framework for the understanding of everything.

My favorite parts of the book were his recounting of Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer’s Leviathan and the Air Pump (pp. 15-29) and his critique of that project, and his summary of objections to postmodernism (p. 90). Latour is correct, I think, in his critique that those who try to explain the results of science solely in terms of social factors are making a mistake that privileges “social” over “natural” in the same way that attempting to explain them without any regard to social factors privileges “natural” over “social.” He writes to the postmodernists (p. 90):

“Are you not fed up at finding yourselves forever locked into language alone, or imprisoned in social representations alone, as so many social scientists would like you to be? We want to gain access to things themselves, not only their phenomena. The real is not remote; rather, it is accessible in all the objects mobilized throughout the world. Doesn’t external reality abound right here among us?”

In a commentary on this post, Gretchen G. observed that we do regularly engage in the process of “purification” about our concepts and attitudes towards propositions in order to make day-to-day decisions–and I think she’s right. We do regard things as scientific or not scientific, plausible or not plausible, true or false, even while we recognize that there may be fuzzy edges and indeterminate cases. And we tend not to like the fuzzy cases, and to want to put them into one category or the other. In some cases, this may be merely an epistemological problem of our human (and Humean) predicament where there is a fact of the matter; in others, our very categories may themselves be fuzzy and not fit reality (“carve nature at its joints”).

[A slightly different version of the above was written for my Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology core seminar. Thanks to Gretchen G. for her comments. An entertaining critique of Latour’s earlier book Science in Action is Olga Amsterdamska’s “Surely You’re Joking, Monsieur Latour!", Science, Technology, and Human Values vol. 15, no. 4 (1990): 495-504.]

Matthew LaClair vs. Texas Board of Education

Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:48:00 +0000

Matthew LaClair, who exposed his proselytizing U.S. history teacher/youth pastor in 2006, now hosts his own radio show, “Equal Time for Freethought,” on WBAI 99.5 FM on Sundays at 6:30 p.m. ET in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area. The show is also online via streaming audio.

This coming Sunday, April 25, Matthew will be debating a conservative member of the Texas Board of Education about their recent changes to the curriculum (e.g., removing Thomas Jefferson).

If you happen to miss the show, it will subsequently be available in the online archives.

Translating local knowledge into state-legible science

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:25:00 +0000

James Scott’s Seeing Like a State (about which I’ve blogged previously) talks about how the state imposes standards in order to make features legible, countable, regulatable, and taxable. J. Stephen Lansing’s Perfect Order: Recognizing Complexity in Bali describes a case where the reverse happened. When Bali tried to impose a top-down system of scientifically designed order–a system of water management–on Balinese rice farmers, in the name of modernization in the early 1970s, the result was a brief increase in productivity followed by disaster. Rather than lead to more efficient use of water and continued improved crop yields, it produced pest outbreaks which destroyed crops. An investment of $55 million in Romijn gates to control water flow in irrigation canals had the opposite of the intended effect. Farmers removed the gates or lifted them out of the water and left them to rust, upsetting the consultants and officials behind the project. Pesticides delivered to farmers resulted in brown leafhoppers becoming resistant to pesticides, and supplied fertilizers washed into the rivers and killed coral reefs at the mouths of the rivers.

Lansing was part of a team sponsored by the National Science Foundation in 1983 that evaluated the Balinese farmers’ traditional water management system to understand how it worked. The farmers of each village belong to subaks, or organizations that manage rice terraces and irrigation systems, which are referred to in Balinese writings going back at least a thousand years. Lansing notes that “Between them, the village and subak assemblies govern most aspects of a farmer’s social, economic, and spiritual life.”

Lansing’s team found that the Balinese system of water temples, religious ritual, and irrigation managed by the subaks would synchronize fallow periods of contiguous segments of terraces, so that long segments could be kept flooded after harvest, killing pests by depriving them of habitat. But their attempt and that of the farmers to persuade the government to allow the traditional system to continue fell upon deaf ears, and the modernization scheme continued to be pushed.

In 1987, Lansing worked with James Kremer to develop a computer model of the Balinese water temple system, and ran a simulation using historical rainfall data. This translation of the traditional system into scientific explanation showed that the traditional system was more effective than the modernized system, and government officials were persuaded to allow and encourage a return to the traditional system.

The Balinese system of farming is an example of how local knowledge can develop and become embedded in a “premodern” society by mechanisms other than conscious and intentional scientific investigation (in this case, probably more like a form of evolution), and be invisible to the state until it is specifically studied. It’s also a case where the religious aspects of the traditional system may have contributed to its dismissal by the modern experts.

What I find of particular interest here is to what extent the local knowledge was simply embedded into the practices, and not known by any of the participants–were they just doing what they’ve “always” done (with practices that have evolved over the last 1,000 years), in a circumstance where the system as a whole “knows,” but no individual had an understanding until Lansing and Kremer built and tested a model of what they were doing?

[A slightly different version of the above was written for my Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology core seminar. Thanks to Brenda T. for her comments. More on Lansing’s work in Bali may be found online here.]

Is the general public really that ignorant? Public understanding of science vs. civic epistemology

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:50:00 +0000

Studies of the public understanding of science generally produce results that show a disturbingly high level of ignorance. When asked to agree or disagree with the statement that “ordinary tomatoes do not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes do,” only 36% of Europeans answered correctly in 2002 (and only 35% in 1999 and 1996, Eurobarometer Biotechnology Quiz). Those in the U.S. did better with this question, with 45% getting it right; Canada and the Netherlands got the highest level of correct answers (52% and 51%, respectively). Tests of similar statements, such as “Electrons are smaller than atoms,” “The earliest human beings lived at the same time as the dinosaurs,” and “How long does it take the Earth to go around the Sun: one day, one month, or one year,” all yield similarly low levels of correct responses.

Public understanding of science research shows individuals surveyed to be remarkably ignorant of particular facts about science, but is that the right measure of how science is understood and used by the public at large? Such surveys ask about disconnected facts independent from a context in which they might be used, and measure only an individual’s personal knowledge. If, instead, those surveyed were asked who among their friends would they rely upon to obtain the answer to such a question, or how would they go about finding a reliable answer to the question, the results might prove to be quite different.

Context can be quite important. In the Wason selection task, individuals are shown four cards labeled, respectively, “E”, “K,” “4,” and “7,” and are asked which cards they would need to turn over in order to test the rule, “If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.” Test subjects do very well at recognizing that the “E” card needs to be turned over (corresponding to the logical rule of modus ponens), but very poorly at recognizing that the “7,” rather than the “4,” needs to be turned over to find out if the rule holds (i.e., they engage in the fallacy of affirming the consequent rather than use the logical rule of modus tollens). But if, instead of letters and numbers, a scenario with more context is constructed, subjects perform much more reliably. In one variant, subjects were told to imagine that they are post office workers sorting letters, and looking to find those which do not comply with a regulation that requires an additional 10 lire of postage on sealed envelopes. They are then presented with four envelopes (two face down, one opened and one sealed, and two face up, one with a 50-lire stamp and one with a 40-lire stamp) and asked to test the rule “If a letter is sealed, then it has a 50-lire stamp on it.” Subjects then recognize that they need to turn over the sealed face-down envelope and the 40-lire stamped envelope, despite its logical equivalent to the original selection task that they perform poorly on.

Sheila Jasanoff, in Designs on Nature, argues that measures of the public understanding of science are not particularly relevant to how democracies actually use science. Instead, she devotes chapter 10 of her book to an alternative approach, “civic epistemology,” which is a qualitative framework for understanding the methods and practices of a community’s generation and use of knowledge. She offers six dimensions of civic epistemologies:

Winner's techne and politeia, 22 years later

Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:54:00 +0000

Chapter 3 of Langdon Winner’s The Whale and the Reactor (1988) is titled “Techné and Politeia,” a discussion of the relationship of technology and politics that draws upon Plato, Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson to recount historical views before turning to the “modern technical constitution.” The contemporary “interconnected systems of manufacturing, communications, transportation” and so forth that have arisen have a set of five features that Winner says “embody answers to age-old political questions … about membership, power, authority, order, freedom, and justice” (p. 47).

The five features are (pp. 47-48):

Many Species of Animal Law

Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:48:00 +0000

Today I went to hear Bruce Wagman speak on the subject of “Many Species of Animal Law” at ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Wagman, an attorney with Schiff Hardin who is also an outside litigator for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, has litigated cases involving animals for 18 years, written a case book on animal law, and teaches animal law courses at several law schools as an adjunct faculty member. He was introduced by ASU Law School Dean Paul Berman and Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Pat Norris.

Wagman began by defining “animal law” as any law where the status of an animal matters–psychological, biological, welfare, etc. status of the animal, as opposed to its value as property. He suggested that animal law attorneys “may be the only lawyers on earth whose clients are all innocent."

He divided his talk up into multiple “species” of animal law.

Species 1: Companion Animal Issues

He said this makes up the majority of his cases, and includes injuries by or to animals, including veterinary malpractice. The challenge is to get courts to recognize that animals are not merely property, since historically companion animals have been viewed as property with low or even zero market value. In cases where an animal is injured or killed, the market value doesn’t recognize the interests of the animal or other kinds of value that companion animals give. Under the American Law Institute’s Restatements of the Law, however, there is a notion of “special property” (or “peculiar property” in California’s statutes) which allows quantification of other kinds of worth to an animal owner, for instance if the animal is a therapy dog. There are no emotional stress damages available.

Other sorts of companion animal cases include custody disputes, which often occur as a result of one partner just trying to inflict distress on another rather than having actual interest in the animal. Wagman said that courts are beginning to take a better look at the interests of the animal in such cases, and be willing to appoint a guardian ad litem, as occurred in the Michael Vick case and in another case in Tennessee where there was a dispute over custody of a dog between a dead man’s girlfriend and parents.

There are dangerous dog issues, where an attorney may be fighting against the classification of a dog as a dangerous or vicious animal, or against its euthanasia–what he called “capital cases” for animals. In three counties surrounding San Francisco, what happens in the case of a dog biting another dog that requires stitches varies dramatically. In one county, the dog gets a period of probation. In another, the dog gets labeled as a dangerous or vicious dog, which requires the owner to meet various conditions of housing the dog, having a certain height of fence, carry additional insurance, and so forth. And in Santa Clara County, the dog gets euthanized. He pointed out that that county’s statute has an exemption for “mitigating circumstances” which he’s successfully used to prevent dogs from being euthanized.

Finally, there are wills and trusts–he said he doesn’t do that sort of work, but that 48 states now have mechanisms for having trusts for animals.

He said he considers companion animals to be a sort of “gateway animal” for getting recognition of animals in the law, and noted that we tend to be “speciesists” who would feel very different about snakes vs. Labrador Retrievers. [IMO, this is rational to the extent that animals differ in cognitive capacities, and I note that at no point did he discuss litigating on behalf of cockroaches against pest control companies.]

Species 2: Farm animal issues–legislation and litigation.

His second species of animal law was about animals killed for food–about 10 billion per year in the United States. He said the goal here is not to stop the killing, but just to improve the living conditions of animals before they’re killed for food. This is problematic, however, because the animal cruelty statutes are criminal rather than civil (with an exception in North Carolina that will be discussed with regard to Species 3 of animal law), and that the criminal law for animal cruelty excludes farm animals in 35 states. He discussed a few of the more abusive methods of animal treatment in factory farming–calf crates, in which calves are placed for about the first 60 days of life, gestation crates for pigs (outlawed in Arizona since 2006, as well as illegal in Florida, Oregon, Colorado, and California), and battery cages for chickens.

He also discussed downer animals–animals which are either so seriously injured or ill that they are unable to move, which the meat industry wants to drag in that condition to slaughter. Wagman raised the concern that such animals, if sick, could potentially spread illness to humans, and listed a bunch of diseases that could potentially so spread, with BSE (mad cow) at the top of the list along with avian flu. Of these, only BSE has been documented to spread to humans, and the industry position is that there should be no restrictions on downer pigs unless and until a human actually gets sick. The state of California passed a law that said that all downer animals must be euthanized on the spot; the meat industry sued and overturned the statute in federal district court, but the 9th Circuit just reversed it last week (National Meat Association v. Brown).

Species 3: Animal hoarding–private ownership, breeders, and the sanctuary that is not

Wagman said that there have been 250,000 documented cases of animal hoarding, and that they are difficult cases to work with in multiple ways. He said he believes such cases involve mental illness, but while the APA has a diagnosis for “hoarding” behavior, it excludes animal hoarding which is considered to be different. How many animals constitutes hoarding? He said he likes to say “more than eight,” because he has eight animals at home. Hoarders characteristics include possessing more animals than they can care for, having a sense of being persecuted, and living in deplorable conditions.

He discussed two cases that he litigated, ALDF v. Barbara & Robert Woodley, and ALDF v. Janie Conyers, which involved over 500 animals between them. The former case, in North Carolina, was able to use North Carolina statute 19a, which allows a civil cause of action for animal cruelty. Wagman had some horrifying photos from the Woodley case. They had hundreds of dogs in their home living in their own feces, where ammonia levels were 20 times the USDA maximum allowed in a pig facility. These ammonia levels caused blindness in the dogs, as well as chemical burns to bare skin that contacted the floor, such as dogs’ scrotums. Multiple dogs were kept in wooden boxes with lids on them, and never let out. Mrs. Woodley’s favorite dog, Buddy, not only had his eyes burned to blindness from ammonia, but the bone in the dog’s jaw deteriorated from malnutrition. Local officials had known of Woodley’s problem for 20 years, but considered themselves powerless to do anything about it, since the scale of the problem was so large–the local shelter had only eight kennels, while the Woodleys had about 450 animals. The ALDF had to coordinate a massive effort to manage the rescue of the animals through their case.

Conyers was an AKC poodle breeder who had 106 poodles living in their own feces.

Wagman said that animal psychological suffering is difficult to show, but it can be done; demonstrating physiological suffering is easier, with objective criteria like the ammonia levels and physical injuries to animals.

There is no law against hoarding (except in Hawaii), just the criminal abuse statutes (and civil in NC). In the hoarding cases the abuse is typically neglect rather than active abuse.

Species 4: Exotic animal ownership

Wagman has handled about 10 chimpanzee cases. One was a case involving a couple in West Covina, California who had a chimp named Moe for 35 years that bit two people. He argued for a guardian ad litem to determine what was in the best interests of the chimp, and arranged to get Jane Goodall and Roger Fouts for that role. The court looked upon it favorably, but the couple came to an out-of-court settlement.

He also briefly discussed the Stamford, Connecticut case of Travis, the 200-pound chimpanzee who attacked a woman that was in the news last year.

He argued that there should be a legislative fix to ban exotic animal ownership completely–they’re wild animals. [A complete ban seems to me too much–there should be exceptions for research, conservation, breeding programs for endangered species, and so forth. And shouldn’t it be possible to domesticate other wild animals?] Connecticut has taken the step of banning chimp ownership.

Species 5: Shelter practices - euthanasia, veterinary care, adequate food, water, and sanitation, and hold periods

Animal shelters have an overwhelming job, said Wagman. The County of Los Angeles, which he sued, operates seven shelters which handle tens of thousands of animals per year. California law says that all animals must get veterinary care and be held for five days, and allowing animal suffering without treatment is not permissible. The shelters’ own records showed that they weren’t meeting that standard for thousands of animals, but they’re now working to meet them and having their activity monitored for compliance. A similar set of cases occurred in Kentucky, when the state transferred all shelter responsibility to the counties. Although the standards of care were minimal, they weren’t meeting it, and there were nutrition, veterinary care, and euthanasia issues. Upon getting notice, they quickly took action to remedy.

In Georgia, by contrast, there is a statute that prohibits the use of gas chambers for euthanization at shelters, but the Commissioner of Agriculture sent out letters to the shelters asking that they purchase gas chambers for euthanization. Gas chambers apparently have very ugly results in some cases, such as with unhealthy dogs. A lawsuit against the state of Georgia for its failure to comply with its own statute resulted an an injunction, which they then immediately violated by sending out more letters asking for gas chamber purchases. After obtaining a contempt ruling from the court, they finally got compliance.

Species 6: Entertainment

Wagman called this category both the most obvious and the most hidden. The use of animals in entertainment is obvious, but what is not obvious is what goes on behind the scenes, the knowledge of which drains the fun out of the entertainment.

Circuses, zoos, film and TV ads, animal fighting, public appearances, racing and rodeos, and hunting and fishing are all cases of animals used for entertainment. Wagman first discussed elephants in circuses, commenting on a recent Ringling Brothers case which was tossed out on an issue of standing. The case involved the use of bullhooks for elephant training, which injures the animals. The defense didn’t deny use of bullhooks, but claimed that they only use them as “guides."

Elephant treatment in zoos is also problematic, since standing around on hard surfaces causes painful arthritis. In the wild, elephants are awake 21 hours a day and may move 35 miles per day.

Wagman discussed dog fighting, and said that the Michael Vick case was a wakeup call for America to the reality of dog fighting, which exists in every state and most major cities.

He argued that the use of great apes in film and television should be banned, because of how the training process works. He said that while trainers claim to use only positive reinforcement training, an undercover person who volunteered for a year and a half with trainer Sid Yost found otherwise. A young chimpanzee is immediately treated to beating and punching to get them to comply. Their performance lifetime is about 3-5 years, after which they become to strong to conrol, and end up in private homes, in research, or in zoos, often all alone in barren cases. Wagman pointed out that the common use of a “smiling” chimpanzee is actually a fear grimace. He does lots of work for sanctuaries, of which there are nine in the U.S. for chimpanzees (including chimpsanctuarynw.org).

Regarding hunting, he distinguished traditional hunting from canned hunting and Internet hunting. Hunting is protected in most states, including in many state constitutions. Canned hunting ranches, where animals are fed by hand by humans before they are flushed out into open areas to be shot, are not considered to be hunting by most traditional hunters. [But is considered hunting by our former Vice President, Dick Cheney.] Internet hunting, where a rifle can be fired at live animals over the Internet, has been banned in 30 states.

He mentioned mountain lion hunting in the Black Hills of South Dakota, where mountain lions have become fairly scarce. A lawsuit was filed to try to stop the hunting on grounds of near-extinction of the animals, but the injunction was denied on the grounds that there were unlikely to be any mountain lions even found and killed. Two mountain lions were killed shortly thereafter in fairly quick succession, and even though there was a law that prohibited killing female mountain lions with cubs, the second one killed had a cub, and there was no prosecution.

Some Adidas shoes are made with kangaroo skin, and the state of California has banned the importation of kangaroo skin, which Adidas ignored. Adidas was sued as a result, and they lost at the California Supreme Court–but they responded by persuading the legislature to repeal the ban rather than changing their practices.

Species 7: Species and breed-specific legislation and ADA breedism case.

A variety of dog breeds have been considered at various times and places to be “bad dogs” that create a special danger. After WWII, it was German Shepherds and Dobermans. All cases to stop such breed-specific legislation have failed, because the “rational relation” standard is met by only a single case of harm. A case in progress right now in Concord, California involves Theresa Huerta, a woman suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act to keep her pit bull therapy dog from being euthanized.

Wagman concluded by saying that his overall objective is to keep the public and the courts focused on the real issue, which is ending blatant cases of animal abuse. Animal law is a growing field, and there’s an annual animal law conference in Portland that’s now in its fifth year.

First two stray dogs of 2010

Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:58:00 +0000

I caught these two male dogs in the front yard this afternoon--they wandered in while the gate was open, and I closed it to catch them. No collars, no tags, and the pit mix was unneutered (didn't check the Spitz mix or whatever he is). At first they were very skittish, but after they finally approached me, both wanted my constant attention. They were both quickly picked up by the Maricopa County pound--I'm sure they'll get taken to the east side.

As I was closing the gate to catch these guys, I heard a car honk its horn and a dog yelp, and looked up to see the car drive away as a man, woman, and dog stood on the sidewalk, the dog limping. I asked the man if the dog had just been hit, and if it was his dog, and he answered yes to both. They walked off, the dog limping (and off leash, with no collar or tags).

Please, if you own animals, be a responsible pet owner.

Historical Comments

Anonymous (2010-04-07):

It's absolutely no sense to own an animal if you're going to be irresponsible for them like that one guy is. Animals are not things and objects, but real flesh and blood organisms. Haven't that guy ever know that?

Against "coloring book" history of science

Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:42:00 +0000

It’s a bad misconception about evolution that it proceeds in a linear progression of one successfully evolving species after another displacing its immediate ancestors. Such a conception of human history is equally mistaken, and is often criticized with terms such as “Whiggish history” or “determinism” with a variety of adjectives (technological, social, cultural, historical). That includes the history of science, where the first version we often hear is one that has been rationally reconstructed by looking back at the successes and putting them into a linear narrative. Oh, there are usually a few errors thrown in, but they’re usually fit into the linear narrative as challenges that are overcome by the improvement of theories.

The reality is a lot messier, and getting into the details makes it clear that not only is a Whiggish history of science mistaken, but that science doesn’t proceed through the algorithmic application of “the scientific method,” and in fact that there is no such thing as “the scientific method." Rather, there is a diverse set of methods that are themselves evolving in various ways, and sometimes not only do methods which are fully endorsed as rational and scientific produce erroneous results, sometimes methods which have no such endorsement and are even demonstrably irrational fortuitously produce correct results. For example, Johannes Kepler was a neo-pythagorean number mystic who correctly produced his second law of planetary motion by taking an incorrect version of the law based on his intuitions and deriving the correct version from it by way of a mathematical argument that contained an error. Although he fortuitously got the right answer and receives credit for devising it, he was not justified in believing it to be true on the basis of his erroneous proof. With his first law, by contrast, he followed an almost perfectly textbook version of the hypothetico-deductive model of scientific method of formulating hypotheses and testing them against Tycho Brahe’s data.

The history of the scientific revolution includes numerous instances of new developments occurring piecemeal, with many prior erroneous notions being retained. Copernicus retained not only perfectly circular orbits and celestial spheres, but still needed to add epicycles to get his theory any where close to the predictive accuracy of the Ptolemaic models in use. Galileo insisted on retaining perfect circles and insisting that circular motion was natural motion, refusing to consider Kepler’s elliptical orbits. There seems to be a good case for “path dependence” in science. Even the most revolutionary changes are actually building on bits and pieces that have come before–and sometimes rediscovering work that had already been done before, like Galileo’s derivation of the uniform acceleration of falling bodies that had already been done by Nicole Oresme and the Oxford calculators. And the social and cultural environment–not just the scientific history–has an effect on what kinds of hypotheses are considered and accepted.

This conservativity of scientific change is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it suggests that we’re not likely to see claims that purport to radically overthrow existing theory (that “everything we know is wrong”) succeed–even if they happen to be correct. And given that there are many more ways to go wrong than to go right, such radical revisions are very likely not to be correct. Even where new theories are correct in some of their more radical claims (e.g., like Copernicus’ heliocentric model, or Wegener’s continental drift), it often requires other pieces to fall into place before they become accepted (and before it becomes rational to accept them). On the other hand, this also means that we’re likely to be blinded to new possibilities by what we already accept that seems to work well enough, even though it may be an inaccurate description of the world that is merely predictively successful. “Consensus science” at any given time probably includes lots of claims that aren’t true.

My inference from this is that we need both visionaries and skeptics, and a division of cognitive labor that’s largely conservative, but with tolerance for diversity and a few radicals generating the crazy hypotheses that may turn out to be true. The critique of evidence-based medicine made by Kimball Atwood and Steven Novella–that it fails to consider prior plausibility of hypotheses to be tested–is a good one that recognizes the unlikelihood of radical hypotheses to be correct, and thus that huge amounts of money shouldn’t be spent to generate and test them. (Their point is actually stronger than that, since most of the “radical hypotheses” in question are not really radical or novel, but are based on already discredited views of how the world works.) But that critique shouldn’t be taken to exclude anyone from engaging in the generation and test of hypotheses that don’t appear to have a plausible mechanism, because there is ample precedent for new phenomena being discovered before the mechanisms that explain them.

I think there’s a tendency among skeptics to talk about science as though it’s a unified discipline, with a singular methodology, that makes continuous progress, and where the consensus at any moment is the most appropriate thing to believe. The history of science suggests, on the other hand, that it’s composed of multiple disciplines, with multiple methods, that proceeds in fits and starts, that has dead-ends, that sometimes rediscovers correct-but-ignored past discoveries, and is both fallible and influenced by cultural context. At any given time, some theories are not only well-established but unified well with others across disciplines, while others don’t fit comfortably well with others, or may be idealized models that have predictive efficacy but seem unlikely to be accurate descriptions of reality in their details. To insist on an overly rationalistic and ahistorical model is not just out-of-date history and philosophy of science, it’s a “coloring book” oversimplification. While that may be useful for introducing ideas about science to children, it’s not something we should continue to hold to as adults.

Scientific autonomy, objectivity, and the value-free ideal

Sat, 03 Apr 2010 00:15:00 +0000

It has been argued by many that science, politics, and religion are distinct subjects that should be kept separate, in at least one direction if not both. Stephen Jay Gould argued that science and religion have non-overlapping areas of authority (NOMA, or non-overlapping magisteria), with the former concerned about how questions and the latter with why questions, and that conflicts between them won’t occur if they stick to their own domain. Between science and politics, most have little problem with science informing politics, but a big problem with political manipulation of science. Failure to properly maintain the boundaries leads to junk science, politicized science, scientism, science wars, and other objectionable consequences.

Heather E. Douglas, in Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal argues that notions of scientific autonomy and a scientific ideal of being isolated from questions of value (political or otherwise) are mistaken, and that this idea of science without regard to value questions (apart from epistemic virtues) is itself a contributing factor to such consequences. She attributes blame for this value-free ideal of science to post-1940 philosophy of science, though the idea of scientific autonomy appears to me to have roots much further back, including in Galileo’s “Letter to Castelli” and “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina” and John Tyndall’s 1874 Belfast Address, which were more concerned to argue that religion should not intrude into the domain of science rather than the reverse. (As I noted in a previous post about Galileo, he did not carve out complete autonomy for natural philosophy from theology, only for those things which can be demonstrated or proven, which he argued that scripture could not contradict–and where it apparently does, scripture must be interpreted allegorically.)

Douglas describes a “topography of values” in the categories of cognitive, ethical, and social values, and distinguishes direct and indirect roles for them. Within the “cognitive” category go values pertaining to our ability to understand evidence, such as simplicity, parsimony, fruitfulness, coherence, generality, and explanatory power, but excluding truth-linked epistemic virtues such as internal consistency and predictive competency or adequacy, which she identifies not as values but as minimal negative conditions that theories must necessarily meet. Ethical values and social values are overlapping categories, the former concerned with what’s good or right and the latter with what a particular society values, such as “justice, privacy, freedom, social stability, or innovation” (Douglas, p. 92). Her distinction between a direct and indirect role is that the former means that values can act directly as reasons for decisions, versus indirectly as a factor in decision-making where evidence is uncertain.

Douglas argues that values can legitimately play a direct role in certain phases of science, such as problem selection, selection of methodology, and in the policy-making arena, but should be restricted to an indirect role in phases such as data collection and analysis and drawing conclusions from evidence. She identifies some exceptions, however–problem selection and method selection can’t legitimately be guided by values in a way that undermines the science by forcing a pre-determined conclusion (e.g., by selecting a method that is guaranteed to be misleading), and a direct role for ethical values can surface in later stages by discovering that research is causing harm.

Her picture of science is one where values cannot directly intrude between the collection of data and the inference of the facts from that data, but the space between evidence and fact claims is somewhat more complex than she describes. There is the inference by a scientist of a fact from the evidence, the communication of that fact to other scientists, the publication of that fact in the scientific literature, and its communication to the general public and policy makers. All but the first of these are not purely epistemic, but are also forms of conduct. It seems to me that there is, in fact, a potential direct role for ethical values, at the very least, for each such type of conduct, in particular circumstances, which could merit withholding of the fact claim. For example, a scientist in Nazi Germany could behave ethically by withholding information about how to build an atomic bomb.

Douglas argues that the motivation for the value-free ideal is as a mechanism for preserving scientific objectivity; she therefore gives an account of objectivity that comports with her account of science with values. She identifies seven types of objectivity that are relevant in three different domains (plus one she rejects), all of which have to do with a shared ground for trust. First, within the domain of human interactions with the world, are “manipulable objectivity,” or the ability to repeatably and reliably make interventions in nature that give the same result, and “convergent objectivity,” or having supporting evidence for a conclusion from multiple independent lines of evidence. Second, in the realm of individual thought processes, she identifies “detached objectivity”–a scientific disinterest, freedom from bias, and eschewing the use of values in place of evidence. There’s also “value-free objectivity,” the notion behind the value-free ideal, which she rejects. And there’s “value-neutral objectivity,” or leaving personal views aside in, e.g., conducting a review of the literature in a field and identifying possible sets of explanations, or taking a “centrist” or “balanced” view of potentially relevant values. Finally, in the domain of social processes, Douglas identifies “procedural objectivity,” where use of the same procedures produces the same results regardless of who engages in the procedure, and “intersubjectivity” in two senses–“concordant objectivity,” agreement in judgments between different people, and “interactive objectivity,” agreement as the result of argument and deliberation.

Douglas writes clearly and concisely, and makes a strong case for the significance of values within science as well as in its application to public policy. Though she limits her discussion to natural science (and focuses on scientific discovery rather than fields of science that involve the production of new materials, an area where more direct use of values is likely appropriate), her account could likely be extended with the introduction of a bit more complexity. While I don’t think she has identified all or even the primary causes of the “science wars,” which she discusses at the beginning of her book, I think her account is more useful in adjudicating the “sound science”/“junk science” debate that she also discusses, as well as identifying a number of ways in which science isn’t and shouldn’t be autonomous from other areas of society.

[A slightly different version of the above was written as a comment for my Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology core seminar. Thanks to Judd A. for his comments.]

Galileo on the relation between science and religion

Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:00:00 +0000

Galileo’s view of natural philosophy (science) is that it is the study of the book of nature,” “written in mathematical language” (Finocchiaro 2008, p. 183), as contrasted with theology, the study of the book of Holy Scripture and revelation. Galileo endorses the idea that theology is the “queen” of the “subordinate sciences” (Finocchiaro 2008, p. 124), by which he means not that theology trumps science in any and all matters. He distinguishes two senses of theology being “preeminent and worthy of the title of queen”: (1) That “whatever is taught in all the other sciences is found explained and demonstrated in it [theology] by means of more excellent methods and of more sublime principles,” [Note added 12/14/2012: which he rejects] and (2) That theology deals with the most important issues, “the loftiest divine contemplations” about “the gaining of eternal bliss,” but “does not come down to the lower and humbler speculations of the inferior sciences … it does not bother with them inasmuch as they are irrelevant to salvation” [Note added 12/14/2012: which he affirms] (quotations from Finocchiaro 2008, pp. 124-125). Where Holy Scripture makes reference to facts about nature, they may be open to allegorical interpretation rather than literal interpretation, unless their literal truth is somehow necessary to the account of “the gaining of eternal bliss.”

Galileo further distinguishes two types of claims about science: (1) “propositions about nature which are truly demonstrated” and (2) “others which are simply taught” (Finocchiaro 2008, p. 126). The role of the theologian with regard to the former category is “to show that they are not contrary to Holy Scripture,” e.g., by providing an interpretation of Holy Scripture compatible with the proposition; with regard to the latter, if it contradicts Holy Scripture, it must be considered false and demonstrations of the same sought (Finocchiaro 2008, p. 126). Presumably, if in the course of attempting to demonstrate that a proposition in the second category is false, it is instead demonstrated to be true, it then must be considered to be part of the former category. Galileo’s discussion allows that theological condemnation of a physical proposition may be acceptable if it is shown not to be conclusively demonstrated (Finnochiaro 2008, p. 126), rather than a more stringent standard that it must be conclusively demonstrated to be false, which, given his own lack of conclusive evidence for heliocentrism, could be considered a loophole allowing him to be hoist with his own petard.

Galileo also distinguishes between what is apparent to experts vs. the layman (Finnochiaro 2008, p. 131), denying that popular consensus is a measure of truth, but regarding that this distinction is what lies behind claims made in Holy Scripture about physical propositions that are not literally true. With regard to the theological expertise of the Church Fathers, their consensus on a physical proposition is not sufficient to make it an article of faith unless such consensus is upon “conclusions which the Fathers discussed and inspected with great diligence and debated on both sides of the issue and for which they then all agreed to reject one side and hold the other” (Finnochiaro 2008, p. 133). Or, in a contemporary (for Galileo) context, the theologians of the day could have a comparably weighted position on claims about nature if they “first hear the experiments, observations, reasons, and demonstrations of philosophers and astronomers on both sides of the question, and then they would be able to determine with certainty whatever divine inspiration will communicate to them” (Finnochiaro 2008, p. 135).

Galileo’s conception of science that leads him to take this position appears to be drawn from what Peter Dear (1990, p. 664), drawing upon Thomas Kuhn (1977), calls “the quantitative, ‘classical’ mathematical sciences” or the “mixed mathematical sciences,” identifying this as a predominantly Catholic conception of science, as contrasted with experimental science developed in Protestant England. The former conception is one in which laws of nature can be recognized through idealized thought experiments based on limited (or no) actual observations, but demonstrated conclusively by means of rational argument. This seems to be the general mode of Galileo’s work. Dear argues that this notion of natural law allows for a conception of the “ordinary course of nature” which can be violated by an observed miraculous event, which comports with a Catholic view that miracles continue to occur in the world.

By contrast, the experimentalist views of Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle involve inductively inferring natural laws on the basis of observations, in which case observing something to occur makes it part of nature that must be accounted for in the generalized law–a view under which a miracle seems to be ruled out at the outset, which was not a problem for Protestants who considered the “age of miracles” to be over (Dear 1990, pp. 682-683). Dear argues that for the British experimentalists, authentication of an experimental result was in some ways like the authentication of a miracle for the Catholics–requiring appropriately trustworthy observations–but that instead of verifying a violation of the “ordinary course of nature,” it verified what the “ordinary course of nature” itself was (Dear 1990, p. 680). Where the Catholics like Galileo and Pascal derived conclusions about particulars from universal laws recognized by observation, reasoning, and mathematical demonstration, the Protestants like Bacon and Boyle constructed universal laws by inductive generalization from observations of particulars, and were notably critical of failing to perform a sufficient number of experiments before coming to conclusions (McMullin 1990, p. 821), and put forth standards for hypotheses and experimental method (McMullin 1990, p. 823; Shapin & Schaffer 1985, pp. 25ff & pp. 56-59). The English experimentalist tradition, arising at a time of political and religious confusion after the English Civil War and the collapse of the English state church, was perhaps an attempt to establish an independent authority for science. By the 19th century, there were explicit (and successful) attempts to separate science from religious authority and create a professionalized class of scientists (e.g., as Gieryn 1983, pp. 784-787 writes about John Tyndall).

The English experimentalists followed the medieval scholastics (Pasnau, forthcoming) in adopting a notion of “moral certainty” for “the highest degree of probabilistic assurance” for conclusions adopted from experiments (Shapin 1994, pp. 208-209). This falls short of the Aristotelian conception of knowledge, yet is stronger than mere opinion. They also placed importance on public demonstration in front of appropriately knowledgeable witnesses–with both the credibility of experimenter and witness being relevant to the credibility of the result. Where on Galileo’s conception expertise appears to be primarily a function of possessing rational faculties and knowledge, on the experimentalist account there is importance to skill in application of method and to the moral trustworthiness of the participants as a factor in vouching for the observational results. In the Galilean approach, trustworthiness appears to be less relevant as a consequence of actual observation being less relevant–though Galileo does, from time to time, make remarks about observations refuting Aristotle, e.g., in “Two New Sciences” where he criticizes Aristotle’s claims about falling bodies (Finnochiaro 2008, pp. 301, 303).

The classic Aristotelian picture of science is similar to the Galilean approach, in that observation and data collection is done for the purpose of recognizing first principles and deriving demonstrations by reason from those first principles. What constitutes knowledge is what can be known conclusively from such first principles and what is derived by necessary connection from them; whatever doesn’t meet that standard is mere opinion (Posterior Analytics, Book I, Ch. 33; McKeon 1941, p. 156). The Aristotelian picture doesn’t include any particular deference to theology; any discipline could could potentially yield knowledge so long as there were recognizable first principles. The role of observation isn’t to come up with fallible inductive generalizations, but to recognize identifiable universal and necessary features from their particular instantiations (Lennox 2006). This discussion is all about theoretical knowledge (episteme) rather than practical knowledge (tekne), the latter of which is about contingent facts about everyday things that can change. Richard Parry (2007) points out an apparent tension in Aristotle between knowledge of mathematics and knowledge of the natural world on account of his statement that “the minute accuracy of mathematics is not to be demanded in all cases, but only in the case of things which have no matter. Hence its method is not that of natural science; for presumably the whole of nature has matter” (Metaphysics, Book II, Ch. 3, McKeon 1941, p. 715).

The Galilean picture differs from the Aristotelian in its greater use of mathematics (geometry)–McMullin writes that Galileo had “a mathematicism … more radical than Plato’s” (1990, pp. 822-823) and by its inclusion of the second book, that of revelation and Holy Scripture, as a source of knowledge. But while the second book is one which can trump mere opinion–anything that isn’t conclusively demonstrated and thus fails to meet Aristotle’s understanding of knowledge–it must be held compatible with anything that does meet those standards.

References

Representation, realism, and relativism

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:11:00 +0000

The popular view of the “science wars” of the 1990s is that it involved scientists and philosophers criticizing social scientists for making and accepting absurd claims as a result of an extreme relativistic view about scientific knowledge. Such absurd claims included claims like “the natural world in no way constrains what is believed to be,” “the natural world has a small or nonexistent role in the construction of scientific knowledge,” and “the natural world must be treated as though it did not affect our perception of it” (all due to Harry Collins, quoted in Yves Gingras’ scathingly critical review of his book (PDF), Gravity’s Shadow: The Search for Gravitational Waves). Another example was Bruno Latour’s claim that it was impossible for Ramses II to have died of tuberculosis because the tuberculosis bacillus was not discovered until 1882. This critical popular view is right as far as it goes–those claims are absurd–but the popular view of science also tends toward an overly rationalistic and naively realistic conception of scientific knowledge that fails to account for social factors that influence science as actually practiced by scientists and scientific institutions. The natural world and our social context both play a role in the production of scientific knowledge.

Mark B. Brown’s Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation tries to steer a middle course between extremes, but periodically veers too far in the relativist direction. Early on, in a brief discussion of the idea of scientific representations corresponding to reality, he writes (p. 6): “Emphasizing the practical dimensions of science need not impugn the truth of scientific representations, as critics of science studies often assume …” But he almost immediately seems to retract this when he writes that “science is not a mirror of nature” (p. 7) and, in one of several unreferenced and unargued-for claims appealing to science studies that occur in the book, that “constructivist science studies does undermine the standard image of science as an objective mirror of nature” (p. 16). Perhaps he merely means that scientific representations are imperfect and fallible, for he does periodically make further attempts to steer a middle course, such as when he quotes Latour: “Either they went on being relativists even about the settled parts of science–which made them look ridiculous; or they continued being realists even about the warm uncertain parts–and they made fools of themselves” (p. 183). It’s surely reasonable to take an instrumentalist approach to scientific theories that aren’t well established, are somewhat isolated from the rest of our knowledge, or are highly theoretical, but also to take a realist approach to theories that are well established with evidence from multiple domains and have remained stable while being regularly put to the test. The evidence that we have today for a heliocentric solar system, for common ancestry of species, and for the position and basic functions of organs in the human body is of such strength that it is unlikely that we will see that knowledge completely overthrown in a future scientific revolution. But Brown favorably quotes Latour: “Even the shape of humans, our very body, is composed to a great extent of sociotechnical negotiations and artifacts.” (p. 171) Our bodies are not “composed” of “sociotechnical negotiations and artifacts”–this is either a mistaken use of the word “composed” (instead of perhaps “the consequence of”) or a use-mention error (referring to “our very body” instead of our idea of our body).

In Ch. 6, in a section titled “Realism and Relativism” that begins with a reference to the “science wars,” he follows the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey in order to “help resolve some of the misunderstandings and disagreements among today’s science warriors” such as that “STS scholars seem to endorse a radical form of relativism, according to which scientific accounts of reality are no more true than those of witchcraft, astrology, or common sense” (p. 156). Given that Brown has already followed Dewey’s understanding of scientific practice as continuous with common sense (pp.151-152), it’s somewhat odd to see it listed with witchcraft and astrology in that list–though perhaps in this context it’s not meant as the sort of critical common sense Dewey described, but more like folk theories that are undermined or refuted by science.

Brown seems to endorse Dewey’s view that “reality is the world encountered through successful intervention” and favorably quotes philosopher Ian Hacking that “We shall count as real what we can use to intervene in the world to affect something else, or what the world can use to affect us” (pp. 156-157), but he subsequently drops the second half of Hacking’s statement when he writes “If science is understood in terms of the capacity to direct change, knowing cannot be conceived on the model of observation.” Such an understanding may capture experimental sciences, but not observational or historical sciences, an objection Brown attributes to Bertrand Russell, who “pointed out in his review of Dewey’s Logic that knowledge of a star could not be said to affect the star” (p. 158). Brown, however, follows Latour and maintains that “the work of representation … always transforms what it represents” (p. 177). Brown defends this by engaging in a use-mention error, the failure to properly distinguish between the use of an expression and talking about the expression, when he writes that stars as objects of knowledge are newly created objects (p. 158, more below). Such an error is extremely easy to make when talking about social facts, where representations are themselves partly constitutive of the facts, such as in talk about knowledge or language.

Brown writes that “People today experience the star as known, differently than before … The star as an object of knowledge is thus indeed a new object” (p. 158). But this is unnecessary given the second half of Hacking’s statement, since we can observe and measure stars–they have impact upon us. Brown does then talk about impact on us, but only by the representation, not the represented: “…this new object causes existential changes in the knower. With the advent of the star as a known object, people actually experience it differently. This knowledge should supplement and not displace whatever aesthetic or religious experiences people continue to have of the star, thus making their experiences richer and more fulfilling” (p. 158). There may certainly be augmented experience with additional knowledge, which may not change the perceptual component of the experience, but I wonder what the Brown’s basis is for the normative claim that religious experiences in particular shouldn’t be displaced–if those religious experiences are based on claims that have been falsified, such as an Aristotelian conception of the universe, then why shouldn’t they be displaced? But perhaps here I’m making the use-mention error, and Brown doesn’t mean that religious interpretations shouldn’t be displaced, only experiences that are labeled as “religious” shouldn’t be displaced.

A few other quibbles:

Brown writes that “all thought relies on language” (p. 56). If this is the case, then nonhuman animals that have no language cannot have thoughts. (My commenter suggested that all sentient beings have language, and even included plants in that category. I think the proposal that sentience requires language is at least plausible, though I wouldn’t put many nonhuman animals or any plants into that category–perhaps chimps, whales, and dolphins. Some sorts of “language” extend beyond that category, such as the dance of honeybees that seems to code distance and direction information, but I interpreted Brown’s claim to refer to human language with syntax, semantics, generative capacity, etc., and to mean that one can’t have non-linguistic thoughts in the form of, say, pictorial imagery, without language. I.e., that even such thoughts require a “language of thought,” to use Jerry Fodor’s expression.)

Brown endorses Harry Collins’ idea of the “experimenter’s regress,” without noting that his evidence for the existence of such a phenomenon is disputed (Allan Franklin, “How to Avoid the Experimenters’ Regress,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 25(3, 1994): 463-491). (Franklin also discusses this in the entry on “Experiment in Physics” at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

Brown contrasts Harry Collins and Robert Evans with Hobbes on the nature of expertise: The former see “expertise as a ‘real and substantive’ attribute of individuals” while “For Hobbes, in contrast, what matters is whether the claims of reason are accepted by the relevant audience.” (p. 116). Brown sides with Hobbes, but this is to make a similar mistake to that Richard Rorty made when claiming that truth is what you can get away with, which is false by its own definition–since philosophers didn’t let him get away with it. This definition doesn’t allow for the existence of a successful fake expert or con artist, but we know that such persons exist from examples that have been exposed. Under this definition, such persons were experts until they were unmasked.

Brown’s application of Hobbes’ views on political representation to nature is less problematic when he discusses the political representation of environmental interests (pp. 128-131) than when he discusses scientific representations of nature (pp. 131-132). The whole discussion might have been clearer had it taken account of John Searle’s account of social facts (in The Construction of Social Reality).

Brown writes that “Just as recent work in science studies has shown that science is not made scientifically …” (p. 140), without argument or reference.

He apparently endorses a version of Dewey’s distinction between public and private actions with private being “those interactions that do not affect anyone beyond those engaged in the interaction; interactions that have consequences beyond those so engaged he calls public” (p. 141). This distinction is probably not tenable since the indirect consequences of even actions that we’d consider private can ultimately affect others, such as a decision to have or not to have children.

On p. 159, Brown attributes the origin of the concept of evolution to “theories of culture, such as those of Vico and Comte” rather than Darwin, but neither of them had theories of evolution by natural selection comparable to Darwin’s innovation; concepts of evolutionary change go back at least to the pre-Socratic philosophers like the Epicureans and Stoics. (Darwin didn’t invent natural selection, either, but he was the first to put all the pieces together and recognize that evolution by natural selection could serve a productive as well as a conservative role.)

[A slightly different version of the above was written as a comment for my Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology core seminar. Thanks to Brenda T. for her comments. It should be noted that the above really doesn’t address the main arguments of the book, which are about the meaning of political representation and representation in science, and an argument about proper democratic representation in science policy.]

Science as performance

Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:38:00 +0000

The success of science in the public sphere is determined not just by the quality of research but by the ability to persuade. Stephen Hilgartner’s Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama uses a theatrical metaphor, drawing on the work of Erving Goffman, to shed light on and explain the outcomes associated with three successive reports on diet and nutrition issued by the National Academies of Science, one of which was widely criticized by scientists, one of which was criticized by food industry groups, and one of which was never published. They differed in “backstage” features such as how they coordinated their work and what sources they drew upon, in “onstage” features such as the composition of experts on their committees and how they communicated their results, and how they responded to criticism.

The kinds of features and techniques that Hilgartner identifies as used to enhance perceptions of credibility–features of rhetoric and performance–are the sorts of features relied upon by con artists. If there is no way to distinguish such features as used by con artists from those used by genuine practitioners, if all purported experts are on equal footing and only the on-stage performances are visible, then we have a bit of a problem. All purported experts of comparable performing ability are on equal footing, and we may as well flip coins to distinguish between them. But part of a performance includes the propositional content of the performance–the arguments and evidence deployed–and these are evaluated not just on aesthetic grounds but with respect to logical coherence and compatibility with what the audience already knows. Further, the performance itself includes an interaction with the audience that strains the stage metaphor. Hilgartner describes this as members of the audience themselves taking the stage, yet audience members in his metaphor also interact with each other, individually and in groups, through complex webs of social relationships.

The problem of expert-layman interaction is that the layman in most cases lacks the interactional expertise to even be able to communicate about the details of the evidence supporting a scientific position, and must rely upon other markers of credibility which may be rhetorical flourishes. This is the problem of Plato’s “Charmides,” in which Socrates asserts that only a genuine doctor can distinguish a sufficiently persuasive quack from a genuine doctor. A similar position is endorsed by philosopher John Hardwig, in his paper “Epistemic Dependence,” (PDF) and by law professor Scott Brewer in “Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process,” which points out that the problem faces judges and juries. There are some features which enable successful distinctions between genuine and fake experts in at least the more extreme circumstances–examination of track records, credentials, evaluations by other experts or meta-experts (e.g., experts in methods used across multiple domains, such as logic and mathematics). Brewer enumerates four strategies of nonexperts in evaluating expert claims: (1) “substantive second-guessing,” (2) “using general canons of rational evidentiary support,” (3) “evaluating demeanor,” and (4) “evaluating credentials.” Of these, only (3) is an examination of the merely surface appearances of the performance (which is not to say that it can’t be a reliable, though fallible, mechanism). But when the evaluation is directed not at distinguishing genuine expert from fake, but conflicting claims between two genuine experts, the nonexpert may be stuck in a situation where none of these is effective and only time (if anything) will tell–but in some domains, such as the legal arena, a decision may need to be reached much more quickly than a resolution might become available.

One novel suggestion for institutionalizing a form of expertise that fits into Hilgartner’s metaphor is philosopher Don Ihde’s proposal of “science critics”, in which individuals with at least interactional expertise within the domain they criticize serve a role similar to art and literary critics in evaluating a performance, including its content and not just its rhetorical flourishes.

[A slightly different version of the above was written as a comment for my Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology core seminar. The Hardwig and Brewer articles are both reprinted in Evan Selinger and Robert P. Crease, editors, The Philosophy of Expertise. NY: Columbia University Press, 2006, along with an excellent paper I didn’t mention above, Alvin I. Goldman’s “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?" (PDF). The term “interactional expertise” comes from Harry M. Collins and Robert Evans, “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience," also reprinted in the Selinger & Crease volume; a case study of such expertise is in Steven Epstein’s Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Thanks to Tim K. for his comments on the above.]

Is knowledge drowning in a flood of information?

Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:10:00 +0000

There have long been worries that the mass media are producing a “dumbing down” of American political culture, reducing political understanding to sound bites and spin. The Internet has been blamed for information overload, and, like MTV in prior decades, for a reduction in attention span as the text-based web became the multimedia web, and cell phones have become a more common tool for its use. Similar worries have been expressed about public understanding of science. Nicholas Carr has asked the question, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”

Yaron Ezrahi’s “Science and the political imagination in contemporary democracies” (a chapter in Sheila Jasanoff’s States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order) argues that the post-Enlightenment synthesis of scientific knowledge and politics in democratic societies is in decline, on the basis of a transition of public discourse into easily consumed, bite-sized chunks of vividly depicted information that he calls “outformation.” Where, prior to the Enlightenment, authority had more of a religious basis and the ideal for knowledge was “wisdom”–which Ezrahi sees as a mix of the “cognitive, moral, social, philosophical, and practical” which is privileged, unteachable, and a matter of faith, the Enlightenment brought systematized, scientific knowledge to the fore. Such knowledge was formalized, objective, universal, impersonal, and teachable–with effort. When that scientific knowledge is made more widely usable, “stripped of its theoretical, formal, logical and mathematical layers” into a “think knowledge” that is context-dependent and localized, it becomes “information.” And finally, when information is further stripped of its context and design for use for a particular purpose, yet augmented with “rich and frequently intense” representations that include “cognitive, emotional, aesthetic, and other dimensions of experience,” it becomes “outformation.”

According to Ezrahi, such “outformations” mix references to objective and subjective reality, and they become “shared references in the context of public discourse and action.” They are taken to be legitimated and authoritative despite lacking any necessary grounding in “observations, experiments, and logic.” He describes this shift as a shift from a high-cost political reality to a low-cost political reality, where “cost” is a measure of the recipient’s ability to consume it rather than the consequences to the polity of its consumption and use as the basis for political participation. This shift, he says, “reflects the diminished propensity of contemporary publics to invest personal or group resources in understanding and shaping politics and the management of public affairs.”

But, I wonder, is this another case of reflecting on “good old days” that never existed? While new media have made new forms of communication possible, was there really a time when the general public was fully invested in “understanding and shaping politics” and not responding to simplifications and slogans? And is it really the case, as Ezrahi argues, that while information can be processed and reconstructed into knowledge, the same is not possible for outformations? Some of us do still read books, and for us, Google may not be “making us stupid,” but rather providing a supplement that allows us to quickly search a vast web of interconnected bits of information that can be assembled into knowledge, inspired by a piece of “outformation.”

[A slightly different version of the above was written as a comment on Ezrahi’s article for my Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology core seminar. Although I wrote about new media, it is apparent that Ezrahi was writing primarily about television and radio, where “outformation” seems to be more prevalent than information. Thanks to Judd A. for his comments on the above.]

UPDATE (April 19, 2010): Part of the above is translated into Italian, with commentary from Ugo Bardi of the University of Florence, at his blog.

Seeing like a slime mold

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:41:00 +0000

Land reforms instituted in Vietnam under French rule, in India under the British, and in rural czarist Russia introduced simplified rights of ownership and standardized measurements of size and shape that were primarily for the benefit of the state, e.g., for tax purposes. James C. Scott’s Seeing as a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed gives these and numerous other examples of ways in which standardization and simplification have been used by the state to make legible and control resources (and people) within its borders. He recounts cases of how the imposition of such standardization often fails or at least has unintended negative consequences, such as his example of German scientific forestry’s introduction of a monoculture of Norway spruce or Scotch pine designed to maximize lumber production, but which led to die-offs a century later. (The monoculture problem of reduced resilience/increased vulnerability is one which has been recognized in an information security context, as well, e.g., in Dan Geer et al.’s paper on Microsoft monoculture that got him fired from @stake and his more recent work.)

Scott’s examples of state-imposed uniformity should not, however, be misconstrued to infer that any case of uniformity is state-imposed, or that such regularities, even if state-imposed, don’t have underlying natural constraints. Formalized institutions of property registration and title have appeared in the crevices between states, for example in the squatter community of Kowloon Walled City that existed from 1947-1993 on a piece of the Kowloon peninsula that was claimed by both China and Britain, yet governed by neither. While the institutions of Kowloon Walled City may have been patterned after those familiar to its residents from the outside world, they were internally imposed rather than by a state.

Patterns of highway network design present another apparent counterexample. Scott discusses the design of highways around Paris as being designed by the state to intentionally route traffic through Paris, as well as to allow for military and law enforcement activity within the city in order to put down insurrections. But motorway patterns in the UK appear to have a more organic structure, as a recent experiment with slime molds oddly confirmed. Two researchers at the University of West of England constructed a map of the UK out of agar, putting clumps of oat flakes at the locations of the nine most populous cities. They then introduced a slime mold colony to the mix, and in many cases it extruded tendrils to feed on the oat flakes creating patterns which aligned with the existing motorway design, with some variations. A similar experiment with a map of cities around Tokyo duplicated the Tokyo railway network, slime-mold style. The similarity between transportation networks and evolved biological systems for transporting blood and sap may simply be because they are efficient and resilient solutions.

These examples, while not refuting Scott’s point about frequent failures in top-down imposition of order, suggest that it may be possible for states to achieve success in certain projects by facilitating bottom-up development of ordered structures. The state often imposes an order that has already been developed via some other means–e.g., electrical standards were set up by industry bodies before being codified, IETF standards for IP which don’t have the force of law yet are globally implemented. In other cases, states may ratify an emerging order by, e.g., preempting a diversity of state rules with a set that have been demonstrated to be successful, though that runs the risk of turning into a case like Scott describes, if there are local reasons for the diversity.

[A slightly different version of the above was written as a comment on the first two chapters of Scott’s book for my Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology core seminar. I’ve ordered a copy of the book since I found the first two chapters to be both lucidly written and extremely interesting. Thanks to Gretchen G. for her comments that I’ve used to improve (I hope) the above.]

UPDATE (April 25, 2010): Nature 407:470 features “Intelligence: Maze-solving by an amoeboid organism.”

Rom Houben not communicating; blogger suppresses the evidence

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:35:00 +0000

It has now been demonstrated, as no surprise to skeptics, that Rom Houben was not communicating via facilitated communication, a discredited method by which facilitators have typed for autistic children. A proper test was conducted by Dr. Steven Laureys with the help of the Belgian Skeptics, and it was found that the communications were coming from the facilitator, not from Houben.

A blogger who was a vociferous critic of James Randi and Arthur Caplan for pointing out that facilitated communication is a bogus technique and who had attempted to use Houben’s case to argue that Terri Schiavo also may have been conscious is not only unwilling to admit he was wrong, but is deleting comments that point to the results of this new test. I had posted a comment along the lines of “Dr. Laureys performed additional tests with Houben and the facilitator and found that, in fact, the communications were coming from the facilitator, not Houben” with a link to the Neurologica blog; this blogger called that “spam” (on the basis of my posting a similar comment on another blog, perhaps) and “highly misleading” (on the basis of nothing).

As I’ve said all along, this doesn’t mean that Houben isn’t “locked in” and conscious, but facilitated communication provides no evidence that he is.

(Previously, previously.)

Another lottery tragedy

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:20:00 +0000

From CNN:

A Florida woman has been charged with first-degree murder in connection with the death of a lottery millionaire whose body was found buried under fresh concrete, authorities said.

Dorice Donegan Moore, 37, was arrested last week on charges of accessory after the fact regarding a first-degree murder in the death of Abraham Shakespeare, 43, said Hillsborough County Sheriff David Gee. She remains in the Hillsborough County Jail, he said.

Moore befriended Shakespeare after he won a $31 million Florida lottery prize in 2006 and was named a person of interest in the case after Shakespeare disappeared, authorities said.

Where is the global climate model without AGW?

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:30:00 +0000

One of the regular critics of creationism on the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup (where the wonderful Talk Origins Archive FAQs were originally developed) was a guy who posted under the name “Dr. Pepper.” His posts would always include the same request–“Please state the scientific theory of creationism.” It was a request that was rarely responded to, and never adequately answered, because there is no scientific theory of creationism.

A parallel question for those who are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change is to ask for a global climate model that more accurately reflects temperature changes over the last century than those used by the IPCC, without including the effect of human emissions of greenhouse gases. For comparison, here’s a review of the 23 models which contributed to the IPCC AR4 assessment. While these models are clearly not perfect, shouldn’t those who deny anthropogenic global warming be able to do better?

ApostAZ podcast #19

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:21:00 +0000

After a multi-month hiatus, the ApostAZ podcast returns:

Episode 019 Atheism and Spooky Bullshite in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! Intro- Joe Rogan “Noah’s Ark (George Carlin Remix)”. Paranormal Activity, Chick Tracts and Ugandan Love.

The guy whose name you couldn’t think of around 16:22-16:30–of the Stop Sylvia Brown website–is Robert Lancaster.

Historical Comments

M! (2010-02-04):

Around the 25 minute-mark Brad brought up our recent cross-blogging dialogue and gave some commentary on our discussion. I take great exception to his gross mischaracterization of my arguments. Here is a partial transcript of the pertinent comments:

Brad - Vocab will read a certain amount of texts from one of his apologists and he’ll copy pasta … he’ll attribute it and put quotes around it but he’ll put that as an argument to something Jim that broke down himself and examined the truth value of and Vocab says, “Yeah, but this apologist says this.”

A few comments on the nature and scope of skepticism

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:50:00 +0000

Of late there has been a lot of debate about the nature, scope, and role of skepticism. Does skepticism imply atheism? Are “climate change skeptics” skeptics? Must skeptics defer to scientific consensus or experts? Should skepticism as a movement or skeptical organizations restrict themselves to paranormal claims, or avoid religious or political claims?

I think “skepticism” can refer to multiple different things, and my answers to the above questions differ in some cases depending on how the term is being used. It can refer to philosophical skepticism, to scientific skepticism, to “skeptical inquiry,” to “doubt” broadly speaking, to the “skeptical movement,” to skeptical organizations, and to members of the class of people who identify themselves as skeptics.

My quick answers to the above questions, then, are:

Does skepticism imply atheism? No, regardless of which definition you choose. It is reasonable to argue that proper application of philosophical skepticism should lead to atheism, and to argue that scientific skepticism should include methodological naturalism, but I prefer to identify skepticism with a commitment to a methodology rather than its outputs. That still involves a set of beliefs–which are themselves subject to reflection, criticism, and evaluation–but it is both a more minimal set than the outputs of skepticism and involves commitment to values as well as what is scientifically testable. My main opposition to defining skepticism by its outputs is that that is a set of beliefs that can change over time with access to new and better information, and shouldn’t be held dogmatically.

Are “climate change skeptics” skeptics? I would say that some are, and some aren’t–some are outright “deniers” who are allowing ideology to trump science and failing to dig into the evidence. Others are digging into the evidence and just coming to (in my opinion) erroneous conclusions, but that doesn’t preclude them from being skeptics so long as they’re still willing to engage and look at contrary evidence, as well as admit to mistakes and errors when they make them–like relying on organizations and individuals who are demonstrably not reliable. As you’ll see below, I agree we should to try to save the term “skeptic” from being equated with denial.

Must skeptics defer to scientific consensus or experts? I think skeptical organizations and their leaders should defer to experts on topics outside of their own fields of expertise on pragmatic and ethical grounds, but individual skeptics need not necessarily do so.

Should skepticism as a movement or skeptical organizations restrict themselves to paranormal claims, or avoid religious or political claims? I think skepticism as a movement, broadly speaking, is centered on organizations that promote scientific skepticism and focus on paranormal claims, but also promote science and critical thinking, including with some overlap with religious and public policy claims, where the scientific evidence is relevant. At its fringes, though, it also includes some atheist and rationalist groups that take a broader view of skeptical inquiry. I think those central groups (like CSI, JREF, and the Skeptics Society) should keep their focus, but not as narrowly as Daniel Loxton suggests in his “Where Do We Go From Here?" (PDF) essay.

Here are a few of my comments, on these same topics, from other blogs.

Comment on Michael De Dora, “Why Skeptics Should be Atheists," at the Gotham Skeptic blog:

Definitions of atheism and agnosticism

Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:41:00 +0000

I recently posted this at the Phoenix Atheists Meetup group’s discussion forum in a thread titled “atheism v. agnosticism,” and thought it might be worth reposting here:

There are lots of ways to define these terms, to the extent that you can’t be sure how people are using them unless you ask.

The general population of English speakers understands atheism to be equivalent to what Michael Martin calls “positive atheism” and what used to be commonly known among Internet atheists as “strong atheism”–an active disbelief in the existence of gods. That’s a position which does have a burden of proof over mere nonbelief, also known as weak atheism or negative atheism. George H. Smith made the same distinction using the terms explicit vs. implicit atheism. Richard Dawkins complicated matters by redefining “strong atheism” as absolute certainty that there is no God (position 7 on his scale). I wish he had chosen a different term, as I think it’s a mistake to associate positive atheism/strong atheism with certainty, proof, or even knowledge.

I used to like this distinction, but am less enamored with it because “weak atheism” or “negative atheism” or atheism as mere lack of belief in gods has a few logical problems as a basis for anything. A lack of belief is not a position, it cannot be used to motivate action or to infer conclusions from. Those who say that they are only atheists in the weak sense, however, do join groups and appear to draw inferences and conclusions as though they are using the nonexistence of gods as a premise, which means either that they are really implicitly using strong atheism as a position, or they are drawing those inferences based on other meta-beliefs.

The advantage of equating atheism with weak atheism is that theism and atheism then become contradictories which cover the entire space of logical possibilities–you either have a belief in one or more gods, or you don’t. Under that definition, there’s no space for agnosticism except as a subset of one or both of atheism and theism.

The definition of “agnosticism” that was given earlier in this thread as pertaining to the possibility of knowledge about the existence or nonexistence of gods then gives you two dimensions, on which you can have agnostic atheists (I don’t believe there are gods, and it’s not possible to know), agnostic theists (I believe in at least one god, but it’s not possible to know), gnostic atheists (I don’t believe there are gods, and it is possible to know there aren’t), and gnostic theists (I believe there’s at least one god, and it’s possible to know). Of those positions, I think agnostic theism is difficult to make a case for with respect to most conceptions of God, except for deism and other forms of uninvolved gods.

But most people who call themselves agnostics aren’t using that definition, they’re using a notion that is a particular form of weak atheism, that holds to something like there is a parity between arguments for and against the existence of gods, or that there is no way to effectively compare their evidential weight, or similar. They might agree with agnosticism regarding the possibility of knowledge for the existence or nonexistence of gods, but they go further and say that there is some parity on the case for mere belief in either direction, as well.

I’m generally in favor of allowing people to choose their own self-identifying terms and defining them as they see fit, so long as they can give a legitimate reason for their classification and it’s not completely at odds with ordinary usage. One example that goes beyond ordinary usage and I think just indicates some kind of confusion is that 21% of self-identified atheists in a Pew survey reported last October said that they believe in God. Sorry, but that’s not a definition of atheist that I think can get off the ground.

My own position is strong atheism/positive atheism with respect to most traditional conceptions of God, and weak atheism/agnosticism (or igtheism) with respect to certain rarefied/unempirical notions of God. I’m comfortable calling myself an atheist in general, and dispute claims that it’s impossible have knowledge that at least most gods do not exist. “You can’t prove a negative” is a widely expressed canard, which I argue against here:

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/debiak.html

That also contains links to a few other essays which make the same point in a way that is probably more clear, including one by Jeff Lowder which argues for the possibility of disproofs of God’s existence.

UPDATE (November 22, 2010): Also see the Internet Infidels’ Atheist Web definition page. I now suspect that “empirical agnosticism” and “weak atheism” are indistinguishable.

UPDATE (November 24, 2011): Also see Jeff Lowder’s January 4, 2006 post at Naturalistic Atheism, “Disagreement Among Self-Described Atheists about the Meaning of ‘Atheism’" and Ted Drange’s 1998 article at the Secular Web, “Atheism, Agnosticism, and Noncognitivism." Drange’s distinctions seem to me to be well worth using. Maverick Philosopher’s “Against Terminological Mischief: ‘Negative Atheism’ and ‘Negative Nominalism’" is also good.

UPDATE (January 20, 2012): Jeff Lowder has written further on this subject at the Secular Outpost, in “The Definition of Atheism, the Anal-Retentive Defense of Etymological Purism, and Linguistic Relativism."

New Richard Cheese album: OK Bartender

Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:32:00 +0000

The newest Richard Cheese album is available for pre-order, featuring lounge-ified versions of “Supersonic,” “Bohemian Rhapsody,” “Light My Fire,” “Freebird,” and “My Neck, My Back.”

Books Read in 2009

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:00:00 +0000

Once again, here’s my annual list of books I’ve read in the last year. I did much better in quantity than last year–going back to school helped a bit, even though the vast majority of reading for class was articles that aren’t reflected in this list.
John Baer, James C. Kaufman, and Roy F. Baumeister, editors, Are We Free? Psychology and Free Will
Dan Barker, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists
Jeff Benedict, Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage
Simon Blackburn, Truth: A Guide
Paul Boghossian, Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism
Fred P. Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Anniversary Edition
Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar… Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes (not very funny, and thinks “all platypuses are mammals” is analytic and a priori, p. 67–is that what they teach at Harvard?)
Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life
Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
Philip K. Dick, The Man in the High Castle
Douglas R. Hofstadter, I Am a Strange Loop
Jean-Roch Laurence and Campbell Perry, Hypnosis, Will, and Memory: A Psycho-Legal History
Penn Jillette, How to Cheat Your Friends at Poker: The Wisdom of Dickie Richard
Paul Krassner, In Praise of Indecency: The Leading Investigative Satirist Sounds Off on Hypocrisy, Censorship, and Free Expression
Paul Krassner, Who’s to Say What’s Obscene? Politics, Culture, and Comedy in America Today
Oscar Levant, The Unimportance of Being Oscar
Oscar Levant, A Smattering of Ignorance
Ben Mezrich, Busting Vegas: A True Story of Monumental Excess, Sex, Love, Violence, and Beating the Odds
Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future
Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
Vincent Price, I Like What I Know: A Visual Autobiography
W.V. Quine, Methods of Logic, Fourth Edition
Rudy Rucker, The Lifebox, the Seashell, and the Soul: What Gnarly Computation Taught Me About Ultimate Reality, the Meaning of Life, and How to Be Happy
Oliver Sacks, Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain
John Searle, The Construction of Social Reality
Kyrsten Sinema, Unite and Conquer: How to Build Coalitions That Win and Last
Jim Steinmeyer, Charles Fort: The Man Who Invented the Supernatural
Gore Vidal, Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia
T.H. White, The Once and Future King
I also read significant parts of
Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
Yaron Ezrahi, The Descent of Icarus: Science and the Transformation of Contemporary Democracy
Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, editors, The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition
Michael Hulme, Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity
Elliott Mendelson, Introduction to Mathematical Logic (5th edition) (worked through ch. 3 on number theory and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and the appendix on second-order predicate logic, along with Boolos & Jeffrey’s Computability and Logic chapter on second-order predicate logic)
R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie, and M.J.S. Hodge, editors, Companion to the History of Modern Science
Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life
(Previously: 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Sixth stay dog of 2009

Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:20:00 +0000

We found this little dog, Max, while on our way to do a RESCUE volunteer shift, running around loose in a vacant lot near a school. He was very bedraggled and thirsty, and had apparently been loose for a while (days, at least). Fortunately, he had tags, so I left messages at the number on his personalized tag and at the different number associated with his county tag, which it’s easy to look up at Pets911.com. An hour or two later, I got a call from the dog’s previous owner (to whom the dog is still registered), who sent her husband out to pick him up. They didn’t know what had happened to the current owner or why the dog was loose.

Vocab Malone on abortion and personhood, part 5

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:11:00 +0000

Vocab has put up the fifth and final part of his essay on abortion and personhood up at his blog, devoted to Thomson’s violinist argument. I don’t really have much to say about it–we didn’t coordinate our posts in advance, and I’ve already discussed Thomson’s argument myself in my response to part 4. I disagree with Vocab’s claim that Thomson’s argument proves too much and would allow infanticide–her argument only addresses a physically dependent fetus. And, as I already pointed out in my prior response, the argument doesn’t prove as much as it purports to. The violinist case isn’t exactly analogous to pregnancy and abortion in a number of ways, and Vocab is right to point out the differences. I agree that if a pregnancy is allowed to go to term (as well as to some earlier point at which there is plausible evidence for personhood on my standard), then that entails at least tacit consent and a moral duty of care. I would still argue, however, that abortion would be legitimate beyond that point for medically justifiable reasons (e.g., endangered health and life of the mother). This position–like the current position of the courts, which I think is approximately correct despite being based on viability–points out that there are more than two polar opposite positions in this debate.

In Vocab’s final part, he talks a bit about the work that he and his wife do in caring for foster children. I commend him for that work, which is all-too-rare among opponents of abortion.

Thanks, Vocab, for the debate–and I still would like to hear a response from you in the comments on some of the issues that have been left hanging (e.g., in the comments on part 3).

UPDATE: It would probably be better to end this discussion with a summary that I already made in the comments on part 3:
We don’t disagree that there is continuity of organism (just as there is continuity of a population of organisms over time)–all life on this planet is connected in that way. But just as we don’t count every species as human, even in our own genetic lineage, we don’t count every life stage of individual human organisms as persons. There’s a sense in which “I” was once a zygote that had my same DNA, but at that stage there was no “me” there yet–there was nothing that it was like to be a zygote, to use Thomas Nagel’s expression. In that same sense that “I” was a zygote, “I” will be a dead body in the future, even though there will at that point be nothing that it is like to be me, and the person that I am will be gone from the world though my body will briefly remain.

I think we understand each other’s positions. You think that being a human organism is the same thing as to be a person, while I think personhood is a feature that comes into existence and persists for a subset of the life of an organism, that requires capacities of sentience or self-awareness.

But I think I can give reasons to support why my view makes moral, legal, and practical sense, and why human cultures and practices are more consistent with my view than yours. I don’t think you can give such reasons, other than the brute assertion that human organisms are persons from start to finish. Your view has no need of the notion of person, yet it seems to me that there are all sorts of practical, moral, and legal reasons why we do need and use such a notion.

Vocab Malone on abortion and personhood, part 4

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:25:00 +0000

Vocab Malone has posted the fourth part of his essay on abortion and personhood, addressing the arguments from viability and wantedness. These are two more arguments that I don’t place a whole lot of stock in, though perhaps some commenters will want to say more about.

The viability criterion is significant in that it’s the basis of current federal case law on abortion since Roe v. Wade, but Vocab correctly notes that viability changes with the availability of technology, and that doesn’t seem like a feature that should be relevant to whether one is a person. On the other hand, it is relevant to the notion of dependence–pre-viability is a time where, if you do grant that a fetus is a person, it’s a person that is dependent for its existence upon another person. This raises questions of when it is morally permissible for a person upon whom another is dependent for their life to sever that dependence. Judith Jarvis Thomson’s argument on abortion, which I referred to earlier in my response to part 1 of Vocab’s essay, presents the following scenario:

Who are the climate change skeptics?

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:26:00 +0000

One of the courses I took this semester was a seminar on the human dimensions of climate change, a geography course that briefly looked at the scientific evidence for climate change and then focused primarily on the social science aspects of the problems of mitigation and adaptation. The paper I wrote for the class was about the philosophical problem of how a layman can identify relevant expertise and evaluate the debate without being an expert, by looking at features such as relevance of expertise, consensus within fields, credentials and institutions, track records, logical validity and cogency of arguments, and so forth, and then applying these criteria to the IPCC scientists vs. the climate change skeptics.

What follows is a list of some of the organizations promoting skepticism about anthropogenic climate change and some of the individuals associated with them, with some information about their credentials and activities. It’s my impression that those with the best reputations tend to agree that there is a global warming trend and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are a contributing factor to that warming, but the organizations tend to promote a more skeptical view (fairly characterized as “denial”), as exhibited by such evidence as expressions of apparent pleasure at the recent 2009 Pew survey result that showed a decrease in American acceptance of global warming.

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
One comparison I made was between the scientists of the IPCC and the scientists of the NIPCC, a group sponsored by The Heartland Institute. I compared the fourth-most-cited paper of the top 83 scientists of the former to the fourth-most-cited paper of all of the 2008 NIPCC participants, using Jim Prall’s excellent website of citation counts for climate scientists. Of the 619 scientists of the AR4 (2007) Working Group 1 on the physical science basis of climate change, the top 83 each have more than 200 citations to their fourth-most-cited paper. There are only thirteen climate skeptics with that level of citation, most of whom received those citations for papers having nothing to do with climate science, and none of whom were involved with the 2008 NIPCC report. (In 2009, William Gray, who is in that category, participated in a second NIPCC meeting, but I didn’t review that for my paper.)

The top scientist of the 2008 NIPCC report with publications containing the word “climate,” the organizer and editor of the report, S. Fred Singer, has 31 citations to his fourth-most-cited paper. He’s a retired physics professor (Ph.D. earned in 1948) who is not only a skeptic about climate change but about the health effects of second-hand smoke, the link between CFCs and the ozone hole, and has received tobacco and oil company funding for his work. His name pops up frequently when it comes to attempts by corporations to block environmental regulation. There were 24 participants listed as authors on the 2008 NIPCC report, six of whom have no academic credentials or affiliations and no published academic work of relevance to the climate change debate (Dennis Avery, Christopher Monckton, Kenneth Haapala, Warren Anderson, Klaus Heiss, and Anton Uriarte). The top-cited scientist, Lubos Motl, has 150 citations for his fourth-most-cited paper, but he’s a theoretical physicist with no publications containing the word “climate.” The next guy after Singer, George Taylor, has an M.S. in meteorology and 25 citations for his fourth-most-cited paper. There are a few people on the list with relevant credentials, but none are top names in climate science. The majority with scientific credentials have little or no relevant expertise, like Fred Goldberg, with a Ph.D. in welding technology, and Tom Segalstad, a mineralogist with a Ph.D. in geology.

It should be noted that the climate skeptics with the best credentials in climate science tend to be participants in the IPCC process, such as John R. Christy, who was a lead author on the Working Group 1 reports in 2001 and 2007. Robert Balling of ASU has also participated in the IPCC process, and despite being often regarded as a skeptic, agrees that there is global warming and that it has a human component, and told me that the IPCC report is the best place for the layman to find accurate information about climate science (see my summary of his recent talk at ASU).

The Heartland Institute
The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, was the sponsor of the NIPCC (above) and has its own category at this blog. Between 1998 and 2005, it received $561,500 in funding from ExxonMobil, 40% of which was designated for climate science opposition (see the Union of Concerned Scientists Exxon report (PDF)). In April 2008, it published a list of “500 Scientists With Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” compiled by Dennis Avery, participant in NIPCC and co-author of a 2007 anti-AGW book with S. Fred Singer which attributes periodic warming to a 1500-year solar cycle. The publication of this list resulted in protests from 45 scientists on the list who stated that they are not AGW opponents and requested that their names be removed. Rather than remove the scientists from the list, The Heartland Institute changed the title of the list to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares." The Heartland Institute’s list of 138 climate change experts contains many individuals with no relevant expertise or credentials.

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
Singer has another organization devoted to arguing against human-caused climate change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990. That organization also opposes the ban on CFCs and other EPA regulations. There are nine people listed on SEPP’s board of science advisors, of which five are dead (Gerholm, Higatsberger, Mitchell, Nierenberg, and Starr). Ames is a well-known scientist in his field, molecular genetics, which has nothing to do with climate change. The others with the most citations are elderly or dead physicists (Starr, 1935 physics Ph.D.; Böttcher, 1947 physics Ph.D.; and Mitchell, 1951 physics Ph.D.). The rest have only single-digit citations to their fourth-most-cited paper.

George C. Marshall Institute
The George C. Marshall Institute was founded in 1984 to support Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, but since 1989 has been active in opposing AGW. The current board of directors, according to its website, are William Happer (Princeton physics professor), William O’Keefe (former executive VP and COO of the American Petroleum Institute and president of a consulting company), Gregory Canavan (physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory), John H. Moore (former president of Grove City College, former economics professor, and former Deputy Director of the NSF), Rodney W. Nichols (former president of the New York Academy of Sciences), Milan Nikolich (electrical engineering Ph.D., a nuclear weapons program consultant associated with CACI, a defense contractor), and Roy Spencer (climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville). Of these, only Spencer, who is also a Bible-believing anti-evolutionist, has a climate science background. (Happer is a highly-cited particle physicist.) The George C. Marshall Institute has published works by some of the more reputable AGW opponents with a high level of citations for their fourth-most-cited publication–e.g., Richard Lindzen of MIT (274), Roger A. Pielke, Sr. (129), Roy Spencer (124), and John R. Christy (88). Others with relevant credentials but not quite the high level of citations include Patrick Michaels (37), Robert Balling (29), and Timothy Ball (8). The George C. Marshall Institute has also published and promoted the work of Stephen McIntyre of the ClimateAudit blog, a former mineral exploration executive with a bachelor’s degree in mathematics, and economist Ross McKitrick.

Former George C. Marshall Institute executive director Matthew Crawford left the organization after five months when, he said, he realized it was “more fond of some facts than others” and that his job “consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank” (Carolyn Mooney, “A Hands-On Philosopher Argues for a Fresh Vision of Manual Work” (PDF), The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 15, 2009).

Cato Institute
The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank founded in 1977 by Edward Crane and Charles Koch. Charles and David Koch are co-owners of Koch Industries, which is one of the largest privately owned companies in the U.S. (often #2, but has occasionally been #1). Koch Industries has major holdings in petroleum, natural gas, and coal. Patrick Michaels (already mentioned in connection with the George C. Marshall Institute) is the Cato Institute Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies and their only climate science expert on staff, though Cato has also published articles co-authored by Michaels and Robert Balling.

Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
The SPPI was founded in 1994 by chairman George Carlo, former assistant football coach for the Buffalo Bills who subsequently entered the public health field and earned a Ph.D. and law degree. He is an advocate for the view that cell phones cause substantial health risks, including cancer and autism. [That’s a different SPPI; see John Mashey’s comment below.] The SPPI’s chief science advisor is Willie Soon, a Harvard astrophysicist also associated with the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (about which more will be said below). Other science advisors include William Kininmonth, Robert M. Carter, David Legates, Craig D. Idso, James J. O’Brien, and Joseph D’Aleo, all of whom except O’Brien and Legates were involved with the 2008 NIPCC report. The chief policy advisor is Sir Christopher Monckton, an AGW opponent from the UK with no relevant science credentials, also involved with the 2008 NIPCC report. Legates, the Delaware State Climatologist, was a commenter on Patrick Michaels’ most recent climate change skepticism book at an event at the Cato Institute, and is a climate scientist whose fourth-most-cited paper has received 226 citations. D’Aleo, first director of meteorology for The Weather Channel, has a 1970 M.S. in meteorology and has not published any academic work since. Kininmonth, with an M.Sc. degree (not sure in what) was the former head of the Australian National Climate Center. Craig Idso has a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University and is founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; his fourth-most-cited paper has received 20 citations.

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
This is a small Phoenix-based nonprofit run by Craig Idso (chairman) and his father Sherwood B. Idso (president) which argues that increasing CO2 levels are beneficial. The organization has received $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil. Both Idsos and Craig’s brother Keith have also been on the payroll of the Western Fuels Association. Sherwood Idso, a 1968 physics Ph.D. who was a research physicist for the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory starting in 1967, has a fourth-most-cited scientific paper which has received 189 citations.

Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (OISM)
The Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (OISM), a private research organization run by Arthur Robinson and his two sons Noah and Zachary Robinson, was founded in 1980. The OISM faculty listed on their website are the three Robinsons, Martin D. Kamen (a deceased chemist), R. Bruce Merrifield (a deceased chemist), Fred Westall (a biochemistry professor), Carl Boehme (who has an M.S. in electrical engineering), and Jane Orient (a medical doctor). The OISM sells DVDs on “nuclear war survival skills” and civil defense, as well as a home schooling curriculum, and has taken over the publication of the late Petr Beckmann’s Access to Energy newsletter which defends nuclear energy and now also criticizes AGW. (Beckmann was a physicist who became an electrical engineering professor at the University of Colorado, and in addition to promoting nuclear energy also challenged Einstein’s relativity and published a journal for that purpose called Galilean Electrodynamics.)

The OISM Petition Project was set up to oppose U.S. ratification of the Kyoto Treaty and currently has over 31,000 signatures of Americans with degrees in a scientific subject. The initial call for signatures was sent out with a letter from Frederick Seitz while he was still president of the National Academies of Science, along with a 12-page “Research Review of Global Warming Evidence” by Arthur and Noah Robinson and Willie Soon which was formatted to look like a publication in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. The petition was originally billed as a “survey,” but it has not been reported how many solicitations were sent out compared to how many were returned, nor how many scientists disagreed with the statements on the petition (as pointed out by Gary Whittenberger in eSkeptic). The signature breakdown by level of education was 29% Ph.D., 22% M.S., 7% M.D. or D.V.M., and 41% B.S. or equivalent. By field, it was 12% earth science, 3% computer science or mathematics, 18% physics and aerospace sciences, 15% chemistry, 9% biology and agriculture, 10% medicine, and 32% engineering and general science. The percentage of Ph.D.s in relevant areas isn’t available, but it’s clear from the breakdown that at least two thirds have less than a Ph.D. and at least 80% do not have education in a relevant field. (Blogger Chris Colose has looked at a subsample of names on the petition, without finding any with climate-related publications.)

One of the other “faculty” at the OISM is Dr. Jane Orient, M.D., of Tucson, Arizona, whom I’ve heard speak in opposition to AGW. She is the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative organization that publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPANDS). This journal published an anti-AGW articles by Arthur Robinson, Noah Robinson, and Willie Soon (2007), and by Arthur Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary Robinson (1998), as well as articles opposing vaccination of children, claiming that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, that homosexuality causes crime and disease, opposing fluoridation of water, accusing the FDA of fraud for banning DDT, and criticizing the theory of evolution (see evaluations by Kathleen Seidel and Orac). The Robinson et al. (1998) article is apparently a version of the article originally distributed with the Oregon Petition, and another anti-AGW article by the same authors was published in the journal Climate Research (Soon et al. 1998). Arthur Robinson has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Caltech and was an associate of Linus Pauling. Noah Robinson also has a chemistry Ph.D. from Caltech, and Zachary Robinson is a veterinarian with a bachelor’s degree in chemistry. None has relevant climate science expertise.

Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (1980 Ph.D., astrophysics) are astrophysicists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who study solar variability, both have also been associated with the George C. Marshall Institute and the Heartland Institute; Soon is the chief science advisor for the Science and Public Policy Institute (above). Baliunas received the Petr Beckmann Award for Scientific Freedom from Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP), a group associated with OISM (Jane Orient is president of DDP). In 2003, Soon and Baliunas published an anti-AGW article (arguing that warming was due to solar variation) in Climate Research that led to protests from 13 of the authors cited that their work had been misrepresented and misused. Subsequently the new editor-in-chief, Hans van Storch, resigned along with two other editors when the publisher refused to print an editorial about improvements in the journal review process. Baliunas’ fourth-most-cited paper has 230 citations; Soon’s has 68. Timothy J. Osborn and Keith R. Briffa (2006) repeated Soon and Baliunas’ methodology in a paper published in Science that did not reproduce their results. Osborn and Briffa are both climate scientists associated with the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University; Osborn’s (1995 Ph.D., environmental sciences) fourth-most-cited paper has received 152 citations and Briffa’s (1984 Ph.D., dendroclimatologist) has received 250.

I’ve given special attention to OISM and AAPS because of the extent of crankery associated with them.

Three Miscellaneous Items
My last three items are not organizations but are worthy of further note. (1) This year, S. Fred Singer circulated a petition to attempt to get the American Physical Society to revise its statement on global warming from being supportive of AGW to be in opposition to it. He collected 206 signatures from APS members, about 0.45% of its 47,000 members, and the petition was rejected. John Mashey analyzed the social network of the first 121 signers (PDF), and found that the initial signing clustered around the SEPP, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the Cato Institute, along with other interesting demographic information. (2) Ian Plimer, a prominent Australian geologist, published a book in early 2009 opposing AGW, titled Heaven and Earth: Global Warming-The Missing Science. Plimer has in the past been an active public critic of creationism in Australia, and was criticized by me for using inaccurate and misleading claims in his arguments, and by me and Jeff Shallit for plagiarism in a prior book. Plimer’s new book has been similarly found to contain not only inaccurate statements and misrepresentations, but plagiarism. (3) The Center for Inquiry’s Credibility Project was a review of the scientific credentials of the signers of global warming denier Sen. James Inhofe’s Senate Minority Report on Global Warming, which found, similar to what I report above, that most of them have no relevant expertise or credentials.

Summary
The above doesn’t demonstrate that climate skepticism is without merit, but it does demonstrate that there are reasons to be skeptical–and in many cases extremely skeptical–about some of the organizations and individuals promoting climate skepticism, independently of their arguments. In my view, the arguments for climate skepticism in most cases just increase the grounds for skepticism. I recommend the RealClimate blog and Skeptical Science blog as two good sources of information about those arguments.

To really dig into the details, read the IPCC WG-1 Report.

UPDATE: Also worthy of note is Wikipedia’s list of scientific organizations which have issued statements on anthropogenic climate change. Noteworthy for its absence is any organization with a statement arguing against anthropogenic climate change; since 2007 only the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has had a noncommittal statement. Wikipedia also has a nice list of scientists who oppose the consensus views and what their actual positions are. (Like JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, they do not have a consensus view of their own.)

I also neglected to mention a paper that I cited in the paper I wrote for my climate change class, a 2008 study that examined 141 “English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005” found that over 92% of them were connected to conservative think tanks, either published by them or authored by persons directly affiliated with them (Peter J. Jacques, Riley E. Dunlap, and Mark Freeman, “The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism,” Environmental Politics vol 17, no. 3, June 2008, pp. 349-385). In the above list, is there any organization or individual that does not come from a conservative or libertarian political ideology?

UPDATE (December 17, 2009): Other posts at this blog on climate change include:

“Climate Research Unit email scandal” (November 23, 2009)
“Roger Pielke Jr. on climate change adaptation” (November 7, 2009)
“Roger Pielke Jr. on climate change mitigation” (November 6, 2009)
“Robert Balling on climate change” (October 30, 2009)
“Ian Plimer on climate change” (May 22, 2009)
“Reason to be skeptical about anthropogenic climate change” (April 26, 2008)
“Garbage in on climate change measurement” (October 25, 2007)
“Lomborg, global warming, and opportunity costs” (September 15, 2007)
“The consensus for anthropogenic global warming” (August 19, 2007)
“David Friedman on global warming” (March 15, 2007)
“Taxonomy of questions about global warming” (March 13, 2007)

Among several others. Those who are accusing me of obvious liberal bias might want to take a look at these. I have my share of political biases, but I do my best to defer to the best arguments and evidence over political ideology.

UPDATE (December 19, 2009): Peter Staats, in the comments, suggested that belief in anthropogenic global warming is entrenched among scientists and will disappear as the older generation dies (citing Planck, whose point is also made in Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions). I responded that I thought he has it backwards–that AGW has become more and more supported, and the holdouts tend to be older, as some of the data about the anti-AGW organizations above already suggested. So I tested our respective hypotheses against Jim Prall’s data, for IPCC WG1 scientists vs. the signatories of the AGW-skeptical documents. I looked at the average year of the last academic degree awarded, first for those with citation counts for their fourth-most-cited paper >= 200, then, since that was such a small sample for the climate skeptics, for citation counts >= 100, and then for all the 623 IPCC WG1 scientists vs. the 469 signatories of AGW-skeptical documents. Here are the results:

Citation counts of 4th-most-cited >= 200:
IPCC WG1: N=83, 12 w/o year, N=71, average year of last degree = 1981
Skeptics: N=13, 4 w/o year, N=9, average year of last degree = 1965

Citations counts of 4th-most-cited >=100:
IPCC WG1: N=201, 51 w/o year, N=150, average year of last degree = 1983
Skeptics: N=38, 15 w/o year, N=23, average year of last degree = 1968

All IPCC WG1 vs. AGW-skeptical document signers:
IPCC WG1: N=623, 208 w/o year, N=415, average year of last degree = 1989
Skeptics: N=469, 346 w/o year, N=123, average year of last degree = 1973

BTW, for this last group, there’s more info on degree breakdowns than year of degree (note that those without degrees are excluded along with the n/a, no web, and no cv categories–there were several of those among the skeptics and one undergrad in the IPCC scientists, not counted here):

IPCC WG1 scientists:
N=504
Ph.D.: 474 (94.0%)
M.Sc.: 13 (2.6%)
Cand.: 5 (1.0%)
D.Sc.: 2 (0.4%)
D.Phil.: 2 (0.4%)
Sc.D.: 2 (0.4%)
C.Phys.: 2 (0.4%)
B.Sc.: 2 (0.4%)
And one each (0.2%) of Nobel laureates and Ph.Lic.

Skeptics:
N=322
Ph.D.: 254 (78.9%)
M.Sc.: 25 (7.8%)
B.Sc.: 13 (4.0%)
B.A.: 4 (1.2%)
M.S.: 3 (0.9%)
B.S.: 3 (0.9%)
M.D. and Ph.D.: 1 (0.3%)
And one each (0.3%) of M.D., D.Eng., Tekn.D., Dipl., M.Eng., M.A., P.E., Dipl.Bio., M.C., D.Env., B.E., R.P., “Doctorandus”, B.S.E.E., Dip.ES., and J.D.

UPDATE (December 21, 2009): Theoretical physicist (a string theorist), former Harvard physics professor, and climate skeptic Lubos Motl, referred to above as the most-cited scientist involved with the 2008 NIPCC report, has just demonstrated the quality of his reasoning at his own blog. In a post about James Randi’s expression of skepticism about AGW and his temporary (and quickly retracted) suggestion that the Oregon Petition Project seemed legitimate, Motl infers that this must have been the cause for Phil Plait being fired as president of JREF–an event which didn’t happen. When Randi himself showed up to point out that Plait is still president of JREF and had already given notice of his departure at the end of the year prior to these events, Motl’s response was “If you have been truly violently, physically blackmailed and harassed by the AGW fanatics, I could understand what you just wrote. If you were not, let me just state that in that case, you became a morally worthless human in my eyes.” Way to be reasonable, Motl! He continues: “The ‘denialist’ dictionary you adopted and the attacks against the Oregon Petition are pretty disgusting."

UPDATE (December 25, 2009): I’m reading Steven Epstein’s book, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge, 1996, Berkeley: University of California Press, which I had previously read chapter 6 of for one of my classes. In ch. 4, “The Debate That Wouldn’t Die,” about Peter Duesberg and those who deny that HIV causes AIDS, I just read about Project Inform’s “Discussion Paper #5” of 3 June 1992, which was titled “Who Are the HIV Heretics?”, which sounds fairly analogous to the this blog post. I’ve not been able to find a copy online, but I would love to see that document.

Epstein, pp. 156-157:
The seriousness with which Project Inform took the resurgence of interest in the causation controversey was indicated by the publication in early June of a six-page ‘Discussion Paper’ devoted entirely to the topic. The report began by blasting the media for their irresponsibility and sensationalism. Why do reporters love the HIV dissenters? Why have they confused Montagnier’s position with Duesberg’s, despite Montagnier’s own disavowals? “Apparently because it makes a good story–‘Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong! Top Scientists in Error Ten Years! Secrets! Coverup! Big Business, Big Science Collusion!’ … Such is the sorry state of AIDS reporting in some circles today."

Focusing on four groups opposing the HIV hypothesis–the New York Native, Spin magazine, assorted journalists, and certain scientists–Project Inform was at pains to question the credibility of each and to uncover motivations for adopting heretical stances. … In considering the fourth, crucial group of HIV dissenters–the scientists–Project Inform’s report similarly emphasized the issue of credibility. Root-Bernstein “works in a field not directly related to AIDS” and “has not conducted or published any AIDS research other than editorials,” yet “Spin calls him ‘one of the leading AIDS researchers in the US.’” Kary Mullis, while “obviously a serious scientist,” was similarly “an outsider to AIDS research”; furthermore, his PCR test “has, if anything, helped to bolster the case for HIV.” Of all the heretical scientists, only Sonnabend “is professionally involved with AIDS,” but “primarily as a clinician”: “While Dr. Sonnabend has earned respect in many ways, his arguments against HIV are no more valid than the others."
…
In focusing on formal credentials, Project Inform walked a fine line. This, after all, was a grassroots organization staffed by self-educated AIDS experts; its executive director, before the epidemic came along, had been a business consultant. A big part of Project Inform’s work involved disseminating highly technical knowledge about AIDS to laypeople in order to create what might be called a mass-based expertise. In its reckoning of the tokens of expertise, Project Inform was not about to argue that academic degrees or journal publications are everything. Lacking the right credentials, Peter Duesberg could still be considered an AIDS expert of sorts–but not in a way that would make him stand out from the crowd: “Perhaps his most relevant work is that he has studied the medical literature on AIDS (as have thousands of patients, physicians, and activists), and this qualifies as a form of expertise.” But “Duesberg’s supporters and the media spread misinformation when they present him as an ‘AIDS researcher’ in the sense that phrase is usually meant.” His published writings on AIDS were “simply editorials."

Project Inform noted that there was a “legitimate” scientific question that had been “lost in the fog” generated by media fascination with Duesberg and other dissenters: How does HIV cause AIDS? Following the lead of Gallo and others, the report emphasized that pathogenesis was separate from etiology; while part one of the report was entitled “Is HIV the Cause of AIDS?” part two was called “How Does HIV Cause AIDS?"
There are lots of interesting parallels here, including political. Epstein notes (pp. 158-159) HIV dissenters and promoters of their views being libertarian (Charles Thomas) and conservative (Phillip Johnson, Bryan Ellison, Tom Bethell, Patrick Buchanan). Johnson, Bethell, and Buchanan are also anti-evolutionists; Bethell and Buchanan also deny that there’s anthropogenic global warming.

UPDATE (December 28, 2009): The Center for Public Integrity’s project, “The Climate Change Lobby," identifies who’s lobbying the U.S. Congress on climate change.

UPDATE (January 3, 2010): This Republican Party PR firm memo from 2000 about how to “win” the global warming debate by continuing to stress uncertainty as the case for warming become stronger is interesting in its similarity to the Tobacco Institute’s PR strategy about the evidence that smoking causes cancer.

UPDATE (January 5, 2010): Donald Gutstein’s “This is How You Fuel a Community of Climate Deniers” covers similar ground to the above (with some familiar names), with a Canadian focus.

UPDATE (January 7, 2010): Jeffrey Masters’ “The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole” shows how a similar debate came out in the 1970s, which included S. Fred Singer arguing that CFCs don’t deplete the ozone layer. That article notes that Singer’s atmospheric science work has been negligible since 1971.

Vocab Malone on abortion and personhood, part 3

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:08:00 +0000

Vocab Malone has posted the third part of his argument against abortion at his blog, focusing on what he calls “the argument from size.” As I don’t think there’s any plausibility to this argument, I won’t spend any time with it, but there are still a few things in his post that I think demand response. The first is the assertion Vocab quotes from “prolific pro-life trainer and speaker Scott Klusendorf” that he always encounters this argument when he speaks at Christian schools. I find this assertion very difficult to believe–I don’t think I’ve ever encountered this argument anywhere, and I suspect that Klusendorf is either intentionally or unintentionally misconstruing some other argument as this argument. (Would he consider Randy Newman’s song, “Short People,” to be an instance of the argument, given its lyric, “short people got no reason to live”?)

The instance of the argument Vocab suggests is nothing of the sort, though at least he admits that it is an argument about another subject. Here’s the quote as Vocab presents it:
From the other end of things, a recent New York Times article featured a similar argument (although his piece was on a broader topic than abortion):
Look at your loved ones. Do you see a hunk of cells or do you see something else? … We do not see cells, simple or complex – we see people, human life. That thing in a petri dish is something else. [2]
The quote is from a New York Times editorial by neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga about the difference between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. Here’s the quotation in context; it’s the ending of the piece:

Vocab Malone on abortion and personhood, part 2

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:23:00 +0000

Vocab Malone has posted a second set of arguments, addressing more directly the argument that some sort of capacity for sentience is a proper criterion for personhood.

He begins with a few quotations, none of which address the question of personhood. The first, from Millard Erickson, says that abortion involves “the taking of a human life.” That’s correct. The second, from Jerome Lejeune, says that abortion “kills a member of our species.” That’s also correct. The third, from R.C. Sproul, says, “abortion-on-demand is evil, no one has the moral right to choose it. If it is an offense against life, the government must not permit it.” This doesn’t actually follow, if one thinks that it is possible to morally use lethal force in self-defense, in war time, and as a form of legal punishment. As it happens, Sproul does think that it is legitimate for governments to engage in just war and capital punishment. I’m not certain how he reconciles his views on those topics with the quoted statement, but I suspect he says that these forms of taking human life do not constitute “an offense against life” and are not evil.

Vocab gives four arguments that he says he’s seen used to argue for the moral legitimacy of abortion:
Sentience makes a person and the unborn are not sentient
Size makes a person and the unborn are too small
Viability makes a person and the unborn are not viable on their own
Wantedness makes a person and the unborn are not wanted
#1 is essentially my position. #3 is close to the U.S. Supreme Court’s position, but I don’t think it’s quite accurate. #2 and #4 strike me as completely implausible.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states may not prohibit abortion for any reason prior to viability, the time at which a fetus can survive on its own independently of the mother (including with artificial assistance), or after viability when abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. The point of viability is something that has shifted as technology has improved, and could potentially become completely meaningless, so I don’t see it as a plausible ethical criterion.

So what does Vocab think is wrong with #1? He writes: “A component of this argument is it implies the pro-life position is weak because abortion is not cruel because the fetus cannot feel pain. Does this mean if I am unconscious or sleeping, I have lost my personhood?"

This response misconstrues my position. Sentience is significant not just because it involves the possibility of actual perceptions at a given time, but because it allows for the sort of being that can have beliefs, desires, intentions, and interests. The absence of such a capacity entails that a being cannot have beliefs, desires, intentions, and interests. This doesn’t mean we cease to have those things when we are temporarily unconscious. When I sleep, I may not be conscious of the external world (though I sometimes do perceive external stimuli in lucid dreams), but I still have the capacity for such conscious awareness, and continue to maintain beliefs, desires, intentions and have interests. A better objection to my position would be a case where I sustain some kind of brain damage which puts me into a persistent vegetative state, yet there is still some possibility of recovery. In my opinion, the only way I would have some possibility of recovery and be the same person would be if I continued to have beliefs, desires, and intentions represented in my brain even in the persistent vegetative state. If those were all lost, and biological recovery were still possible–say, through some therapy made possibly by embryonic stem cells transplanted into my brain, which ironically, Vocab’s view would likely make unethical–the person who would then come into being would be starting over afresh as a new person.

Vocab quotes Scott Rae observing that a person who has their legs cut off is harmed even if they feel no pain in the process, and even if their legs are not useful for locomotion. That is no objection to my position–I agree that there is harm there, because it is done to a person in conflict with their beliefs, desires, intentions, and interests, without their consent.

Next, Vocab says that a fetus is “sensitive to touch at ten weeks and eleven weeks” and “most certainly does feel pain” by the third month. I believe it is a mistake to conflate “sensitive to touch” with “experiences sensations.” Reflexive actions don’t identify experiences. Further, I haven’t identified the ability to experience sensations with personhood, since I’ve already observed that animals can experience pain, but don’t think that necessarily entails the immorality of killing animals for food or other reasons (though I do think it probably entails a moral requirement for humane treatment).

Vocab goes on to complain that a “developmental view, in which the basic thesis is humans become persons by some ability they acquire and not by the kind of entity they already are” is rarely “defend[ed] … with any rigor” and asks “Who says they get to lay out the qualification for personhood?” Regarding the first point, Vocab’s view is also one which attributes a right to life at a particular point, when two living haploid cells, a sperm and an egg, meet. He’s defended this by reference to two features, (1) that at this point there is a complete set of DNA and (2) left to itself, it will (if all goes well) develop into what we all would agree is a human being. (1) is clearly insufficient, since any somatic cell sloughed off a person’s skin has that property as well, and (2) only carries any persuasive weight from its appeal to future status rather than present. His subsequent question seems to assume that arguments for a view of personhood are dependent upon a claim to authority or power, rather than for their own intuitive force–and I think that’s just mistaken.

He then asks, “Shouldn’t a civilized and ethical society desire to err on the side of life?” In the way this is written, I can’t agree–for the cycle of life requires death. I do agree that we should err on the side of protecting persons and treating humanely creatures that can experience pain, but that gives no reason to think the boundary line is where Vocab draws it.

He writes that “It is an artificial and arbitrary distinction with no scientific grounding. One more reason the human/person distinction is artificial is because I have never met a person who is not a human, nor have I ever met a human who is not a person. Is this even possible?” I disagree completely with this description. The question of sentient capacities is one with very strong scientific grounding, though we are uncertain of exactly where the boundary is. The fact that Vocab only recognizes humans as a clear-cut case of persons on earth today just shows that he isn’t taking seriously the ideas that some other contemporary species (such as chimpanzees, dolphins, and whales) might meet reasonable criteria of personhood, some past species (Neandertal) probably did meet reasonable criteria of personhood, and extraterrestrial intelligent life might meet reasonable criteria of personhood. Suppose for a moment that we found out that a subset of human beings turned out to be a different species, incapable of interbreeding with the rest of us. It’s a consequence of Vocab’s view that this subset would not be persons. My intuition is completely to the contrary–creatures that are like us to the extent that they have beliefs, desires, intentions, and interests are persons, regardless of their biological makeup.

Vocab’s final argument is his strongest, which is that my view has the potential consequence that some forms of infanticide and euthanasia–namely, those in cases where the conditions for personhood are not met–may be ethical. This is correct, presuming that personhood is the only justification for not permitting killing. I suggest that there are at least two other possibilities. One is just a recognition of the epistemic limits of determining personhood–that is, I believe, a reason for erring on the side of caution, and setting legal limits outside the boundaries of personhood. Another is a consequentialist argument about public policy considerations, which also argues for erring on the side of caution. While policies of permissible infanticide have been not been uncommon in history, they raise possibilities for brutalization or desensitization of the killer, among other negative consequences that go beyond the immediate act. This is itself a possible argument against abortions of fetuses that have recognizable human form.

Early on in this post, Vocab wrote “It’s not as if there is a strong consensus, anyway.” On the contrary, I think there is virtually no support for Vocab’s view in history, from religion, from philosophy, or from science. In the United States, complete bans on abortion only became common after the Civil War, with the first post-quickening abortion prohibitions starting earlier, in the 1820s.

I don’t think Vocab has come anywhere near making his case. He’s not addressed many of the points I brought up in my prior post, and though he cited Judith Jarvis Thomson, he hasn’t addressed the case of a conflict between two rights-holders, where one is dependent upon the other, which her violinist example brings up in an argument for the moral permissibility of abortion even if the fetus is counted as a person. Nor has he addressed the harm to non-actualized twins, or the case of cloned human beings who might develop without the process of fertilization (though I suspect he would identify them as persons at either the point of nuclear transfer or electric shock, and would probably have some reason for calling the process itself unethical). His view entails that IUDs, morning-after pills, in vitro fertilization, and embryonic stem cell research are immoral. His view suggests that if a building containing frozen embryos and small children were on fire, one should not give any preference to rescuing the children over the embryos. His view entails that a particular genetic makeup, rather than features like having beliefs, desires, intentions, and interests, is what’s relevant to personhood. His view doesn’t make sense of the idea of non-human persons.

I see no plausibility to the idea that fertilization is a morally relevant event or that having a particular genetic makeup is the morally important part of being a person.

UPDATE (December 14, 2009): Corrected sentence about U.S. abortion laws and added reference link to Wikipedia.

UPDATE: It should be noted that Vocab misconstrues Peter Singer’s position on the relative worth of humans and animals; Singer speaks for himself on the subject on an episode of the Ethics Bites podcast:

Fifth stray dog of 2009

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:06:00 +0000

Although we’ve seen quite a few, our fifth stray dog of 2009 that we actually caught and turned in came only yesterday, almost ten months after the fourth. The frequency dropped way off after the first couple of months of the year–a sign of economic recovery, perhaps? (I wonder what the fact that we now regularly see coyotes in our neighborhood means…)

We found this beautiful brindle-coated female dog at Shawnee Park in Chandler, running around loose with a collar and no tags, while we were out with a dog from Arizona RESCUE (Scout, a Dane mix, another great dog). Nobody in the area knew who she belonged to, so we took her to the east side pound and put her picture up on Pets911.

Vocab Malone on abortion and personhood, part 1

Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:15:00 +0000

Vocab Malone has put up his first post arguing for the position that “the unborn human embryo is a full person at the moment of conception and should be afforded the full rights due human beings by their very essence."

Criteria of Personhood or Humanity
He starts by looking at the question of what it is to be human or to be a person, citing a few historical references of individual characteristics–being rational, being “in relationship,” and “the capacity for self-objectification.” He expresses doubt that any single characteristic is appropriate, on the grounds that human beings undergo changes of state such as being asleep or being drugged, or not thinking. I agree with him that the characteristics he has listed won’t do the trick, and I also agree with him that features that go away when we sleep are inadequate. But it doesn’t follow that there is no single feature that can do the trick–if the feature is a capacity that we have, for example, that capacity doesn’t cease to exist when it’s not being used.

He goes on to note that lack of personhood doesn’t entail that any treatment is morally permissible, pointing out animals as examples of nonpersons that deserve humane treatment. Again, I agree with him–and observe the converse, that possession of personhood doesn’t mean that there are no cases where it can be moral to kill a person–cases of self-defense, euthanasia, capital punishment, or war come to mind as possibilities. But what makes animals deserve humane treatment is that they have certain capacities and interests, such as an inner mental life that includes at the very least the ability to feel sensations–and note that humane treatment doesn’t necessarily entail a right to life on the part of an animal, or a duty on our part not to kill them.

Vocab appears to want to lay the groundwork for rejecting the use of a criterion of personhood in favor of a criterion of humanity as his standard for arguing against abortion, but here he only offers a promissory note and doesn’t provide an argument to that effect. I think this is a mistake, however, because ethical distinctions should be based on morally relevant features, and I don’t believe species membership is any more relevant in and of itself to being the holder of rights or of being the object of duties than is race or gender. If a member of an intelligent alien species capable of language were to make contact with us, my intuition is that we would attribute personhood to that entity and give it the same consideration as a human being. Likewise if we manage to build artificially intelligent, self-directed machines with beliefs, desires, and intentions, though the intuition is not as strong there unless I imagine them to have mental lives similar to our own.

Conception: Fertilization
Even though Vocab hasn’t yet given a reason to reject a personhood criterion in favor of a human being criterion, the rest of his case is solely about human life rather than personhood, which I think is the wrong issue for the reasons I just gave. He argues that human life begins at conception, and clarifies that he means fertilization rather than implantation. This choice means that 30-50% of human lives are spontaneously aborted due to the failure of the fertilized ova to implant in the uterine wall. If Vocab thinks that this loss of human life is the loss of beings with rights and interests to whom we owe a duty to enable them to live out normal lives, then he has some explaining to do. First of all, why would a loving God create a human reproductive system that resulted in such a Holocaust of lives lost before they get a chance to start? Second, why has no one considered this to be a serious ethical problem that we need to urgently devote medical resources to address? We can call this the problem of natural abortion, which has both a natural evil and human evil component that requires justification.

Complete at Fertilization?
Vocab says that at conception (by which he means fertilization), “every human is complete and alive.” I agree that a fertilized human ovum is alive–as life is a continuous process, arising from living components, at least until synthetic biology gets to the point of creating life from entirely nonliving components. Sperm and ova are also alive. But it is certainly not complete–zygotes have no brains, no central nervous systems, no organs, no body parts other than undifferentiated, identical cells.

An Individual at Fertilization?
Vocab also says that at fertilization and pre-implantation, “it is not merely a collection of cells lumped together but an actual individual.” This also need not be the case. At fertilization, a zygote is an undifferentiated cell that undergoes a process of division without changing size for several days, to become a blastocyst by about the fifth day. During this period each of its cells is totipotent, meaning that each individual cell has the potential to become a full human being. Sometimes more than one of the cells does become a separate human being, as in the case of identical twins. In the case of identical twins, if they don’t split completely, they may become conjoined twins or parasitic twins, or one twin may be completely absorbed into the other or otherwise fail to develop and become a vanishing twin. Where a vanishing twin occurs with fraternal twins, the resulting individual can be a chimera, with two sets of DNA. Should we also grieve for those twins who fail to develop, either due to failure to split off or failure to develop?

The science fiction scenarios of teleportation that create interesting philosophical puzzles for the notion of personal identity are real puzzles for a view that attributes personhood to zygotes, though without the additional problem of memories and experiences, since zygotes are undifferentiated cells.

Blastocysts
Once the zygote becomes a blastocyst, it forms into an outer layer of cells, which later becomes the placenta, and an inner cell mass of pluripotent embryonic stem cells, each of which is capable of differentiating into any kind of human cell. Only after this stage does the blastocyst implant in the wall of the uterus, about a week after fertilization, and begin taking nutrients directly from the blood of the mother–a dependency that can itself be of moral significance, as Judith Jarvis Thomson’s violinist argument shows. As already mentioned above, a great many fertilized ova do not reach this stage. Further, the percentages of implant failure are higher for in vitro fertilization (IVF), a procedure which Vocab’s criteria would have to declare unethical, even though it is the only way that many couples can have their own biological offspring.

It should also be noted that the process of therapeutic cloning involves taking a female ovum (which Vocab doesn’t seem to indicate he considers to be a bearer of rights on its own), removing its haploid DNA, inserting the nucleus from a (diploid) human somatic cell (this is called somatic cell nuclear transfer), and giving it a shock to cause it to start dividing just like a fertilized egg. This occurs without fertilization by a human sperm. Once it reaches the blastocyst stage, its inner cell mass is harvested for embryonic stem cells, which destroys the blastocyst in the process. The natural process of fertilization never takes place, but there’s little doubt that reproductive human cloning is possible via this process. Vocab’s choice of fertilization as key suggests that there is no moral issue with this process, even though it also has some potential to become a human being. Further, if fertilization is a necessary, not just a sufficient, condition for rights, Vocab’s view suggests that human clones would have no rights.

Fully Programmed?
Vocab goes on to say that “the embryo is already ‘fully programmed’ (to use computer language). This means the pre-implanted embryo needs no more information input at any further point in its development.” While this was formerly believed to be the case about the individual embryo’s biology, we now know that the environment of development can play a role in the characteristics that will come to be exhibited, such as from mRNA supplied from the mother to a developing embryo after fertilization and prior to zygote formation. But in any case, I would maintain that it’s not our cellular biology that gives us moral value, as opposed to our capacities to have interests, desires, intentions, plans, sensations, and so forth–all capacities that zygotes lack.

Vocab ends this piece with some anthropomorphizing of zygotes, which appears to me to be a highly misleading form of argument–his analogies cannot be taken literally, since zygotes have no mental processes.

Human and Living = Human Being?
I agree with Vocab that a fertilized human ovum is living, that it’s human, and that, if all goes well, it will become one (or more) individual human beings. I don’t agree that it’s yet a person or a “human being,” since it lacks the requisite parts and capacities.

To sum up:

Discussion on abortion and personhood w/Vocab Malone

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:06:00 +0000

Local Christian hip-hop artist and slam poet Vocab Malone, who I’ve interacted with online and met when Daniel Dennett spoke at ASU early this year, asked me in January for my thoughts on abortion and personhood. He’s now written a paper on the subject which he’s asked me to critique, and we thought it would be interesting to see how it would work out to do it in a public manner via our respective blogs. The plan is that he will post successive sections of his paper on his blog, and I’ll respond here, with cross-links to share some traffic and discussion. Both of us allow blog comments; it probably makes the most sense to post your comments at the blog for the person you’d like to see a response from.

Vocab has posted an introduction and the comments that I originally sent to him on the subject at his blog, Backpack Apologetics. He’s taking a position that I think is very difficult to justify, that full personhood and human rights are acquired at the moment of conception–we’ll have to see which definition of conception he chooses, fertilization or implantation.

Just to throw out a little issue I raised this semester in one of my classes–some have argued that climate change raises the ethical issue of a duty to future generations. If we can have moral duties now to people who don’t exist at all yet, what does that imply about duties to embryos?

Reed Esau on "Taking Ownership in Skepticism"

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:16:00 +0000

SkeptiCamp founder Reed Esau has finally taken the plunge and started blogging at “an illustrative account”–check out his interesting post on “Taking Ownership in Skepticism."

Historical Comments

Anonymous (2009-12-09):

Thanks for the mention, Jim.
Some of the fallout that I hinted-at can be found at Why Skeptics Don’t Have to be Atheists with a response by De Dora on Thursday.

Bad news for agnostics?

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:21:00 +0000

While past studies have shown religious believers to be happier than nonbelievers, some new analysis shows that it’s not quite so simple. Luke Galen has found that the convinced non-religious are also quite happy, but people who are uncertain are the ones who are dissatisfied. Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn has analyzed data from the World Values Survey and found some more interesting details:
Religious people are both happier and unhappier. While a higher percentage of religious people report themselves as extremely happy than convinced nonbelievers, a higher percentage of religious people also report themselves as extremely unhappy.
Those who attend religious services and belong to religious organizations tend to be happier. And that’s whether or not they believe–in fact among that group, those with the stronger belief tend to be unhappier. So it’s the social aspect, not the doctrine, that promotes happiness. And this is further supported by:
The more religious a country is, the happier believers are, and vice versa. In religious countries, believers are happier; in nonreligious countries, nonbelievers are happier.
See more at the Epiphenom blog.

(Cross-posted to the Secular Outpost.)

Why not put Rom Houben's facilitated communication to the test?

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:29:00 +0000

I’ve posted comments about the reasons to be skeptical about Rom Houben’s facilitated communication at a number of blogs, where the response of some seems to be that there is no point of such testing. The reasons for not testing have included (1) that the videos are a “straw man”; (2) that criticisms from a stage magician and a philosopher/bioethicist are not worthy of attention; and (3) the testimony from Dr. Laureys, the facilitator Mrs. Wouters, and Houben’s family is much stronger evidence than what we can see in the videos, and that Dr. Laureys says he already conducted a single-blind test which showed that the communication came from Houben, not the facilitator, and to reject that is irrational hyper-skepticism that assumes they are lying.

The first argument makes no sense to me. The videos clearly show the facilitator rapidly typing away with Houben’s finger even while he’s looking away or has his eyes closed, which is by itself a very strong reason to be skeptical, especially in light of the past record of facilitated communication. The second argument is not only ad hominem, but further refuted by similar analysis by a neuroscientist. The last argument is a bit better, but wrongly assumes that the only alternative is that the doctor and family are lying. Facilitated communication isn’t a matter of conscious fraud, it’s a matter of self-deception of the facilitator (enhanced by the expectations and reactions of the family). Given the possibility of unconscious cuing of the facilitator by the doctor, as well as his own vested interest in a positive result, the test he described doing is still far from sufficient to overcome the evidence plainly displayed in the videos.

Unfortunately, there is a very strong incentive to believe on the part of the doctor, the facilitator, and the family. To find that the communications are coming from the facilitator would be emotionally devastating, and detrimental to the doctor’s credibility. To test further is to risk a huge potential loss of what has apparently been gained, and I suspect it’s unlikely that we’ll see it happen.

But look at it from Houben’s own perspective–further testing is absolutely in his own best interests. For if the facilitator is the one doing the communicating, not him, then he is being further exploited for the satisfaction of his doctor, facilitator, and family, not for his own benefit. He’s not being treated respectfully or as an end, rather than as a means. If he is, in fact, minimally conscious as the brain scans suggest, then speaking on his behalf without his genuine input is doing him even greater harm.

If you reject the idea that an hour or so of Houben’s time should be used to do a conclusive, double-blind test to see whether the communications are coming from him or from the facilitator, is it because you want to believe, rather than to know? There is clear possible harm to Hoeben from not doing such a test. There is no harm to Hoeben from such a test, though there’s clearly the risk of painfully dissolving an illusion for the doctor, facilitator, and family. But Hoeben’s interests should be placed above that risk.

(Previously on Houben, a post with many links and references.)

UPDATE (February 15, 2010): Houben has been put to the test, and it turns out the communications were, in fact, coming from the facilitator.

UPDATE (February 20, 2010): David Gorski at the Science-Based Medicine blog has a bit more from the Belgian Skeptics, who were involved in the test.

Dana Perino forgets about 9/11 and the Beltway snipers

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:07:00 +0000

Dana Perino says, “We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term."

Sean Hannity ignores it.

Terrorism is a strategy used by a militarily weak group against a militarily strong one, to create fear, dread, and uncertainty among the general population toward some political or ideological end, such as ending military actions by the strong group against the weak. It’s not clear to me that Major Hasan’s attack at Fort Hood meets the criteria of a terrorist attack, or even a religiously motivated one, though that’s somewhat more plausible. His action did share the element of being an attack by the weak against the strong, but he also appears to have had mental issues and an ongoing battle with the military over his desire to get out and not be sent to Afghanistan. There were clear warning signs that were missed or ignored, but it doesn’t appear that he was part of a broader plot.

The Fort Hood shootings were a tragedy, and possibly one that could have been avoided. But it certainly isn’t an event that provides justification for torture, warrantless wiretapping, the revocation of habeas corpus, and the expansion of “homeland security” to the detriment of our civil liberties. Perino and Hannity want to argue that the Obama administration has made us less safe on the basis of this incident, which makes about as much sense as blaming the Bush administration for the Virginia Tech shootings.

UPDATE (November 27, 2009): As a couple people have correctly noted, I should also have mentioned the post-9/11 anthrax attacks as another terrorist act Perino forgot about. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was another.

UPDATE: Hume’s Ghost notes that Perino has said via Twitter that she meant “since 9/11," and correctly points out how absurd it is to discount 9/11 for Bush (as well as these other subsequent events she’s ignored), while blaming Obama for Hasan’s shooting: “…while there were warning signs about Hasan’s fitness for duty that could have been noticed by those around him, this is hardly something that would have been on the President’s radar. No one was briefing President Obama that Major Hasan was determined to strike a military base; however, President Bush was briefed that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks.”

Wikileaks to release over 500K text pager intercepts from 9/11

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:47:00 +0000

Wikileaks is releasing over 500,000 U.S. national text pager intercepts from September 11, 2001, over the next two days:
From 3AM on Wednesday November 25, 2009, until 3AM the following day (New York Time), WikiLeaks will release over half a million US national text pager intercepts. The intercepts cover a 24 hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

The first message, corresponding to 3AM September 11, 2001, five hours before the first attack, will be released at 3AM November 25, 2009 and the last, corresponding to 3AM September 12, 2001 at 3AM November 26, 2009.

Text pagers are mostly carried by persons operating in an official capacity. Messages in the collection range from Pentagon and New York Police Department exchanges, to computers reporting faults to their operators as the World Trade Center collapsed.
This is a significant and completely objective record of the defining moment of our time. We hope that its entry into the historical record will lead to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of how this tragedy and its aftermath may have been prevented.

While we are obligated by to protect our sources, it is clear that the information comes from an organization which has been intercepting and archiving national US telecommunications since prior to 9/11.
The Transparent Society getting closer, it appears…

What would be more horrifying than "locked-in" syndrome?

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:30:00 +0000

Numerous mass media outlets and blogs are reporting on the misdiagnosis of Rom Houben of being comatose for 23 years when he was really conscious, according to Belgian neurologist Steven Laureys, who has claimed for years to be able to treat patients allegedly in a persistent vegetative state with electric shocks and find that they were really in a minimally conscious state. Videos of Houben show him allegedly communicating via a keyboard which is pressed by a single finger on one hand–but his hand is being held by a facilitator, and he’s not even looking at the keyboard. Some still photos show the facilitator looking intently at the keyboard, while Houben’s eyes are closed.

James Randi observes that this looks just like the self-deception of Facilitated Communication that was promoted as a way to communicate with severely autistic people, and Marshall Brain at How Stuff Works seconds that conclusion.

I think it’s a bit too fast to conclude that Houben’s not conscious–brain scans could indeed have provided good evidence that he is. But what would be worse than having “locked-in syndrome”? Having somebody else purporting to speak for you with ideomotor-driven Facilitated Communication, while you were helpless to do anything about it.

I’d like to see some double-blind tests of Houben, where he’s asked questions about events that occur when the facilitator isn’t present, as well as fMRI results during the process of facilitation (since there are brain activation differences between active and passive activities, which have been used to study such things as the perception of involuntariness during hypnosis–it shows features of both active and passive movement). I’d also like to see further opinion on Laureys methodology and diagnosis–it seems he has significant self-interest in promoting this case.

UPDATE: Brandon Keim at Wired Science has finally asked the questions that those who have reported this in the mainstream media should have been asking.

Here’s a 2001 review of the scientific literature on facilitated communication.

UPDATE: The video on this story shows the facilitator typing for him while his eyes are closed and he appears to be asleep.

UPDATE: A Times Online story claims that Houben’s facilitator, Linda Wouters, spent the last three years working with Houben to learn to feel tiny muscle movements in his finger, and that Dr. Laureys did tests to validate the technique:

Climate Research Unit email scandal

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:25:00 +0000

Hackers got access to a trove of private emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit that is being trumpeted by those who disbelieve in anthropogenic global warming as proof of scandal. I’ve looked through the data a bit myself–you can find a searchable archive of the emails here. I suspect this collection of emails may end up being put to good research use as the Enron email corpus was. While I found a few embarrassing things, I found no evidence of outright data fabrication or fakery.

The main email that has been cited as such evidence is an email from Phil Jones that says:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate explains:
The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
In other words, “hiding” in this case is using temperature measurement records instead of tree rings as a proxy for temperature records for a period of time where the tree rings are known not to be an accurate proxy, for whatever reason.

It’s also claimed that these emails show a concerted effort to subvert the peer review process and stop publications by climate change skeptics, but most of those emails seem to center around an issue where the scandal was actually from the skeptics–the publication of a 2003 paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research that was considered by 13 authors of papers cited to have misrepresented their work. Subsequently, half of the editorial staff of the journal resigned in protest at what they saw as a failure of peer review, and the managing director of the journal’s parent company issued an apology (see Wikipedia’s summary). The emails show that these scientists were upset by Climate Research’s publication of bad science and encouraged protest and those resignations.

A few blog posts that seem to have good overviews of the issues:
Skeptical Science, “What do the hacked CRU emails tell us?"
Real Climate, “The CRU Hack” (followed by over 1,000 comments)
Real Climate, “The CRU Hack: Context” (gives background on some of the issues, including the above Climate Research issue).
Greenfyre’s, “Climate change Deniers hoax themselves… again."
Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, “Smoking guns in the CRU stolen emails: A real tale of real ethics in science” (what the CRU emails show about treatment of an erroneous climate science paper)
An interesting comparison to past scientific controversy is:
Carbon Fixated, “Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Renaissance and Enlightenment ’thinking’"
And, to compare to the climate change skeptics:
Bishop Hill, “Climate cuttings 33” (summary of the apparent worst issues)
Essex County Conservative Examiner, “Hadley [sic] CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails”
Climate Audit, “CRU Correspondence”
Watt’s Up With That, “Mike’s Nature Trick”
Watt’s Up With That, “CRU Emails ‘may’ be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story”
Watt’s Up With That, “Spencer on elitism in the IPCC climate machine”
The last of these posts, from Univ. of Alabama climate scientist and skeptic Roy W. Spencer, notes that:
If all of this sounds incompatible with the process of scientific investigation, it shouldn’t. One of the biggest misconceptions the public has about science is that research is a straightforward process of making measurements, and then seeing whether the data support hypothesis A or B. The truth is that the interpretation of data is seldom that simple.

Joel Garreau on radical evolution

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:54:00 +0000

Yesterday I heard Joel Garreau speak again at ASU, as part of a workshop on Plausibility put on by the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes (CSPO). I previously posted a summary of his talk back in August on the future of cities. This talk was based on his book, Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies–and What It Means to Be Human.

Garreau was introduced by Paul Berman, Dean of the Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law at ASU, who also announced that Garreau will be joining the law school faculty beginning this spring, as the Lincoln Professor for Law, Culture, and Values.

He began by saying that we’re at a turning point in history [has there ever been a time when we haven’t thought that, though?], and he’s going to present some possible scenarios for the next 2, 3, 5, 10, or 20 years, and that his book is a roadmap. The main feature of this turning point is that rather than transforming our environment, we’ll be increasingly transforming ourselves, and we’re the first species to take control of its own evolution, and it’s happening now.

At some point in the not-too-distant future, he said, your kid may come home from school in tears about how he can’t compete with the other kids who are more intelligent, more athletic, more attractive, more attentive, and so forth–because you haven’t invested in the human enhancement technologies coming on the market. Your possible reactions will be to suck it up [somebody’s still gotta do the dirty jobs in society?], remortgage the house again to make your kid competitive, or try to get the enhanced kids thrown out of school. What you can’t do is ignore it.

He then asked people to raise their hands who could remember when things were still prevalent:

State of the world on drug decriminalization

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:40:00 +0000

Personal possession of any drug decriminalized: Spain, Portugal, Italy, Czech Republic, Baltic states, some German states and Swiss cantons, Mexico.

Partial decriminalization/minimal criminal prosecution: England, Denmark, Slovakia, Latvia, Croatia, Poland, Austria, Germany, France, Netherlands (see chart in the Economist story linked below–it’s interesting that the Netherlands has the highest percentage of prison outcomes on this list)

Unconstitutional to prosecute people for drug possession (any drug) per Supreme Court ruling: Argentina, Colombia

Marijuana decriminalized: 14 U.S. states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon)

States with some localities that have decriminalized marijuana: Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Washington, Wisconsin

Considering marijuana legalization: California, Massachusetts, possibly Oregon

Considering decriminalization (any drug): Brazil, Ecuador

Source: The Economist, “Virtually legal," November 14, 2009; state decriminalization details from Wikipedia.

William Dembski would like to use copyright to quash criticism

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:13:00 +0000

Although when it comes to other people’s works, William Dembski hasn’t seen a problem with taking copyrighted material and using it wholesale, dubbing over a computer animated video from Harvard and XVIVO of the inner workings of a cell with his own intelligent design-based commentary, when it comes to his own work he has a different standard.

Mark Chu-Carroll points out at his Good Math, Bad Math blog that Dembski is talking about using threats of claimed copyright infringement to shut down criticism of a recent paper he published with Robert Marks. That criticism includes pointing out that sources cited by Dembski don’t say what he says they do, and providing counterexamples to Dembski’s mathematical claims. Rather than respond to the criticism, Dembski would rather shut it down.

There are just a few problems with that–first, the criticism may well be fair use. Although it does quote a great deal of the paper by Dembski and Marks, it does so for the purpose of putting commentary and criticism side-by-side with quotations from the paper. Second, papers published by the IEEE require that copyright be transferred to the IEEE, so Dembski lacks standing even if there were infringement.

Check out the RationalWiki critique of the Dembski and Marks paper.

Daniel Dennett, The Evolution of Confusion

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:56:00 +0000

Daniel Dennett’s talk from the 2009 Atheist Alliance International convention (link is to my summary) is now online:

Richard Carrier on the ancient creation/evolution debate

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:26:00 +0000

Richard Carrier, an independent scholar with a Ph.D. in Ancient History from Columbia University, gave a talk this morning to the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix titled “Christianity and Science (Ancient and Modern).” He argued that there was a creation/evolution debate in ancient Rome that had interesting similarities and differences to the current creation/evolution debate.

He began with Michael Behe and a short description of his irreducibly complexity argument regarding the bacterial flagellum–that since it fails to function if any piece is removed, and it’s too complex to have originated by evolution in a single step, it must have been intelligently designed and created. He observed that 2,000 years ago, Galen made the same argument about the human hand and other aspects of human and animal anatomy. Galen wrote that “the mark of intelligent design is clear in those works in which the removal of any small component brings about the ruin of the whole."

Behe, Carrier said, hasn’t done what you’d expect a scientist to do with respect to his theory. He hasn’t looked at the genes that code the flagellum and tried to identify correlate genes in other microbes, for example.

In the ancient context, the debate was between those who argued for natural selection on random arrangements of features that were spontaneously generated, such as Anaxagoras and atomists like Democritus and Epicurus, vs. those who argued for some kind of intelligent design, like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Galen. Carrier set the stage by describing a particular debate about the function of the kidneys between Asclepiades and Galen. Asclepiades thought that the kidneys were either superfluous, with urine forming directly in the bladder, or was an accidental sieve. Galen set out to test this with a public experiment on an anesthetized pig, which had been given water prior to the operation. He opened up the pig, ligated (tied knots in) its ureters, and they started to balloon and the bladder stayed empty. Squeezing the ureter failed to reverse the flow back into the kidney. When one ureter was cut, urine came out. Thus, Galen demonstrated that the kidneys extract urine from the blood and it is transported to the bladder by the ureters. The failure of the flow to operate in reverse showed that the kidneys were not simple sieves, but operated by some power that only allowed it to function in one direction. This, argued Galen, was demonstration of something too complex to have arisen by chance, and refuted the specific claims of Asclepiades.

Galen’s 14-volume De Usu Portium (On the Usefulness of Parts) made similar arguments for intelligent design about all aspects of human anatomy–the nerve transport system, biomechanics of arm, hand, and leg movement, the precision of the vocal system, etc. He also asked questions like “How does a fetus know how to build itself?” He allowed for the possibility of some kind of tiny instructions present in the “seed,” on analogy with a mechanical puppet theater, programmed with an arrangement of cogs, wheels, and ropes.

Galen also investigated the question of why eyebrows and eyelashes grow to a fixed length and no longer, and found that they grow from a piece of cartilage, the tarsal plate. He concluded that while his evidence required an intelligent designer, they entailed that God is limited and uses only available materials. Galen, a pagan, contrasted his view with that of Christians. For Christians, a pile of ashes could become a horse, because God could will anything to be the case. But for Galen, the evidence supported a God subject to the laws of physics, who was invisibly present but physically interacting to make things happen, and that God realizes the best possible world within constraints.

Which intelligent design theory better explains facts like the growth of horses from fetuses, the fact that fetuses sometimes come out wrong, and why we have complex bodies at all, rather than just willing things into existence via magic? If God can do anything, why wouldn’t he just make us as “simple homogenous soul bodies that realize functions by direct will” (or “expedient polymorphism,” to use Carrier’s term)?

The difference between Galen’s views and those of the Christians was that Galen thought of theology as a scientific theory that had to be adjusted according to facts, that facts about God are inferred from observations, and those facts entail either divine malice or a limited divinity. What we know about evolution today places even more limits on viable theories of divinity than in Galen’s time. (Carrier gave a brief overview of evolution and in particular a very brief account of the evolution of the bacterial flagellum.)

Galen’s views allowed him to investigate, conduct experiments to test the theories of his opponents as well as his own, and make contributions to human knowledge. He supported the scientific values of curiosity as a moral good, empiricism as the primary mode of discovery, and progress as both possible and valuable, while Christianity denigrated or opposes these. The views of early church fathers were such that once Christianity gained power, it not only put a halt to scientific progress, it caused significant losses of knowledge that had already been accumulated. (Carrier later gave many examples.)

Tertullian, a contemporary of Galen, asked, “What concern have I with the conceits of natural science?” and “Better not to know what God has not revealed than to know it from man."

Thales, from the 6th century B.C., was revered by pagans as the first natural scientist–he discovered the natural causes of eclipses, explained the universe as a system of natural causes, performed observations and developed geometry, made inquiries into useful methods, and subordinated theology to science. There was a story that he was so focused on studying the stars that he fell into a well. Tertullian wrote of this event that Thales had a “vain purpose” and that his fall into the well prefigured his fall into hell.

Lactantius, an early Christian writer and tutor of Constantine the Great, denied that the earth was round (as part of a minority faction of Christians at the time), said that only knowledge of good and evil is worthwhile, and argued that “natural science is superfluous, useless, and inane.” This despite overwhelming evidence already accumulated of a round earth (lighthouses sinking below the horizon as seen from ships sailing away, astronomical observations of lunar eclipses starting at different times in different locations, the fact that different stars are visible at different latitudes, and the shadow of the earth on the moon), which Lactantius simply was uninterested in.

Eusebius, the first historian of the Christian church, said that all are agreed that only scriptural knowledge is worthwhile, anything contrary to scripture is false, and pursuing scientific explanations is to risk damnation. Armchair speculation in support of scripture, however, is good.

Amid factors such as the failure of the pagan system, civil wars in the Roman empire, and a great economic depression, Christianity came to a position of dominance and scientific research came to a halt from about the 4th century to the 12th-14th centuries.

Carrier compared these Christian views to specific displays at the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum in Kentucky, which compared “human reason” to “God’s word.” One contrasted Rene Descartes saying “I think therefore I am” to God saying “I am that I am.” Galen wouldn’t have put those into opposition with each other.

Another display labeled “The First Attack–Question God’s Word” told the story of Satan tempting Adam to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which highlights the “questioning” of Satan for criticism, and argues that putting reason first is Satanic.

Another diagram comparing “human reason” to “God’s Word” showed evolution as a 14-billion-year winding snake-like shape, compared to the short and straight arrow of a 6,000-year creation.

Carrier noted, “It doesn’t have to be that way. Galen’s faith didn’t condemn fundamental scientific values; Galen’s creationism was science-based."

He then gave numerous examples of knowledge lost or ignored by Christianity–that Eratosthenes had calculated the size of the earth (a case described in Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” series), Ptolemy’s projection cartography and system of latitude and longitude, developments in optics, hydrostatics, medicine, harmonics and acoustics, pneumatics, tidal theory, cometary theory, the precession of the stars, mathematics, robotics (cuckoo clocks, coin-operated vending machines for holy water and soap dispensing), machinery (water mills, water-powered saws and hammers, a bread-kneading machine), and so on. He described the Antikythera mechanism, an analog computer similar to WWI artillery computers, which was referred to in various ancient texts but had been dismissed by historians as impossible until this instance was actually found in 1900.

Another example was the Archimedes Codex, where Christians scraped the ink from the text and wrote hymns on it, and threw the rest away. The underlying writing has now been partially recovered thanks to modern technology, revealing that Archimedes performed remarkably advanced calculations about areas, volumes, and centers of gravity.

Carrier has a forthcoming book on the subject of this ancient science, called The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire.

A few interesting questions came up in the Q&A. The first question was about why early Christians didn’t say anything about abortion. Carrier said it probably just wasn’t on the radar, though abortion technology already existed in the form of mechanical devices for performing abortions and abortifacients. He also observed that the ancients knew the importance of cleanliness and antiseptics in medicine, while Jesus said that washing before you eat is a pointless ritual (Mark 7:1-20). Carrier asked, if Jesus was God, shouldn’t he have known about the germ theory of disease?

Another question was whether Christianity was really solely responsible for 1,000 years of stangnation. Carrier pointed out that there was a difference between Byzantine and Western Christianity, with the former preserving works like those of Ptolemy without condemning them, but without building upon them. He said there are unerlying cultural, social, and historical factors that explain the differences, so it’s not just the religion. He also pointed out that there was a lost sect of Christianity that was pro-science, but we have nothing of what they wrote, only references to them by Tertullian, criticizing them for supporting Thales, Galen, and so forth.

Another questioner asked how he accounts for cases of Christians who have contributed to science, such as Kepler, Boyle, Newton, and Bacon. Carrier said “Not all Christians have to be that way–there’s no intrinsic reason Christianity has to be that way.” But, he said, if you put fact before authority, scripture will likely end up not impressing you, being contradicted by evidence you find, and unless you completely retool Christianity, you’ll likely abandon it. Opposition to scientific values is necessary to preserve Christianity as it is; putting weight on authority and scripture leads to the anti-science position as a method of preservation of the dogma.

It was a wonderfully interesting and wide-ranging talk. He covered a lot more specifics than I’ve described here. If you find that Carrier is giving a talk in your area, I highly recommend that you go hear him speak.

You can find more information about Richard Carrier at his web site.

Philosophy Bites podcast

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 20:10:00 +0000

I’ve been listening to past episodes of the Philosophy Bites podcast, and I highly recommend it–they are short (about 15 minute) discussions with prominent philosophers about specific philosophical topics and questions. I’ve found them to be consistently of high quality and interesting, even in the one case where I think the philosophical argument was complete nonsense (Robert Rowland Smith on Derrida on forgiveness). Even there, the interviewers asked the right questions.

I particularly have enjoyed listening to topics that are outside the areas of philosophy I’ve studied, like Alain de Botton on the aesthetics of architecture. Other particularly good ones have been Hugh Mellor on time, David Papineau on physicalism, A.C. Grayling on Descartes’ Meditations, and Peter Millican on the significance of Hume. I’ve still got a bunch more past episodes to listen to; I’m going to be somewhat disappointed when I catch up.

Robert B. Laughlin on "The Crime of Reason"

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:24:00 +0000

The 2009 Hogan and Hartson Jurimetrics Lecture in honor of Lee Loevinger was given on the afternoon of November 5 at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law by Robert B. Laughlin. Laughlin, the Ann T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Physics at Stanford University and winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Physics (along with Horst L. Stormer and Daniel C. Tsui), spoke about his recent book, The Crime of Reason.

He began with a one-sentence summary of his talk: “A consequence of entering the information age is probably that we’re going to lose a human right that we all thought we had but never did …” The sentence went on but I couldn’t keep up with him in my notes to get it verbatim, and I am not sure I could identify precisely what his thesis was after hearing the entire talk and Q&A session. The main gist, though, was that he thinks that a consequence of allowing manufacturing to go away and being a society based on information is that “Knowledge is dear, therefore there has to be less of it–we must prevent others from knowing what we know, or you can’t make a living from it.” And, he said, “People who learn on their own are terrorists and thieves,” which I think was intentional hyperbole. I think his talk was loaded with overgeneralizations, some of which he retracted or qualified during the Q&A.

It certainly doesn’t follow from knowledge being valuable that there must be less of it. Unlike currency, knowledge isn’t a fungible commodity, so different bits of knowledge have different value to different people. There are also different kinds of knowledge–know-how vs. knowledge that, and making the latter freely available doesn’t necessarily degrade the value of the former, which is why it’s possible to have a business model that gives away software for free but makes money from consulting services. Further, the more knowledge there is, the more valuable it is to know where to find the particular bits of knowledge that are useful for a given purpose, and the less it is possible for a single person to be an expert across many domains. An increasing amount of knowledge means there’s increasing value in various kinds of specializations, and more opportunities for individuals to develop forms of expertise in niches that aren’t already full of experts.

Laughlin said that he is talking about “the human rights issue of the 21st century,” that “learnign some things on your own is stealing from people. What we think of as our rights are in conflict with the law, just as slavery is in conflict with human rights.” He said that Jefferson was conflicted on this very issue, sayng on the one hand that “knowledge is like fire–divinely designed to be copyable like a lit taper–I can light yours with mine, which in no way diminishes my own.” This is the non-rival quality of information, that one person copying information from another doesn’t deprive the other of their use of it, though that certainly may have an impact on the commercial market for the first person to sell their information.

“On the other hand,” said Laughlin, “economics involves gambling. [Jefferson] favored legalized gambling. Making a living involves bluff and not sharing knowledge.” He said that our intellectual property laws derive from English laws that people on the continent “thought … were outrageous–charging people to know things."

He put up a photo of a fortune from a fortune cookie, that said “The only good is knowledge, and the only evil ignorance.” He said this is what you might tell kids in school to get them to study, but there’s something not right about it. He then put up a drawing of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster (Laughlin drew most of the slides himself). He said, we’re all familiar with the Frankenstein myth. “The problem with open knowledge is that some of it is dangerous. In the U.S. some of it is off-limits, you can’t use it in business or even talk about it. It’s not what you do with it that’s exclusive, but that you have it at all."

His example was atomic bomb secrets and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which makes it a federal felony to reveal “nuclear data” to the public, which has been defined very broadly in the courts. It includes numbers and principles of physics.

Laughlin returned to his fortune cookie example, and said there’s another problem. He put up a drawing of a poker game. “If I peeked at one guy’s cards and told everyone else, the poker game would stop. It involves bluffing, and open access to knowledge stops the game.” He suggested that this is what happened last year with the world financial sector–that the “poker game in Wall Street stopped, everyone got afraid to bet, and the government handled it by giving out more chips and saying keep playing, which succeeded.” I agree that this was a case where knowledge–specifically knowledge of the growing amounts of “toxic waste” in major world banks–caused things to freeze up, it wasn’t the knowledge that was the ultimate cause, it was the fact that banks engaged in incredibly risky behavior that they shouldn’t have. More knowledge earlier–and better oversight and regulation–could have prevented the problem.

Laughlin said “Economics is about bluff and secrecy, and open knowledge breaks it.” I don’t think I agree–what makes markets function is that price serves as a public signal about knowledge. There’s always going to be local knowledge that isn’t shared, not necessarily because of bluff and secrecy, but simply due to the limits of human capacities and the dynamics of social transactions. While trading on private knowledge can result in huge profits, trading the private knowledge itself can be classified as insider trading and is illegal. (Though perhaps it shouldn’t be, since insider trading has the potential for making price signals more accurate more quickly to the public.)

Laughlin showed a painting of the death of Socrates (by Jacques-Louis David, not Laughlin this time), and said that in high school, you study Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes, and learn that knowledge is good. But, “as you get older, you learn there’s a class system in knowledge.” Plato etc. is classified as good, but working class technical knowledge, like how to build a motor, is not, he claimed. He went on to say, “If you think about it, that’s exactly backwards.” I’m not sure anyone is ever taught that technical knowledge is not valuable, especially these days, where computer skills seem to be nearly ubiquitous–and I disagree with both extremes. From my personal experience, I think some of my abstract thinking skills that I learned from studying philosophy have been among the most valuable skills I’ve used in both industry and academia, relevant to both theoretical and practical applications.

Laughlin said that “engines are complicated, and those who would teach you about it don’t want to be clear about it. It’s sequestered by those who own it, because it’s valuable. The stuff we give away in schools isn’t valuable, that’s why we give it away.” In the Q&A, a questioner observed that he can easily obtain all sorts of detailed information about how engines work, and that what makes it difficult to understand is the quantity and detail. Laughlin responded that sometimes the best way to hide things is to put them in plain sight (the Poe “purloined letter” point), as needles in a haystack. But I think that’s a rather pat answer to something that is contradictory to his claim–the information really is freely available and easy to find, but the limiting factor is that it takes time to learn the relevant parts to have a full understanding. The limit isn’t the availability of the knowledge or that some of it is somehow hidden. I’d also challenge his claim that the knowledge provided in schools is “given away.” It’s still being paid for, even if it’s free to the student, and much of what’s being paid for is the know-how of the educator, not just the knowledge-that of the specific facts, as well as special kinds of knowledge-that–the broader frameworks into which individual facts fit.

Laughlin went on to say, “You’re going to have to pay to know the valuable information. Technical knowledge will disappear and become unavailable. The stuff you need to make a living is going away.” He gave as examples defense-related technologies, computers, and genetics. He said that “people in the university sector are facing more and more intense moral criticism” for sharing information. “How life works–would we want that information to get out? We might want to burn those books. The 20th century was the age of physics, [some of which was] so dangerous we burned the books. It’s not in the public domain. The 21st century is the age of biology. We’re in the end game of the same thing. In genetics–e.g., how disease organisms work. The genetic structure of Ebola or polio.” Here, Laughlin seems to be just wrong. The gene sequences of Ebola and polio have apparently been published (Sanchez, A., et al. (1993) “Sequence analysis of the Ebola virus genome: organization, genetic elements and comparison with the genome of Marburg virus,” Virus Research 29, 215-240 and Stanway, G., et al. (1983) “The nucleotide sequence of poliovirus type 3 leon 12 a1b: comparison with poliovirus type 1," Nucleic Acids Res. 11(16), 5629-5643). (I don’t claim to be knowledgeable about viruses, in the former case I am relying on the statement that “Sanchez et al (1993) has published the sequence of the complete genome of Ebola virus” from John Crowley and Ted Crusberg, “Ebola and Marburg Virus: Genomic Structure, Comparative and Molecular Biology."; in the latter case it may not be publication of the complete genome but is at least part.)

Laughlin talked about the famous issue of The Progressive magazine which featured an article by Howard Moreland titled “How H-Bombs Work.” He showed the cover of the magazine, which read, “The H-Bomb Secret–How we got it–why we’re telling it.” Laughlin said that the DoJ enjoined the journal from publishing the article and took the issue into secret hearings. The argument was that it was a threat to national security and a violation of the Atomic Energy Act. The judge said that the rule against prior restraint doesn’t apply because this is so dangerous that “no jurist in their right mind would put free speech above safety.” Laughlin said, “Most people think the Bill of Rights protects you, but this case shows that it doesn’t.” After the judge forbid publication, it was leaked to a couple of “newspapers on the west coast,” after which the DoJ dropped the case and the article was published. According to Laughlin, this was strategy, that he suspects they didn’t prosecute the case because the outcome would have been to find the AEA unconstitutional. By dropping the case it kept the AEA as a potential weapon in future cases. He said there have only been two cases of the criminal provisions of the AEA prosecuted in the last 50 years, but it is “inconceivable that it was only violated twice. The country handles its unconstitutionality by not prosecuting.” The U.S., he said, is like a weird hybrid of Athens and Sparta, favoring both being open and being war-like and secretive. These two positions have never been reconciled, so we live in an unstable situation that favors both.

He also discussed the case of Wen Ho Lee, a scientist from Taiwan who worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory, who took home items that were classified as “PARD” (protect as restricted data), even though everyone is trained repeatedly that you “Don’t take PARD home.” When he was caught, Laughlin said, he said “I didn’t know it was wrong” and “I thought they were going to fire me, so I took something home to sell.” The latter sounds like an admission of guilt. He was put into solitary confinement for a year (actually 9 months) and then the case of 50 counts of AEA violations was dropped. Laughlin characterized this as “extralegal punishment,” and said “we abolish due process with respect to nuclear data.” (Wen Ho Lee won a $1.5 million settlement from the U.S. government in 2006 before the Supreme Court could hear his case. Somehow, this doesn’t seem to me to be a very effective deterrent.)

Laughlin said that we see a tradeoff between risk and benefit, not an absolute danger. The risk of buildings being blown up is low enough to allow diesel fuel and fertilizer to be legal. Bombs from ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel are very easy to make, and our protection isn’t hiding technical knowledge, but that people just don’t do it. But nuclear weapons are so much more dangerous that the technical details are counted as absolutely dangerous, no amount of benefit could possibly be enough. He said that he’s writing a book about energy and “the possible nuclear renaissance unfolding” (as a result of need for non-carbon-emitting energy sources). He says the U.S. and Germany are both struggling with this legal morass around nuclear information. (Is the unavailability of nuclear knowledge really the main or even a significant issue about nuclear plant construction in the United States? General Electric (GE Energy) builds nuclear plants in other countries.)

Laughlin said that long pointy knives could be dangerous, and there’s a movement in England to ban them. Everybody deals with technical issue of knowledge and where to draw lines. (Is it really feasible to ban knives, and does such a ban constitute a ban on knowledge? How hard is it to make a knife?)

At this point he moved on to biology, and showed a photograph of a fruit fly with legs for antennae. He said, “so maybe antennae are related to legs, and a switch in development determines which you get. The control machinery is way too complicated to understand right now.” (Really?) “What if this was done with a dog, with legs instead of ears. Would the person who did that go to Stockholm? No, they’d probably lose their lab and be vilified. In the life sciences there are boundaries like we see in nuclear–things we shouldn’t know.” (I doubt that there is a switch that turns dog ears into legs, and this doesn’t strike me as plausibly being described as a boundary on knowledge, but rather an ethical boundary on action.) He said, “There are so many things researchers would like to try, but can’t, because funders are afraid.” Again, I suspect that most of these cases are ethical boundaries about actions rather than knowledge, though of course there are cases where unethical actions might be required to gain certain sorts of knowledge.

He turned to stem cells. He said that the federal government effectively put a 10-year moratorium on stem cell research for ethical reasons. Again, these were putatively ethical reasons regarding treatment of embryos, but the ban was on federally funded research rather than any research at all. It certainly stifled research, but didn’t eliminate it.

Next he discussed the “Millennium Digital Copyright Act” (sic). He said that “people who know computers laugh at the absurdity” of claiming that computer programs aren’t formulas and are patentable. He said that if he writes a program that “has functionality or purpose similar to someone else’s my writing it is a violation of the law.” Perhaps in a very narrow case where there’s patent protection, yes, but certainly not in general. If he was arguing that computer software patents are a bad idea, I’d agree. He said “Imagine if I reverse-engineered the latest Windows and then published the source code. It would be a violation of law.” Yes, in that particular example, but there are lots of cases of legitimate reverse engineering, especially in the information security field. The people who come up with the signatures for anti-virus and intrusion detection and prevention do this routinely, and in some cases have actually released their own patches to Microsoft vulnerabilities because Microsoft was taking too long to do it themselves.

He said of Microsoft Word and PDF formats that they “are constantly morphing” because “if you can understand it you can steal it.” But there are legal open source and competing proprietary software solutions that understand both of the formats in question–Open Office, Apple’s Pages and Preview, Foxit Reader, etc. Laughlin said, “Intentional bypassing of encryption is a violation of the DMCA.” Only if that encryption is circumvention of “a technological measure that effectively controls access to” copyrighted material and the circumvention is not done for the purposes of security research, which has a big exception carved out in the law. Arguably, breakable encryption doesn’t “effectively control access,” though the law has certainly been used to prosecute people who broke really poor excuses for encryption.

Laughlin put up a slide of the iconic smiley face, and said it has been patented by Unisys. “If you use it a lot, you’ll be sued by Unisys.” I’m not sure how you could patent an image, and while there are smiley face trademarks that have been used as a revenue source, it’s by a company called SmileyWorld, not Unisys.

He returned to biology again, to talk briefly about gene patenting, which he says “galls biologists” but has been upheld by the courts. (Though perhaps not for many years longer, depending on how the Myriad Genetics case turns out.) Natural laws and discoveries aren’t supposed to be patentable, so it’s an implication of these court decisions that genes “aren’t natural laws, but something else.” The argument is that isolating them makes them into something different than what they are when they’re part of an organism, which somehow constitutes an invention. I think that’s a bad argument that could only justify patenting the isolation process, not the sequence.

Laughlin showed a slide of two photos, the cloned dog Snuppy and its mother on the left, and a Microsoft Word Professional box on the right. He said that Snuppy was cloned when he was in Korea, and that most Americans are “unhappy about puppy clones” because they fear the possibility of human clones. I thought he was going to say that he had purchased the Microsoft Word Professional box pictured in Korea at the same time, and that it was counterfeit, copied software (which was prevalent in Korea in past decades, if not still), but he had an entirely different point to make. He said, about the software, “The thing that’s illegal is not cloning it. If I give you an altered version, I’ve tampered with something I’m not supposed to. There’s a dichotomy between digital knowledge in living things and what you make, and they’re different [in how we treat them?]. But they’re manifestly not different. Our legal system[’s rules] about protecting these things are therefore confused and mixed up.” I think his argument and distinction was rather confused, and he didn’t go on to use it in anything he said subsequently. It seems to me that the rules are pretty much on a par between the two cases–copying Microsoft Word Professional and giving it to other people would itself be copyright infringement; transforming it might or might not be a crime depending on what you did. If you turned it into a piece of malware and distributed that, it could be a crime. But if you sufficiently transformed it into something useful that was no longer recognizable as Microsoft Word Professional, that might well be fair use of the copyrighted software. In any case in between, I suspect the only legally actionable offense would be copyright infringement, in which case the wrongdoing is the copying, not the tampering.

He put up a slide of Lady Justice dressed in a clown suit, and said that “When you talk to young people about legal constraints on what they can do, they get angry, like you’re getting angry at this image of Lady Law in a clown suit. She’s not a law but an image, a logos. … [It’s the] root of our way of relating to each other. When you say logos is a clown, you’ve besmirched something very fundamental about who you want to be. … Legal constraints on knowledge is part of the price we’ve paid for not making things anymore.” (Not sure what to say about this.)

He returned to his earlier allusion to slavery. He said that was “a conflict between Judeo-Christian ethics and what you had to do to make a living. It got shakier and shakier until violence erupted. War was the only solution. I don’t think that will happen in this case. [The] bigger picture is the same kind of tension. … Once you make Descartes a joke, then you ask, why stay?” He put up a slide of a drawing of an astronaut on the moon, with the earth in the distance. “Why not go to the moon? What would drive a person off this planet? You’d have to be a lunatic to leave.” (I thought he was going to make a moon-luna joke, but he didn’t, unless that was it.) “Maybe intellectual freedom might be that thing. It’s happened before, when people came to America.” He went on to say that some brought their own religious baggage with them to America. Finally, he said that when he presents that moon example to graduate students, he always has many who say “Send me, I want to go."

And that’s how his talk ended. I was rather disappointed–it seemed rather disjointed and rambling, and made lots of tendentious claims–it wasn’t at all what I expected from a Nobel prizewinner.

The first question in the Q&A was one very much like I would have asked, about how he explains the free and open source software movement. Laughlin’s answer was that he was personally a Linux user and has been since 1997, but that students starting software companies are “paranoid about having stuff stolen,” and “free things, even in software, are potentially pernicious,” and that he pays a price for using open source in that it takes more work to maintain it and he’s constantly having to upgrade to deal with things like format changes in PDF and Word. There is certainly such a tradeoff for some open source software, but some of it is just as easy to maintain as commercial software, and there are distributions of Linux that are coming closer to the ease of use of Windows. And of course Mac OS X, based on an open source, FreeBSD-derived operating system, is probably easier for most people to use than Windows.

I think there was a lot of potentially interesting and provocative material in his talk, but it just wasn’t formulated into a coherent and persuasive argument. If anyone has read his book, is it more tightly argued?

Roger Pielke Jr. on climate change adaptation

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:17:00 +0000

A few hours after hearing Roger Pielke Jr. speak on climate change mitigation to CSPO, I heard him speak about climate change adaptation to a joint meeting of my seminar on human dimensions of climate change and another seminar with Dan Sarewitz, CSPO’s director.

Like his previous talk, Pielke began this one with a slide on his positions, which was something like this:

Strong advocate of mitigation and adaptation.

He accepts the science of the IPCC.

There are other reasons behind impacts of climate--effects of inexorable development and growth.

The importance and challenge of climate change does not justify misrepresenting the science of adaptation--yet this happens on a regular basis (I’ll give a few examples).

We might choose to mitigate, but we will adapt.

He said (as he did in the earlier talk) that he has no disagreements with the science of IPCC working group I, lots of agreements with the economics and mitigation arguments of working group III (covered in the earlier talk), and some disagreements with the impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability arguments of working group II, which will be covered in this talk.

He then gave a slide of the outline of this talk:

The concept of adaptation is contested.

How we think about adaptation shapes how we think about research and policy.

Under the FCCC (Kyoto Protocol), adaptation is defined narrowly--as adaptation to climate change caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The narrow definition creates a bias against adaptation.

Regardless, the primary factors underlying climate impacts on society are the result of development and growing wealth and vulnerability.

There are different definitions of "climate change" used between the IPCC and the UN FCCC. The IPCC defines it as "...change arising from any source," while the FCCC defines it as "...a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."

On the former definition, if the sun causes the earth to warm, which causes climate change effects, that's a climate change. On the latter, it's not. The latter definition restricts climate change to impacts caused by human-caused changes to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Adaptation under the logic of the FCCC is that any increase of atmospheric carbon above 450 ppm (a 2 degree Centigrade temperature increase) is "dangerous" climate change that requires human adaptation. If we happen to stabilize at 449 ppm, then no adaptation at all is required. Under this definition, the more adaptation we need, the more we have failed in climate policy.

Under the IPCC's cost-benefit analysis, adaptation is considered a cost with no benefits.

Al Gore's Earth in the Balance calls adaptation a "laziness."

Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, says that adaptation is "genocide."

IPCC's working group I uses the IPCC definition of climate change; working group III uses the FCCC definition; working group II shifts back and forth between the two.

But climate impacts are caused by a combination of effects: vulnerability (with sociological and ecological components) and by climate change and variability (which includes natural internal and natural external components, human greenhouse gas changes, and non-human greenhouse gas changes). In order to deal with those impacts, you can back up the causal chain to each of those causes, from the IPCC perspective. But from the FCCC perspective, it's as though none of those other factors are available except for the human contribution to greenhouse gases.

Why did the FCCC use this definition? Because the UN already has other frameworks for disaster preparedness, water management, desertification prevention, and biodiversity prevention, and they didn't want any overlap of responsibility.

Choice of definition of climate change can thus create a bias against adaptation, and puts science in impossible situations (requiring conclusive attribution of cause on human greenhouse gases). In reality, adaptation has broad benefits, such as contributing to sustainable development.

The Global Environment Facility of the UN, which releases funds for adaptation, will only pay out in proportion to effects caused by human greenhouse gases. Because of this requirement for attribution of cause, very little has been paid out. Oxfam said that the UNFCCC's global spending from the GEF is equal to what the UK spends annually on flood defense. If a developing nation has a disaster attributable to climate change and asks for funds, it is required to provide evidence for the percentage of damage attributable to climate change caused by human-produced greenhouse gases. One effect of this is that governmental spokespersons are likely to make such attributions in the media.

Swiss Re did a report on adaptation in the broad sense, without regard to attribution of cause, and added up deaths from natural disasters to get a total of $50T and 850,000 lives over 50 years; CNN reported this as meaning that human greenhouse gases caused all of that damage and death.

Another problem with the narrow definition is illustrated by malaria scenarios. Jeffrey Sachs, 2003, projects that without malaria, African GDP might be 3%/year higher. If you plug that into the Kaya Identity, emissions would be about 17 GtC vs. less than 1 today, by 2050. Without malaria mitigation, emissions will not even hit 6 GtC by 2050. The IPCC's projections presuppose that malaria will be unmitigated, which seems to be NOT how we should be thinking about climate policy.

Pielke argued that the broader notion of climate change and broader notion of adaptation are more useful. Adaptation is not in opposition to mitigation, and it has benefits as well as costs. In reality, we don't care just about greenhouse gases, we care about the impacts regardless of cause. By drawing a circle around human contributions to greenhouse gases and setting goals that focus only on that, we've engaged in "goal substitution," where addressing a single cause has become our goal instead of addressing the effects.

He then put up a slide of various book and magazine covers, as well as the poster for "An Inconvenient Truth," and said that "hazards are a centerpiece of the climate debate." One of the magazine covers, an issue of Newsweek from January 1996 with a cover story labeled "The Hot Zone: Blizzards, Floods, and Hurricanes, Blame Global Warming," was what got Pielke interested in doing research. The period 1991-1994, before that story, was a very quiet period for hurricanes hitting the U.S., but also the most expensive in terms of damage. Although he didn't study blizzards, he did study floods and hurricanes, and said he found that "the biggest signal in disasters wasn't climate."

Pielke then wanted to explain how his research has been used by the IPCC and the Bush and Obama administrations, looking at two reports: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability from the IPCC (the report of working group II), and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Report, Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands.

He gave this quote from the IPCC report:

1.3.8.5 Summary of disasters and hazards
Global losses reveal rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s. One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the value of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend.
He pointed out that the reference to "one study" is interesting, because he has published dozens of studies in this area, none of which show such a trend. The study in question mentioned here is "Muir Wood, et al., 2006," which is by R. Muir Wood, S. Miller, and A. Boissonade, titled "The search for trends ..." which is one of 24 papers commissioned as background by Peter Hoppe and Pielke for a workshop they conducted with experts from multiple countries, Munich Re, the Tyndall Centre, NSF, etc. The plan for that workshop was to be a "dissensus consensus," to identify areas of disagreement for further study, but they ended up reaching consensus on 20 statements.

The motivation for the workshop was a graph from Munich Re that showed that the cost of disasters, adjusted for inflation, has been increasing. The workshop wanted to find out what was causing this to happen and whether any percentage of it could be attributed to climate change.

The types of disasters in question were:

Earthquake, tsunami, and volcano, which couldn't be attributed to climate change.

Windstorms and floods, which could possibly be attributed to climate change and have been responsible for most of the increasing damage.

Disasters of temperature extremes such as heatwaves, drought, and wildfires, which could also be attributed to climate change, but which aren't responsible for most of the increasing damage.

Three of the consensus statements agreed to by all participants, including Muir Wood, were:

Analyses of long-term records of disaster losses indicate that societal change and economic development are the principal factors responsible for the documented increasing losses to date.

Because of issues related to data quality, the stochastic nature of extreme event impacts, length of time series, and various societal factors present in the disaster loss record, it is still not possible to determine the portion of the increase in damages that might be attributed to climate change due to GHG emissions.

In the near future the quantitative link (attribution) of trends in storm and flood losses to climate changes related to GHG emissions is unlikely to be answered unequivocally.

The first statement is accurately reflected in the IPCC statement, but the second is exactly the opposite of what it says.

The Muir Wood paper itself says that if you look at the period 1970-2005, you have an upward trend that can't be attributed to just societal factors. But 2005 was the year of Hurricane Katrina, and 1970-1974 was a period when the Atlantic was very quiet. If you look at 1950-2005, there is no trend, Pielke said. The IPCC not only took a single background paper from the workshop, they actually took a subset of the paper's data to draw their conclusion.

Pielke argued that the damage trends can't be due to storm intensity alone, based on a graph of major category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes vs. year. The 177 U.S. coastal counties have seen huge population growth--for example, the population of Harris County, Texas in 2005 was equal to the entire U.S. coastal population from Florida to South Carolina in 1955.

He showed comparison photos of Miami Beach in 1926 vs. 2006, and then a graph of the estimated amount of U.S. damage per year if every hurricane season had occurred with 2005 population levels. That graph shows a huge spike in 1926, when a big hurricane hit Miami; it would have been 1.5 to 2 times the damage of Katrina. 2004 and 2005 were also years of very high damage, though not as high as 1926.

The trend, Pielke said, is no statistical change in damage since 1900, and is consistent with the physical characteristics of hurricanes at landfall over that same time period. Other signals show up in the data, such as El Nino. When the Pacific is cold you get more hurricanes, when it's warm you get fewer. 1927-1969 were very active for hurricanes, the 1970's and 80's were not very active. He said there have been two independent replications of the same results with different data sets and methodologies, and that insurance and reinsurance companies use this for their pricing models.

His summary slide said this:

Raw damages are increasing.

Normalized damages show no trend, consistent with the lack of trend in landfall

Increases in inflation, wealth, and development along the coastline account for increasing damages.

While coastal development in hurricane-prone regions is increasing, in aggregate it appears to be proportional to the rest of the United States, with large local variations.

It occurred to me that one factor that might counteract a genuine increase in storm intensity with respect to damage would be better construction, but I didn't raise the issue since I figured it would have been unlikely for such a factor to exactly offset storm intensity increases so that there was no trend. Afterward, though, I found this paper by Judy Curry (PDF) which argues that improvements in building codes have just such an effect, and that the pre-1930 data Pielke uses was a time of inflated property values before the Great Depression, and if you take it out you get an upward trend again.

In response to a student question about whether probabilities of landfall have changed, Pielke said that the overall odds of hurricane landfall are unchanged within the data set (though there are subsets where it is different) and that studies of the west coast of Mexico, South Korea, China, Japan, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Madagascar show no regions where hurricane landfalls have increased.

He reported three other studies which have shown no upward trend in normalized weather losses--a study of his own done with the head of the Cuba Weather Service, for 1900-1998 (Pielke et al., 2003), one for Australia for 1965-2005 (Crompton & McAneney, 2007), and one for India for a time period I didn't catch (Raghavan & Sen Sarma, 2003). He said there are about 15 other studies of the same sort, and that Lawrence Bauer of the Free University of Amsterdam has a review paper of all of these studies that is under review for publication.

When you look at U.S. flood losses, after adjusting for societal factors, there has been a slight (not statistically significant) downward trend in losses.

Pielke then said that he took a bunch of weather loss data sets, standardized them, took ten-year averages and overall averages, and then put them all on top of each other. These data sets included Munich Re's global losses for 1979-xx (I didn't catch the end year), U.S. flood losses, and Australian weather losses. While Munich Re's global losses correlate strongly with U.S. hurricane losses (0.80, 64% of the variance in global losses explained by U.S. losses), Pielke said, "there's no secular trend over the time period for which we have these data sets."

Regarding hurricanes, however, Pielke said his data is consistent with hurricanes becoming more intense. He referred to Kerry Emanuel's 4 August 2005 paper in Nature, titled "Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years," which was featured in "An Inconvenient Truth." He showed a graph from the paper which shows windspeed cubed, or power dissipation index (PDI), has increased. Pielke noted that this is not a measure of "destructiveness," and the paper says nothing about destruction caused by hurricanes. He broke the Atlantic basin into five equal compartments with an equal number of observations of hurricane intensity (windspeed measurement) from the 1880s to the present, for all named storms, 39 knots and higher. He found that the strongest upward trends are farthest out to sea, and no trends in the locations where damage actually occurs.

He said he did the same with Emanuel's graph and got the same result, that all of the trends are out to sea. So, he argued, Emanuel's results could be due to real changes in storm intensity as a result of ocean temperature changes, or they could be due to increased storm counts due to more and better data collection out at sea. He submitted a letter to Geophysical Research Letters reporting his result, which was rejected with negative reviews that said "everybody already knows this." But, Pielke said, Emanuel didn't know it until he pointed it out to him.

Next, Pielke talked about the U.S. CCSP Report, which spanned the Bush and Obama administrations. This report said the following about U.S. extreme weather events:

Over the long-term U.S. hurricane landfalls have been declining.

Nationwide there have been no long-term increases in drought.

Despite increases in some measures of precipitation, there have not been corresponding increases in peak streamflows (>90th percentile).

There have been no observed changes in the occurrence of tornadoes or thunderstorms.

There have been no long-term increases in strong East Coast winter storms, called Nor’easters.

There are no long-term ...

With these conclusions, he said, you'd expect no claims of increasing losses from damage. But the report says:

Extremes are already having significant impacts on North America. ... both the climate and the socioeconomic vulnerability to weather and climate extremes are changing (Brooks and Doswell, 2001; Pielke et al., 2008; Downton et al., 2005).
Two of the three papers cited have Pielke as author or co-author, and the third applies his sort of methodology to tornadoes. The Harold E. Brooks and Charles A. Doswell III 2001 paper says: "We find nothing to suggest that damage from individual tornadoes has increased through time, except as a result of the increasing cost of goods and accumulation of wealth in the United States." The Pielke et al. 2008 paper finds no trends in absolute data or under a logarithmic transformation. The Downton, Miller, and Pielke 2005 paper talks about the National Weather Service flood loss database, says absolutely nothing about climate change, and shows a drop in losses. So of the three cited papers for the claim, two say the opposite of the claim and one is silent. Pielke says there is no published study that supports the claim. When he made a stink about this, he said he ended up being called a climate change denier. The IPCC and CCSP are supposed to be places we go to get reliable information, he said, and "I'm much more willing to listen to others who say their work was misrepresented since I know mine was."

In 2000, he co-authored an article with Dan Sarewitz on "Breaking the Global Warming Gridlock" in The Atlantic Monthly that argued for getting people engaged with adaptation rather than focusing exclusively on mitigation. After that came out, he says he was told privately by a representative of an environmental group that "we agree with what you say, but it's not helpful now because we're trying to win a [political] battle on mitigation."

He pointed out two recent cases of people in government being silenced for speaking out contrary to policy--David Nutt, the UK drug policy advisor, who was fired for saying that ecstasy use was of comparable risk to riding horses (and ecstasy is safer to give to a stranger than peanuts), and Clive Spash, an economist for Australia's CSIRO, who submitted a paper to a journal critical of cap and trade, which was accepted for publication but withdrawn when his supervisor wrote to the journal and asked for it to be retracted.

He asked, "If the public loses faith in the connection between authoritative scientific statements and policy, then what do we rely upon to make decisions?"

He suggested that we need to improve processes where there is potential for intellectual conflicts-of-interest, such as where people with a stake in an assessment highlight their own research over other research they don't favor. He thinks this doesn't seem to be a problem with IPCC working group I, but has been a problem with both working groups II and III and with the CCSP. In both of the cases he referred to regarding his own work, above, he said a single person was responsible (not the same person in both cases, but one in each).

I left about ten minutes before the end of the class and so missed any further wrapup, as I had to get to the opposite side of campus for another talk, by Robert B. Laughlin, one of the winners of the 1998 Nobel prize in physics.

UPDATE (24 September 2013): Michael Mann, on Twitter, called Pielke Jr.'s work on storm damage "deeply flawed work" because its "normalization procedure removes climate change signal," and pointed to this critique by Grinsted.

UPDATE (13 July 2014): An updated version of the information in this talk is found in Ch. 7 of Pielke Jr.'s book, The Climate Fix (2010, Basic Books).

Historical Comments

Roger Jones (2009-11-14):

Pretty much all the people I know who work on adaptation consider the IPCC definition to be too narrow.
The biggest problem is actually where policy has been written based on the IPCC definition. The response from those who know say "this is too narrow". An example was with the Global Environment Facility who wanted to fund the climate change component of development over and above that dealing with everything else. The response was "you can't actually do that, except in isolated circumstances". This was over 5 years ago.

Roger Pielke Jr. on climate change mitigation

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:43:00 +0000

Yesterday I heard Roger Pielke Jr. speak twice at Arizona State University, first in a talk to the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes (CSPO) on climate change mitigation, and second in a class lecture on climate change adaptation. This post is about the former.

His talk was entitled “The Simple Math of Emissions Reduction,” and began with a quote from Steve Raymer of Oxford University:

Wicked Problems
have Clumsy Solutions
requiring Uncomfortable Knowledge
which he then followed up with a slide on "Where I stand," which included the following bullet points (nearly, but probably not exactly verbatim):

Strong advocate for mitigation and adaptation policies

Continuing increase in atmospheric CO2 could pose large risks, as described by IPCC

Stabilizing concentrations at low levels can’t succeed if we underestimate the challenge (and we have)

Mitigation action will not result from elimination of all scientific uncertainty

Poisonous politics of the climate debate serves to limit a broader discussion of options

Ultimately technological innovation will precede political action, not vice versa

Regarding the IPCC, he says he has no debate with working group I on the science, some disagreements with working group II on impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, and lots of debate with working group III on economics and mitigation, which this talk covers.

His slide for the outline of his talk looked like this:

Understanding the mitigation challenge

Where do emissions come from?

Decarbonization

The UK as a cautionary tale for U.S. policymakers

The U.S. situation and Waxman-Markey/Boxer-Kerry

How things might be different

Understanding the mitigation challenge

Although climate change involves other greenhouse gases besides CO2, he focused on CO2 and in this part of the talk gave a summary of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere as a stock and flow problem, using a bathtub analogy. The inflow of CO2 into the atmosphere is like water pouring out of the faucet, there's outflow going out the drain, and the water in the tub is the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere. The inflow is about 9 GtC (gigatons of carbon) per year and growing, and expected to hit 12 GtC per year by 2030. The current stock is a concentration of about 390 parts per million (ppm), increasing by 2-3 ppm/year. And the outflow is a natural removal of about 4 GtC/year. To stop the stock increase, the amount going in has to equal the amount going out. If we reach an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, that is expected to limit the stock to 450 ppm.

Emissions have been growing faster than expected by the IPCC in 2000, with a 3.3% average increase per year between 2000 and 2007. While the economic slump has reduced emissions in 2009, it's expected that recovery and continued growth in emissions will occur.

Where do emissions come from?

Pielke used the following four lines to identify policy-relevant variables:

People
engage in economic activity that
uses energy
from carbon-emitting generation
The associated variables:

Population (P)
GDP per capita (GDP/P)
Energy intensity of the economy (Total Energy (TE)/GDP)
Carbon intensity of energy (C/TE)
The total carbon emissions = P * GDP/P * TE/GDP * C/TE.

This formula is known as the "Kaya Identity."

The policy tools available to reduce emissions by affecting these variables are: (1) population management to end up with fewer people, (2) limit the generation of wealth to have a smaller economy, (3) do the same or more with less energy by increasing efficiency, and (4) switch energy sources to generate energy with less emissions.

And that's it. Cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, etc. are designed to influence these variables.

Pielke then combined the first two variables (P * GDP/P) to get GDP, and the second two (TE/GDP * C/TE) he identified as Technology.

He argued that reducing GDP or GDP growth is not a policy option, so Technology is the only real policy option. Regarding the former point, he put up a graph very much like the Gapminder.org graph of world income, and observed that the Millennium Development Goals are all about pushing the people below $10/day--80% of the world's population--on that graph to the right. Even if all of the OECD nations were removed from the graph, there would still be a push to increase the GDP for the remainder and there would still be growing emissions.

He quoted Gwyn Prins regarding the G8 Summit to point out how policy makers are conflicted--they had a morning session on how to reduce gas prices for economic benefit, and an afternoon session on how to increase gas prices for climate change mitigation.

With this kind of a conflict, Pielke said, policy makers will choose GDP growth over climate change.

So that leaves Technology as an option, and he turned to the topic of decarbonization.

Decarbonization

Pielke put up a graph of CO2 emissions per $1,000 of GDP over time globally, which showed that there has been a steady improvement of efficiency. In 2006, emissions were 29.12 GtC, divided by $47.267 trillion of GDP, gives 0.62 tons of CO2 per $1,000 GDP. In 1980, that was above 0.90 tons of CO2 per $1,000 GDP.

Overall emissions track GDP, and the global economy has become more and more carbon intensive.

He looked at carbon dioxide per GDP (using purchasing power parity (PPP) for comparison between countries) for four different countries, Japan, Germany, U.S., and China (that's ordered from most to least efficient). Japan hasn't changed much over time, but is very carbon efficient (below 0.50 tons of CO2 per $1,000 GDP). Germany and the U.S. are about the same slightly above 0.50 tons of CO2 per $1,000 GDP, and both have improved similarly over time. China has gotten worse from 2002-2006 and is at about 0.75 tons of CO2 per $1,000 GDP.

He put up a slide of the EU-15 countries decarbonization rates pre- and post-Kyoto Protocol, and though there was a gap between them, the slopes appeared to be comparable. For the first ten years of Kyoto, then, he said, there's no evidence of any improvement in the background rate of decarbonization. The pre-Kyoto rate was from above 0.55 tons of CO2 per $1,000 GDP to about 0.50 tons of CO2 per $1,000 GDP. The post-Kyoto rates went from about 0.50 tons of CO2 per $1,000 GDP to below 0.45 tons of CO2 per $1,000 GDP.

At this point, Clark Miller (head of my program in Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology) pointed out that given Japan, there is no reason to assume that there should have been a continuing downward trend at all, but Pielke reiterated that since the slopes appeared to be the same there's no evidence that Kyoto made a difference.

The UK as a cautionary tale for U.S. policymakers

Pielke identified the emissions targets of the UK Climate Change Act of 2008:

Average annual reductions of 2.8% from 2007 to 2020, to reach 42% below 1990 levels by 2020.

Average annual reductions of 3.5% from 2020, to reach 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

The former target of 42% below 1990 levels is contingent upon COP15 reaching an agreement this December; otherwise the unilateral target is 34% below 1990 levels.

Pielke showed a graph of the historical rate of decarbonization for the UK economy, and compared it to graphs of manufacturing output and manufacturing employment, observing that the success of decarbonization of the UK economy from 1980-2006 has been due primarily to offshoring of manufacturing, something that's not sustainable--once they reach zero, there's nowhere further down to go.

He then used France as a point of comparison, since it has the lowest CO2/GDP output of any developed country, due to its use of nuclear power for most of its energy--it's at 0.30 tons of CO2 per $1,000 GDP, and a lot of that is emissions from gasoline consumption for transportation.

It took France about 22 years, from 1984-2006, to get its emissions to that rate.

For the UK to hit its 2020 target, it needs to improve to France's rate in the next five years, by 2015. That means building 30 new nuclear power plants and reducing the equivalent coal and gas generation; Pielke said he would "go out on a limb" and say that this won't happen.

That will only get them 1/3 of the way to their 2020 goals.

The UK plan calls for putting 1.7 million electric cars on the road by 2020, which means doubling the current rate of auto sales and selling only electric cars.

For the entire world to reach France's level of efficiency by 2015 would require a couple of thousand nuclear power plants.

The U.S. situation and Waxman-Markey/Boxer-Kerry

The U.S., said Pielke, has had one of the highest rates of sustained decarbonization, from 1980-2006, going from over 1.00 tons of CO2 per $1,000 GDP to the current level of about 0.50 tons of CO2 per $1,000 GDP.

The Waxman-Markey target is an 80% reduction by 2050, not quite as radical as the UK.
The Boxer-Kerry target is a 17% reduction by 2020.

Pielke broke down the current U.S. energy supply by source in quadrillions of BTUs (quads), and pointed out that he got all of his data from the EIA and encouraged people to look it up for themselves:

Petroleum: 37.1
Natural gas: 23.8
Coal: 22.5
Renewable: 7.3
Nuclear: 8.5
Total energy was about 99.2 quads in 2007, of which 83.4 came from coal, natural gas, and petroleum.

Emissions by source:

Coal: 95 MMt CO2/quad
Natural gas: 55 MMt CO2/quad
Petroleum: 68 MMt CO2/quad
Multiply those by the amount of energy produced by each source and add them up:

95 * 22.5 + 55 * 23.8 + 68 * 37.1 = 5,969 MMt CO2
The actual total emissions were at about 5,979, so the above back-of-the-envelope calculation was pretty close.

In 2009, U.S. energy consumption will be about 108.6 quads, of which 21 quads will come from renewables and nuclear (40% growth from 2007), which leaves 87.2 quads from fossil fuels, a 4.6% increase from 2007.

If we substituted natural gas for all coal, then our 2020 emissions would be 5,300 MMt CO2, higher than the 2020 target and 12% below 2005, and would still lock us into a carbon intensive future.

In order to meet targets, we need to reduce coal consumption by 40%, or 11 quads, and replace that with renewables plus nuclear, plus an additional 3.8 quads of growth by 2020.

One quad equals about 15 nuclear plants, so 14.8 quads means building 222 new nuclear plants (on top of the 104 that are currently in the U.S.).

Or, alternatively, assuming 100 concentrated solar power installations * 30 MW peak per quad, 1,480 such installations for 14.8 quads, or one online every two days until 2020.

Or, assuming 37,500 * 80 kW peak wind turbines per quad, 555,000 such wind turbines for 14.8 quads, or one 150-turbine wind farm brought online daily until 2020.

To reach these targets with wind and solar would require increasing them by a factor of 37 by 2020; Obama has promised only a tripling.

Could we meet the targets by increasing efficiency of our energy consumption? We would have to reduce total energy consumption to 85.5 quads by 2020 (rather than 108.6), about equal to U.S. energy consumption in 1992, when the U.S. economy was 35% smaller than in 2007. That would be improving efficiency by about a third.

How fast can decarbonization occur? We don't know, because no one has really set out to intentionally do that. Historical rates have been 1-2% per year by developed countries; for short periods, some countries have exceeded 2% per year. Japan, from 1981-1986, improved by over 4% per year.

Pielke argued that these targets are not feasible targets in the U.S. or UK, and so policy makers are adding safety valves, offsets, and other mechanisms to allow some manipulation to give the appearance of success. Achieving 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050 requires > 5% decarbonization per year.

The problem, Pielke argued, is that the policy logic of targets and timetables is backwards, and we should focus on improving efficiency and decarbonization rather than emissions targets.

How things might be different

Pielke's suggested alternative strategy was presented in a slide something like this:

Focus policy on decarbonization of the economy (not simply emissions)

Efficiency gains (follow the Japanese model, “frontrunner program” by industry, look at best performer and set it as regulatory standard)

Expand carbon free energy (low carbon tax, other policies--subsidies, regulation, etc.)

Innovation-focused investments

To create ever advancing frontier of potential efficiency gains

Air capture backstop

Adaptation

The Japanese "frontrunner" program was where the government went industry by industry, identified the most efficient company in each industry, and set regulations to make that company the baseline standard for the other companies to meet.

Pielke argued that there should be a carbon tax of, say, $5/ton (or whatever is the "highest price politically possible"), with the collected funds (that would raise about $700B/year) used to promote innovation in energy efficiency.

If we find that we're stabilizing at 635 ppm, we may want to "brute force" some removal of carbon from the atmosphere (e.g., geoengineering).

In the Q&A session, Clark Miller questioned Pielke about the impossibility of replacing our energy infrastructure quickly--if it costs $2.61B for a 1400 MW nuclear plant, we'd need 65 of them (fewer than Pielke's number, he assumed smaller plants) at a cost of $260B. Since there is capital floating around causing asset bubbles in the trillions, and the energy industry is expected to become a $15T industry, surely there would be some drive to build them if they're going to become profitable. (Not to mention peak oil as a driver.) He agreed that it would take longer to construct these, but asked what the upshot would be if this was done by, say, 2075.

Also in the Q&A, Pielke pointed out that in a previous presentation of this talk, a philosophy professor had suggested that the population variable could be affected by handing out cyanide pills. (Or by promoting the growth of the Church of Euthanasia.) What I didn't mention above was that Pielke also briefly discussed improvements to human lifespan, and in his other talk (summary to come), he talked about how the IPCC's projections assume that we will not try to eradicate malaria...

ADDENDUM (November 7, 2009): I've seen estimates that U.S. carbon emissions will be about 6% lower in 2009 as a result of the recession, which amounts to considerable progress towards the Boxer-Kerry target. Projections of an economic recovery in 2010 strike me as overly optimistic; in my opinion there's a strong possibility that we haven't hit bottom yet and there's worse to come. Still, though, I think Pielke's probably right that energy consumption will go right back up again unless the recession becomes a depression and results in significant changes in consumption habits.

My summary of Pielke's lecture on climate change adaptation is here.

ADDENDUM (November 9, 2009): It should be noted that Roger Pielke, Jr. is a somewhat controversial figure in the climate change debate, and believed by many in the climate change blogosophere to be in the climate change skeptic camp, or to be biased towards them in terms of where he levels his criticisms. A post titled "Who Framed Roger Pielke?" from the Only In It For the Gold blog links to a number of opinions expressing these views.

UPDATE (February 5, 2010): A post titled "The Honest Joker" at Rabett Run critiques Pielke Jr.'s stance as an "honest broker" as a sham.

UPDATE (August 28, 2010): A talk by Pielke that appears to have some similarity to this one may be found here.

UPDATE (July 13, 2014): An updated version of the information in this talk is Ch. 3 of Pielke Jr.'s book, The Climate Fix (2010, Basic Books).

EliRabett (2009-11-13):

Not sure that you want comments or not, but a good place to start analyzing the talk is to realize that greenhouse gases accumulate, so there is great virtue in reducing or at least limiting current emissions by substitution and conservation.
Roger ignores this issue. He is not only assuming that a miracle will occur, but that it will occur on schedule.

Charles Phoenix's retro slide show--in Phoenix

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:43:00 +0000

Tonight and tomorrow night at 8 p.m., Charles Phoenix will bring his Retro Slide Show Tour to the Phoenix Center for the Arts at 1202 N. 3rd St.

I’ve not seen his show before, but I’ve enjoyed his blog’s slide-of-the-week feature and plan to go see this.

Here’s the official description:

A laugh-out-loud funny celebration of ’50s and ’60s road trips, tourist traps, theme parks, world’s fairs, car fashion fads, car culture and space age suburbia, will also include a selection of vintage images of the Valley of the Sun.

Click the above link for more details or to buy tickets.

Where is the academic literature on skepticism as a social movement?

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:55:00 +0000

Here’s all I’ve been able to find so far, independent of self-descriptions from within the movement (and excluding history and philosophy of Pyrrhonism, Academic Skepticism, the Carvaka, the Enlightenment, British Empiricism, and lots of work on the development of the enterprise of science):

George Hansen, "CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview," The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research vol. 86, no. 1, January 1992, pp. 19-63. I've not seen a more detailed history of contemporary skepticism elsewhere.

Stephanie A. Hall, "Folklore and the Rise of Moderation Among Organized Skeptics," New Directions in Folklore vol. 4, no. 1, March 2000.

David J. Hess, Science in the New Age: The Paranormal, Its Defenders and Debunkers, and American Culture, 1993, The University of Wisconsin Press.

I note that Paul Kurtz's The New Skepticism: Inquiry and Reliable Knowledge (1992, Prometheus Books) puts contemporary skepticism in the lineage of several of the other forms of philosophical skepticism I mentioned above, identifying his form of skepticism as a descendant of pragmatism in the C.S. Peirce/John Dewey/Sidney Hook tradition (and not the Richard Rorty style of pragmatism). But I think that says more about Kurtz than about the skeptical movement, which also draws upon other epistemological traditions and probably doesn't really have a sophisticated epistemological framework to call its own.

There's a lot of literature on parallel social movements of various sorts, including much about advocates of some of the subject matter that skeptics criticize, and some of that touches upon skeptics. For example:

Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, "The Construction of the Paranormal: Nothing Unscientific is Happening," in Roy Wallis, editor, On the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge, 1979, University of Keele Press, pp. 237-270.

Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, Frames of Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science, 1982, Taylor & Francis.

Ronald L. Numbers, The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, 2nd edition, 2006, Harvard University Press.

Christopher P. Toumey, God's Own Scientists: Creationists in a Secular World, 1994, Rutgers University Press.

The Toumey book doesn't really have anything about skeptics, but is an anthropological study of creationists in the United States which describes the connection between "creationism as a national movement" and "creationism as a local experience" that seems intriguingly similar to the skeptical movement, especially in light of the fact (as I mentioned in my previous post) that national skeptical organizations are independent of established institutions of science that provide the key literature of the movement and at least implicitly assume that the average layman can develop the ability to discern truth from falsehood, at least within a particular domain, from that literature.

In some ways, the skeptical movement also resembles a sort of layman's version of the activist element in the field of science and technology studies, based on positivist views of science that are the "vulgar skepticism" dismissed in this article:

Michael Lynch, "Expertise, Skepticism and Cynicism: Lessons from Science & Technology Studies," Spontaneous Generations vol. 1, no. 1, 2007, pp. 17-24.

I think if contemporary skepticism wants to achieve academic respectability, it will need to develop a more sophisticated view of science that comes to terms with post-Popper philosophy of science and post-Merton sociology of science; my recommendation for skeptics who are interested in that subject is to read, as a start:

Philip Kitcher, The Advancement of Science: Science Without Legend, Objectivity Without Illusions, 1995, Oxford University Press.

There's an enormous relevant literature on those topics, an interesting broad overview is:

R.C. Olby, G.N. Cantor, J.R.R. Christie, and M.J.S. Hodge, Companion to the History of Modern Science, 1990, Routledge.

I welcome any new revelations about sources of relevance that I've missed, particularly if there is other academic work specifically addressing the history, philosophy, sociology, and anthropology of the contemporary skeptical movement--three sources ain't much.

UPDATE (September 27, 2014): Some additional works I recommend for skeptics:

Harry Collins, Are We All Scientific Experts Now?, 2014, Polity Press. A very brief and quick overview of science studies with respect to expertise.

Massimo Pigliucci, Nonsense On Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk, 2010, University of Chicago Press. A good corrective to the overuse of Popper, easy read.

Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, 2013, University of Chicago Press. Good collection of essays reopening the debate many thought closed by Larry Laudan on whether there can be philosophical criteria for distinguishing the boundary between science and pseudoscience.

Reed (2009-11-04):

Though not an academic work, I collected data on the skeptics groups on Meetup and reported the numbers in the appendix of my 2008 "Raising Our Game" piece.

What are the goals of Skepticism 2.0?

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:35:00 +0000

Yesterday I listened to D.J. Grothe’s interview with Ben Radford on the Point of Inquiry podcast about the latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer (November/December 2009) about “Skepticism 2.0,” the bottom-up grassroots expansion of the skeptical movement through Internet communications tools like blogs, podcasts, online videos and forums, and the real-world activities that have become possible through them, like meetups and SkeptiCamps.

Near the end of the podcast, D.J. asked Ben what he thought would be the results of Skepticism 2.0 in five years time. He said (1) more skeptics and (2) more cooperative projects between the three major U.S. skeptical groups, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, the James Randi Educational Foundation, and the Skeptics Society.

That struck me as a rather disappointingly modest set of goals, as well as rather “old school” skepticism thinking, and insular. Surely we can come up with ideas for something more exciting, interesting, and useful than merely the self-perpetuation and growth of the skeptical movement and cooperation among the traditional top-down skeptical organizations over the next five years.

A few thoughts that came to my mind:
If skeptics want to promote public understanding of science and critical thinking, why not partnerships with other organizations that also have those purposes? The National Academies of Science, the National Center for Education, teacher’s groups and school groups at a local level?
If skeptics want to promote the activity of science, why not look at ways to help motivate students to enter science as a career, and support them in doing so? I’ve previously suggested to Phil Plait that JREF might partly model itself after the Institute for Humane Studies, an organization which provides support for undergraduate and graduate students who favor classical liberal political ideals, in order to help them achieve success in careers of thought leadership, including academics, journalists, filmmakers, public policy wonks, and so on. In order for skepticism and critical thinking to have a significant impact, it’s not necessary that everyone become a skeptic, only that a sufficient number of people in the right places engage in and encourage critical thinking.
If skeptics want to see more diversity in the skeptical movement, why not look at ways to reach out to other communities? The podcast did mention the SkepTrack at Dragon*Con, which is one of the most innovative ideas for outreach for skeptical ideas since the founding of CSICOP in 1976.
If skeptics want to act as a form of consumer protection against fraud and deception, why not try to find ways to interact with regulators, investigators, politicians, and the media to get fraudulent products and services off the market? The UK complaints against chiropractors making false claims on their websites as a response to the British Chiropractic Association libel lawsuit against Simon Singh, or the Australian complaint against bogus claims by anti-vaccinationists (though see my comment on that blog post for some reservations) might suggest some ideas.
It seems to me that the skeptical movement should be concerned about more than just increasing its own numbers and getting the existing national groups to work together. I think that Skepticism 2.0 has and will continue to force the existing groups to cooperate with each other and with the grassroots movement if they don’t want to become obsolete and irrelevant. And at this point growth is, at least for the near-term, a foregone conclusion. But in order to continue to grow and thrive, there should be some goals that have something to do with being useful and making the world a better place, by which the skeptical movement can measure its effectiveness and success.

I’m sure readers of this blog have further suggestions. What else?

Addendum:

By the way, with regard to my first suggestion, here’s a question that may provide some motivation and food for thought: Why do the Parapsychological Association and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine have better and more formal ties to official institutions of science than any skeptical organization? The PA is a member of the AAAS, and NCCAM is an agency within the National Institutes of Health. The main difference between those organization and skeptical organizations is that they actually do and publish peer-reviewed scientific research.

More Scientology exposure from the St. Pete Times

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:55:00 +0000

The St. Petersburg Times has published another three-part exposé on the Church of Scientology based on interviews with former high-level members. (The first three-part series from June is discussed here; I missed the second three-part series from August about new defectors; all three series may be found on the SP Times website here.)

Part 1 (October 31): “Chased by their church: When you leave Scientology, they try to bring you back”

An overview of this new, third series of exposures based on information from former high-ranking members of the Church of Scientology such as Mark “Marty” Rathbun and Mike Rinder.

More apparent plagiarism from Ian Plimer

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:34:00 +0000

Eli Rabett and Pieter Tans identified some errors in Ian Plimer’s book’s claim of selective data reporting from Mauna Loa measurements of atmospheric carbon, which Tim Lambert at the Deltoid ScienceBlog tracks to climate change skeptic Ferdinand Engelbeen. But Plimer doesn’t cite Engelbeen, perhaps because Engelbeen also refutes the argument Plimer is trying to make.

This is not the first time Plimer has copied without quoting or citing sources–multiple instances in his book Telling Lies for God have previously been identified by Jeffrey Shallit and me.

(Previously on Plimer at this blog.)

Maricopa County Notices of Trustee's Sales for October 2009

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:22:00 +0000

I haven’t posted one of these things in a while, so I figured it was about time.

The big peak was in March, with a total of 10,725 that month. October’s total was 6,618.

<img style=“display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 400px; height: 260px;” src="/images/09OctNTRs.jpg" border=“0” alt=““id=“BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5398553297848650530” />

Lippard (2009-10-31):

The stimulus tax credit ends at the end of the year.
I suspect we're going to see it climb again next year.

Robert Balling on climate change

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:01:00 +0000

This afternoon I went to hear ASU Prof. Robert Balling, former head of ASU’s Office of Climatology and current head of the Geographic Information Systems program, talk about climate change in a talk that was advertised as “Global Warming Became Climate Change: And the Story Continues,” though I didn’t notice if he had a title slide for his presentation.

He began his talk by saying that in 1957, measurements of CO2 began to be made at Mauna Loa (by Charles David Keeling), which established that CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere, largely because of human activity–from fossil fuel emissions. It’s approaching 390 parts per million (ppm). Last weekend, the “A” on A Mountain near the university was painted green by a bunch of people wearing shirts that say “350” on them, because they want atmospheric CO2 to be stabilized at 350 ppm, which was the level in 1990, which is the benchmark year for the Kyoto Protocol.

But this isn’t remotely feasible, he said, citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Even the most optimistic scenario in the IPCC Report has atmospheric carbon continuing to rise until 2100, hitting about 600 ppm. If we reduced emissions to 0, the best case would end up with stabilization at around 450 ppm. Our lifetime will see increasing CO2 levels, no matter what we do. (In other words, the Kyoto benchmark sets a standard for emissions levels to return to, not for a level of atmospheric carbon to return to.)

If you look at the earth’s history on a longer scale, atmospheric carbon has been much higher in the past–it was at about 2500 ppm during the dinosaurs. During the last 600,000 years, however, it has been much lower, and fell below 200 ppm in the last glacial period. This, Balling said, shows what he would identify as a dangerous level of CO2–falling below 160 ppm, which causes plants to die.

There are other greenhouse gases besides CO2 that have an effect, such as methane and NO2, that humans are producing, he said.

At this point, he said the greenhouse effect is real–CO2 doubling causes warming–and this has been known for 120 years and “nobody is denying that."

There are climate models, which he said he has great respect for–it’s basic physics plus fantastic computing and applied math. Climate modelers, he said, are their own worst critics. Problems for climate models include clouds, water vapor, rain, and the ocean, but lots of things are modeled correctly and the results are generally pretty good. Clouds, he said, are the biggest area of debate. The IPCC models say that clouds amplify warming, but satellite-based measurements suggest that clouds dampen (but don’t eliminate) warming. Thus, he concluded, IPCC may be predicting more warming than will actually occur.

He next discussed empirical support for warming, and pointed out that the official plot of global temperatures has no error bars, and the numbers reported come from sensors that don’t cover the entire world. How you come up with a global average can be done in different ways, and the different methods produce different results. You can take grid cells, average by latitudinal bands, get two hemispheric averages, and average them together. You can just average all of the data we have. He said that Roger Pielke Sr. questions the use of average temperatures and suggests looking at afternoon high temperatures. Looking at the older end of the chart, he asked, “where were the sensors in 1900? Why no error bars?"

He asked, “Is the earth warming,” and said “right now the earth is not warming. I expect it to keep going up, but over the last decade there’s been essentially none.” He pointed to a recent article in Science magazine, “What happened to global warming?” Many are writing about this, he said, and there could be “1001 different things including sun and oceanic processes.” (I don’t believe this is correct unless you measure from 1998, which was an El Nino year. Most of the top 10 warmest years in history are post-1998.)

“Scientists are questioning the data,” he said, showing photos from Anthony Watts’ blog of poorly situated weather stations. “The albedo of the shelter in my backyard has changed as it has decayed,” and caused it to report warmer temperatures. He said that people are having a field day taking photos of poor official sites. (What Balling didn’t say is that what’s important in the data is not absolute temperature but the temperature trends, and the good sites and bad sites both show the same trends.)

He pointed out that there are corrections to the temperature based on time of measurement, urban heat islands, instruments used, etc. If you look at the raw data for the U.S. from 1979-2000, you see 0.25 degrees Celsius of warming. Sonde data shows 0.24 degrees, MSU’s measurements show 0.28, IPCC shows 0.28, and FILNET shows 0.33. He suggested that these corrections on the official data may be inflating the temperature (again, see my previous comment on trends vs. absolute temperature). Sky Harbor Airport produces the official temperature results for Phoenix, maximizing urban heat island effect. Many of the city records are from the worst sites, and he suggests looking at rural temperatures might give a different result.

Another factor is stratospheric turbidity from volcanic eruptions, and he showed a plot of orbital temperatures from satellites vs. stratospheric turbidity. He said that volcanism accounts for about 30% of the trend variability.

The big player in the game, he said, is the sun. Solar irradiance measures showed a significant decline in solar output in 1980, but earth temperature continued upward–he said he mentioned this because he thought it would be used as an objection. In response, he said that “the sun doesn’t increase or decrease output over the entire spectrum and there are interactions with stratospheric clouds.” He said that there are astrophysicists who argue that this is the major cause of global warming. In the Q&A, he said that there’s one group that thinks cosmic ray flux is the major factor in global temperature because it stimulates cloud formation, while another group says that cosmic ray flux is little more than a trivial effect. He also said that this debate takes place in journals that “I find very difficult to read."

There are other confounding variables like El Nino and La Nina, but he said there has “definitely been warming over the last three decades with a discernable human contribution."

He put up a graph of the Vostok Reconstruction of temperature based on ice core data, on a chart labeled from -10 to +4 degree temperature changes in Celsius, which were mostly in the negative direction, and said we’ve seen periodic rapid changes up and down without any human contribution.

He talked about the IPCC “hockey stick” graph from 2001, which led to a huge debate about the possibility of bad statistical methods that guaranteed the hockey stick shape. He observed that 1000 years ago it was as warm or warmer than today, the Medieval Warming Period, which was missing from the “hockeystick” graph. There was also a “Little Ice Age,” also missing from the graph. He said the IPCC has backed away from the hockey stick and its most recent report includes clear Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age periods in its graphs.

He showed a photo of a microwave sounding unit for temperature measurement, and the polar satellite record from 1978 to present, which showed a big peak in 1998 from El Nino. He said he wrote his book saying that there was no warming in 1992, when it was true. After 1998, the temperature came back down quickly, and, he said, the satellite record, like the Science article, hasn’t seen warming. He then corrected himself to say, “well, some warming, but not consistent with the IPCC models."

He said there has been high latitude warming, and the difference between winter and summer warming has supported the numeric models. “But a problem has evolved, which is the most powerful argument of the skeptics.” The models predict that there should be warming at the surface, which increases at higher altitude as you go up into the atmosphere. “There should be very strong warming in the middle of the atmosphere, but it’s not in the data.” This is the main anti-global warming argument of Joanne Nova’s “The Skeptics Handbook” that has been distributed to churches throughout the U.S. by the Heartland Institute (an organization supported by the oil industry that has sometimes gotten into trouble due to its carelessness).

At this point, Balling started asking various questions and answering them by quoting from the IPCC reports:

More hurricanes? The IPCC doesn’t say this. He cited the 1990, 1996, 2001 (executive summary, p. 5), and 2007 (p. 6) reports, all of which say that there’s no indication or no clear trend of increase or decrease of frequency or intensity of hurricanes or tropical cyclones as a result of warming.

The southwestern United States may become drier? Here, he answered affirmatively, pointing out that an ASU professor has an article that just came out in Science on this topic. Atmospheric circulation is decreasing, and soil moisture measures show the southwest is becoming drier. On this, he said, there’s “evidence everywhere,” and the Colorado River basin in particular is being hit hard. And this is consistent with IPCC predictions. He cited Roy Spencer to say that “extraordinary prediction require extraordinary evidence.” (This actually comes from Carl Sagan, who said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” in Cosmos.)

Frequency of tornadoes? It’s down, not up, and IPCC 2007 p. 308 says there is no evidence to draw general conclusions.

Ice caps are melting? Balling said Arctic yes, Antarctic, no. He cited the IPCC 2007 p. 6 regarding Antarctic sea ice extent indicating a lack of warming, and p. 13 that it’s too cold for widespread surface melting. He contrasted this with a slide of a homeless penguin used to argue for action on global warming. The Arctic ice cap “has its problems,” he said, and its extent has declined though has “rebounded a bit” recently. (In the Q&A, he said that half of the loss in the last six years has been recovered.) He said that experts in sea ice extent identify relative temperature, ocean currents, and wind as more important than temperature–“it’s not a thermometer of the planet.” In the past, northern sea ice has dropped as southern sea ice has increased, with the overall global extent of sea ice relatively unchanged. In the Q&A, he made it clear that he wasn’t saying that temperature wasn’t a factor, but that global temperature is definitely not a factor and temperature is less important than the other factors he identified.

Sea levels changing? He said there’s no doubt about this, but the important question is whether the rise is accelerating. He cited Church et al. J. Climate 2004, p. 2624 for a claim of “no detectible secular increase” in rate of sea level rise, but noted that another article this week says that there is. IPCC 2007, p. 5 says that it is unclear if increasing is a longer-term trend. The average has been 1.8 mm/year, but with variable rates of change. IPCC 2007, p. 9 says that 125,000 years ago sea levels were likely 4-6m higher than in the 20th century, due to retreat of polar ice.

He said that ice melting on Kilimanjaro has been a “poster child” for global warming, but that this sharp decline “started its retreat over 100 years ago,” at the end of the Little Ice Age (1600-1850), and is related to deforestation and ocean patterns in the Indian Ocean rather than global warming. It’s not in an area where significant warming is expected by climate models, and local temperatures don’t show it.

He then talked about a few factors that cause temperature forcing in a negative direction (i.e., cooling)–SO2, which makes clouds last longer, increased dust, and ozone thinning. He said that his entry into the IPCC was his work at the U.S./Mexico border where he found that overgrazed land on the Mexican side caused warming, and it was much cooler on the U.S. side of the border. The dust, however, had a global cooling effect.

The 2001 IPCC report lists global radiative forcings in the negative direction: stratospheric ozone, sulfate, biomass burning, and mineral aerosols. In the positive direction include CO2 and solar irradiance. The 2007 report adds many more, including contrails from aircraft. A chart from the report lists the level of scientific understanding for each factor, and he observed that it’s “low” for solar irradiance.

He cited a quote from James Hansen (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. p. 12,753, 1998) saying that we can’t predict the long term, and said he agrees.

He observed that the Pew Foundation poll for Sep. 30-Oct. 4 asked Americans if they think there is evidence of global warming being caused by humans and only 36% said yes–he said he’s one of those 36%.

He concluded by observing that if you look at the difference between doing nothing at all, or stabilizing at 1990 levels in 1990, that only produces changes of a few hundredths of a degree of temperature in 2050–so no matter what we do, “we won’t live long enough to see any difference."

In the Q&A session, Prof. Billie Turner said that “our academy is about to issue a statement that we are 97% sure that we will not be at a 1-degree Celsius increase but a 2-degree Celsius increase by 2050” (or about double what Balling’s final slide showed). He objected that Balling’s talk began with the “lunatic green fringe” and contrasted it with the IPCC, which he said would be like him beginning a talk with Dick Cheney’s views before giving his own. He said this may be an effective format, but it “gives a slant on the problem that isn’t real in the expert community.” Turner also pointed out that on the subject of mitigation, if you are going to make a calculation in economic terms you have to use a discount rate. The Stern Review used a high discount rate, and concluded that it is worth spending a lot of money now on mitigation; William Nordhaus and Partha Dasgupta, on the other hand, used a low discount rate and concluded that it’s not worth spending money on now.

Balling said that he gets email from “lefties” that ask him to “please keep criticizing” because “this [global warming] is just an excuse to keep the developing world from catching up.” In conversation with a small group afterward, Balling made it clear that he thinks people shouldn’t be listening to Limbaugh and Hannity on climate change, and in answer to my question about what sources the educated layman should read and rely upon, he answered unequivocally “the IPCC,” at least the scientific portions authored by scientists. He had some criticisms for the way that the technical summaries are negotiated by politicians, however, and said that S. Fred Singer has made hay out of comparing the summaries to the actual science sections and pointing out contradictions. He also said that Richard Lindzen at MIT, who he said may be the best climate scientist around, thinks the whole IPCC process is flawed, and that John Christy, lead author of the 2001 IPCC report, thinks the IPCC process should allow an “alternative views” statement by qualified scientists who disagree.

In a very brief discussion afterward [I had] with the climate modeling grad student in my climate change class, he [the student] said that the biggest weakness of the talk was that Balling didn’t talk about ocean temperatures, being measured by the Argo project of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. These measures had shown some recent cooling (but a long-term warming trend), but after discovering an error, Joshua Willis found that warming has continued.

Balling supports the science, but he still leans to minimizing the negative effects, and uses some apparently bad arguments to do so. His position clearly advocates a “wait and see” approach, and argues that we needn’t be in a hurry to mitigate since nothing we do will have any effect in our lifetimes–but it could have an enormous effect on what is required for mitigation and adaptation for future generations.

State Press defends Ravi Zacharias

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:33:00 +0000

ASU’s State Press columnist Catherine Smith authored an op-ed piece promoting last night’s appearance of Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias. This was at least her second such op-ed; a prior one was published on September 17.

My letter to the editor, below, didn’t get published, but another critic’s letter did get published.

Here’s mine:

Catherine Smith quotes Ravi Zacharias as stating that "irreligion and atheism have killed infinitely more than all religious wars of any kind cumulatively put together." This statement not only demonstrates Zacharias' innumeracy, it shows that he continues to make the mistake of attributing killing in the name of political ideologies like Stalinism and communism to atheism. I agree that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed more than religious wars, but it wasn't their atheism that caused that killing. Those killed by religious wars, the Inquisition, and witch trials, however, were killed in the name of religion. Out of fairness, there were no doubt political issues involved in many wars over religion as well, but if you take claims of religiously motivated killing at face value, the death tolls for those killed in the name of religion far exceed the death tolls for those killed in the name of irreligion.

Zacharias has a history of attacking atheism with misrepresentations in his books, as documented in Jeff Lowder's "An Emotional Tirade Against Atheism" and Doug Krueger's "That Colossal Wreck," both of which may be found on the Internet as part of the Secular Web (http://www.infidels.org/).
I first heard of Zacharias back around 1991, when I sat behind someone on an airplane flight who was reading his book (reviewed by Krueger, linked above), A Shattered Visage. The parts I read were truly awful, about the quality of M. Scott Huse arguments against evolution (a step below Kent Hovind and Ken Ham). I didn't bother to attend, but would be interested in hearing any reports of how it went.

UPDATE (November 24, 2017): Steve Baughman has published an exposure of Zacharias' claims to have credentials he does not possess, and to have had academic appointments that did not exist.

UPDATE (September 26, 2020): Ravi Zacharias died of cancer earlier this year, but not before being caught in an online relationship scandal.

UPDATE (February 11, 2021): Ravi Zacharias International Ministries has publicly released a report on an investigation into abuse charges against Ravi Zacharias, and it found a significant pattern of predatory sexual abuse and a rape allegation.

The woman googled “Ravi Zacharias sex scandal” and found the blog RaviWatch, run by Steve Baughman, an atheist who had been tracking and reporting on Zacharias’s “fishy claims” since 2015. Baughman blogged on Zacharias’s false statements about academic credentials, the sexting allegations, and the subsequent lawsuit. When the woman read about what happened to Lori Anne Thompson, she recognized what had happened to that woman was what had happened to her.

Teaching the Bible in public schools

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:54:00 +0000

The following is a letter to the editor of Arizona State University’s State Press that the paper didn’t print. It was written in response to an editorial by Will Munsil, son of Len Munsil, who was editor of the State Press when I was an undergraduate in the 1980s. Len Munsil is an extremely conservative Republican, failed Republican candidate for Governor in 2006, and founder of the Center for Arizona Policy, Arizona’s version of the American Family Affiliation. His daughter, Leigh Munsil, is the State Press’s current editor-in-chief. When Munsil Sr. edited the school paper, he sometimes refused to print my letters to the editor for shaky reasons.

The letter below was written in response to Will Munsil’s “Putting the Bible back in public schools," which was published on October 14.
I disagree with Will Munsil’s assertion that the Bible is the foundation of American political thought. On the contrary, the American form of government was rooted in the work of enlightenment philosophers such as Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. The U.S. Constitution’s form of government has more resemblance to Caribbean pirate codes than to the Ten Commandments.

That said, however, I agree with Munsil that knowledge of the Bible is worthwhile and should be taught in public schools for the purpose of cultural literacy, so long as it is done without endorsing Christianity or Judaism. The Bible Literacy Project’s curriculum might be one way to do it. One way not to do it is to use the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools’ curriculum–it takes a sectarian perspective, is full of errors, and has failed legal challenges in Texas and Florida for being unconstitutional.
I suspect this letter wasn’t excluded by reason of content, but because they had already printed a couple of letters critical of Will Munsil’s op-ed by the time I submitted this on October 16. Perhaps I should have mentioned that I’m an atheist, which makes the extent of my agreement with Munsil more interesting. Of course, my view is contrary to Munsil’s in that I think Bible literacy is likely to decrease, rather than increase, religious belief. But it wouldn’t surprise me if the NCBCPS curriculum is the one that Will Munsil had in mind.

I should point out that I think it should probably be taught as part of a world religions class that covers more than just Christianity–kids should not only get information about the Bible that they won’t get in Sunday School, they should be informed about other religions, as well as the fact that history has been full of doubters of religion, as documented in Jennifer Michael Hecht’s excellent Doubt: A History.

You can find out more about the NCBCPS curriculum that failed legal challenge in Texas here.

Munsil cited Stephen Prothero, whose op-ed piece, “We live in a land of biblical idiots,” I wrote about at the Secular Web in early 2007.

Hitler orders DMCA notices for "Downfall" parody videos

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:54:00 +0000

Brad Templeton, chairman of the board of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has produced his own “Downfall” parody video, making fun of the fact that Constantin Films has issued DMCA notices to remove all of the “Downfall” parody videos from YouTube:

UPDATE (April 20, 2010): This video has been taken down from YouTube after a complaint from Constantin Films, which Brad Templeton has protested. The video is now available at Vimeo.

Paul Haggis leaves Scientology

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:12:00 +0000

Paul Haggis, director of the film “Crash” (not to be confused with the David Cronenberg film of the same name), has left Scientology with an open letter published on ex-Scientologist Mark “Marty” Rathbun’s blog (which has also supplied links to Scientology’s reply).

One of Haggis’ main complaints is the Church’s homophobia. Was Haggis really in Scientology for three and a half decades without realizing that homosexuality is 1.1 on the “tone scale”? Good for him for leaving, but he must have had blinders on regarding everything he complains about.

Richard Carrier to speak in Phoenix

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:44:00 +0000

Richard Carrier will be speaking to the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix on Sunday, November 8 at around 10 a.m.–it will likely be packed, so showing up for breakfast or just to get a seat at 9 a.m. is advised. Richard will be speaking about Christianity and science, ancient and modern, and you can get a bit more information about his talk at his blog.

Personalized medicine research forum

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:54:00 +0000

Yesterday afternoon I attended a Personalized Medicine research forum at ASU’s Biodesign Institute, sponsored by ASU’s Office of the Vice President for Research and Economic Affairs (OVPREA) and hosted by Dr. Joshua LaBaer of ASU’s Virginia G. Piper Center for Personalized Diagnostics.

The forum’s speakers covered both the promise and problems and issues raised by the developing field of personalized medicine, which involves the use of molecular and genetic information in medical diagnosis and treatment. A few highlights:

Introduction (Dr. LaBaer)
Dr. LaBaer pointed out that these new diagnostics cost a great deal of money to develop, but they have the potential for cost savings, for instance, if they can be used to identify forms of disease that will not benefit from very expensive treatments. He gave the example of Genomic Health, which has developed a test for early stage breast cancer to determine if women will or won’t benefit from adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy to prevent recurrence). A test that costs even a few thousand dollars to perform is something insurers will be willing to pay for if it has the potential of saving tens of thousands of dollars of expense on chemotherapy that will not provide any benefits. On the other hand, the mere promise of early detection of susceptibility for disease has the potential for overtreatment and an increase in healthcare expenses. This problem was discussed by a number of speakers, with particular bad potential consequences in the legal realm.

Personalized Diagnostics (Dr. LaBaer)
Dr. LaBaer talked briefly about his own lab’s work in biomarker discovery and cell-based studies. In biomarker discovery, his lab is working in functional proteomics, using cloned copies of genes to produce proteins and building tests that allow examination of thousands of proteins at a time. His lab, formerly at Harvard and now at ASU, has 10,000 copies of human genes and 50,000 copies of genes from other animals, which are made available to other researchers. (There’s more information at the DNASU website.)

The goal of biomarker discovery is to greatly improve the ability to find markers of human health using the human immune system, by identifying antigens that are markers for disease. The immune system generates antibodies not just in response to infectious disease, but against other proteins when we have cancer. Tumor antigens get into the bloodstream, though they may only appear in 10-15% of those who have the disease. Rather than testing one protein at a time, as is done with ELISA assays, LaBaer’s lab is building protein microarrays with thousands of proteins, tested at once with blood serum. Unlike old array technology that purifies proteins and puts them into spots on arrays, where the proteins may degrade and lose function, their method involves printing the DNA that encodes the gene on the arrays, then capturing proteins in situ on the array at the time the experimental test is performed.

LaBaer’s lab’s cell-based work involves tryng to identify how proteins behave in cells when they are altered, in order to find out which pathways contribute to consequences such as drug resistance in women with breast cancer, as occurs with Tamoxifen. If you can find the genes that make cancer cells resistant, you can then knock them out and cause those cells to die. They tested 500 human kinases (5/7 of the total) and found 30 enzymes that consistently make the cancer cells resistant. Women with a high level of those enzymes who take Tamoxifen have quicker relapses of cancer.

Complex Adaptive Systems Initiative (George Poste)
George Poste, former director of ASU’s Biodesign Institute and former Chief Scientist and Technology Officer at SmithKline Beecham, talked about the need to replace thinking about costs in the healthcare debate with thinking about value. The value proposition of personalized medicine is early detection, rational therapeutics where treatment is made based on the right subtype of disease being treated, and integrative care management where there’s better monitoring of the efficacy of treatments. He said that the first benefits will come from targeted therapy and this will then overlap with individualized therapy, as we learn how our genome affects such things as drug interactions. He was critical of companies like 23andme, which he called “celebrity spit” companies, which do little more than give people a needless sense of anxiety about predispositions to disease that they currently can do nothing about except eat right and exercise.

Poste also had criticisms for physicians, pointing out that it takes 15-20 years for new innovations to become routinely adopted, and many physicians don’t use treatment algorithms at all. Oncologists, he said, make money from distributing treatments empirically (that is, figuring out whether it’s effective by using the treatment on the entire population with the disease) rather than screening first, even where tests exist to determine who the treatment is likely to work on. He said that $604 million/year in health care costs could be saved by the use of a single colon cancer screening test, and not proceeding with treatment where it isn’t going to work. Today, where 12-40% of people are aided by treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars, 60-88% of that spending is being wasted. With the aging population, he said that Humana will in the next several years see all profits disappear, spent on expensive treatments of people who don’t respond to them.

Pharmaceutical companies are beginning to do diagnostic test development alongside drug development now, and insurers will push for these tests to be done. Poste suggested that we will see the emergence of “no cure, no pay” systems, and noted that Johnson & Johnson has a drug that has been introduced for use in the UK under the condition that the company will reimburse the national health care system for every case in which it is used but doesn’t work. Merck’s Januvia drug for type II diabetes similarly offers some kind of discount based on performance.

Poste pointed out another area for potential cost savings, related to drug safety. With some 3.1 billion prescriptions made per year, there are 1.5-3 million people hospitalized from drug interactions, 100,000 deaths, and $30 billion in healthcare costs, though he noted this latter figure includes caregiver error and patient noncompliance.

He bemoaned the “delusion of zero risk propagated by lawyers, legislatures, and the media,” and pointed out that the FDA is in a no-win situation. (This is a topic that’s been recently covered in two of my classes, my core program seminar and my law, science, and technology class with Prof. Gary Marchant. If the FDA allows unsafe drugs to be sold, then it comes under fire for not requiring sufficient evidence of safety. If, on the other hand, it delays the sale of effective drugs, it comes under fire for causing preventable deaths. The latter occurred during the 1980s with AIDS activists protesting against being denied treatments, described in books such as Randy Shilts’ And the Band Played On and Steven Epstein’s Impure Science. This led to PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992, under which drug companies started funding FDA drug reviewer positions through application fees to help speed approval. That has been blamed for cases of the former, with the weight-loss drugs Pondimin and Redux being approved despite evidence that they caused heart problems. That story is told in the PBS Frontline episode “Dangerous Prescription” from November 2003.)

Poste pointed out that there have been 450,000 papers published which have claimed to find disease biomarkers, of which the FDA has approved only five. But he didn’t blame the FDA for delay in this case, because this consists of a mass of bad studies which he characterized as “wasteful small studies” with insufficient statistical power. In the Q&A session, he argued that NIH needs to start dictating clear and strong standards for disease research, and that it has abrogated its role in doing good science. He said that “not a single national cancer study with sufficient statistical power” has been done in the last 20 years; instead research is fragmented across academic silos. He called for “go[ing] beyond R01 grant mentality” and building the large, expensive studies with 2,500 cases and 2,500 controls that need to be done.

He also raised challenges about the “very complex statistical analysis required” in order to do “multiplex tests” of the sort Dr. LaBaer is trying to develop. And he pointed out the challenge that personalized medicine presents for clinicians, in that “only about six medical schools have embraced molecular medicine and engineering-based medicine.” Those that don’t use these new techniques as they become available, he said, “will open themselves up to malpractice suits."

Science and Policy (David Guston)
David Guston, co-director of ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes (CSPO) and director of ASU’s Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS) spoke about “cognate challenges in social science” and how CNS has been trying to develop a notion of “anticipatory governance of emerging technology” and devising ways to build such a capacity into university research labs as well as broader society, to allow making policy decisions in advance of the emergence of the technology in society at large. He described three capacities of anticipatory governance–foresight, public engagement, and integration, and described how these have been used at ASU.

Foresight: Rather than looking at future consequences as a linear extrapolation, CNS has used scenario development and a process of structured discussions based on those scenarios with scientists, potential users, and other potential stakeholders, about social and technical events that may be subsequent consequences of the scenarios. This method has been tested with Stephen Johnston’s “Doc-in-a-Box” project at ASU’s Center for Innovations in Medicine, which Guston said led to some changes in the conceptualization of the technology.

Public Engagement: The “scope and inclusion of public values is important for success,” Guston said, and gave as an example the “national citizens technology forum” that CNS conducted in six locations to look at speculative scenarios about nanotechnology used for human enhancement. These were essentially very large focus groups whose participants engaged in “informed deliberation” over the course of a weekend, after having read a 61-page background document and spending the prior month engaging in Internet-based interaction.

Integration: Guston described the “embedding of social scientists in science and engineering labs,” to develop productive relationships that help lab scientists identify broader implications of their work while it’s still in the lab rather than after it’s introduced to the general public.

Guston suggested that there might be other ways of implementing “anticipatory governance” in the form of legislative requirements or standards and priorities set by program officers at funding organizations, but that the lab setting is “the best point of leverage at a university” and can set an example for others to follow.

Clinical Perspective (Larry Miller)
Larry Miller, Research Director at the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, spoke about the healthcare provider’s approach to personalized medicine. He said that Mayo is committed to individualized care, and that now that we are beginning to understand the power of human variation, these new developments have “to be transformational for providers or they won’t survive.” He suggested that the future of medicine will move from reactive and probabilistic to more deterministic selection of treatments based on diagnoses. He emphasized the need for education for doctors, and pointed out that “standards of care will become outmoded,” which is “disruptive to law and [insurance] coverage.” He said that Mayo sees a big challenge of complexity, where what was one disease (breast cancer) is now at least ten different subdiseases. Doctors need to make their treatment decisions on the detail, to predict how the disease will behave, and choose the best drugs possible based on safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness.

Miller pointed out that this requires interdisciplinary work, and said that Mayo in Arizona has a huge advantage with its relationship with ASU, where so much of this work is going on. While Mayo has scientific expertise in a number of areas, these new technologies draw on expertise from beyond medicine, in particular informatics and computational resources needed to build an effective decision support system that will become essential for doctors to use in a clinical setting.

He talked about Mayo’s program for individualized medicine, which involves not just incorporating new developments in diagnostics and therapeutics, but in regenerative medicine for repair, renewal, and regeneration of deficits.

Mayo has had electronic medical records for the last 15 years, on 6 million people, but these are kept in multiple incompatible systems and were not built with research in mind. They hope to improve their systems so that it can be used in an iterative process to learn more about the efficacy of therapies, and so therapies can be combined with “companion diagnostics for monitoring progression, recurrences, and response to therapy."

Like Poste, he raised objections to the companies that market gene sequencing directly to individuals, which just “scare people inappropriately,” but identified learning about disease predispositions as an important part of these developing technologies. We need to develop methods of risk analysis that can help people correctly understand what these predispositions mean.

He sees the future as having three waves–the first wave will be the new diagnostics, the second wave improvements in clinical practice and therapy, and the third wave embedding the new technology into the healthcare system, with significant changes to policy and education.

Health Informatics (Diana Petitti)
Diana Petitti, former CDC epidemiologist and former director of research for Kaiser Permanente, where she built a 20-year longitudinal data repository for its 35 million members, spoke about the importance of health informatics. (She is now a professor in ASU’s Department of Biomedical Informatics.) Dr. Petitti raised concerns about how in the United States we are “loathe to deny anyone anything” in terms of medical treatments, but in fact “we do deny lots of people lots of things.” She worried that personalized medicine has the potential to lead to greater maldistributions of healthcare, with the “haves” getting more and better treatment and the “have nots” getting less and worse treatment, unless we plan carefully. She advocated evidence-based medicine and assessing value of treatments to be deployed to the general population.

Dr. Petitti brought up as an example the fact that oral contraceptives result in a 2x-10x increase in the likelihood of a venous thrombotic event, and that the Factor V Leiden gene is predictive of susceptibility to that consequence, but no screening is done for it. Why not? Because the test only predicts 5% of those who will have the event, it’s a very expensive test, and we don’t have good alternatives for oral contraceptives. These kinds of issues, she suggested, will recur with multiplex diagnostics.

She explicitly worried that “we have dramatically oversold preventive medicine” and doesn’t think it’s likely that savings from prevention will allow coverage for more extensive treatment. She advocated that everyone in the field see the film “Gattaca," and stated that ASU provides “unique opportunities to train people to think about these issues” using “quantitative reasoning and probabilistic thought.” She concluded by saying that we need to “work towards rational delivery of healthcare that optimizes public health."

Law (Gary Marchant)
Prof. Gary Marchant of the Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law at ASU, who has a Ph.D. in genetics and is the executive director of ASU’s Center for the Study of Law, Science, and Innovation (formerly Center for the Study of Law, Science, and Technology), spoke about legal issues. First he listed the many programs available at ASU in the area, beginning with the genetics and law program that has been here for 10 years and was the reason he first came to ASU. Others include a new personalized medicine and law program at the Center for Law, Science, and Innovation, a planned center on ethical and policy issues regarding personalized medicine in conjunction with the Biodesign Institute, CSPO, TGEN, Mayo, etc., and research clusters at the law school on breast cancer, warfarin, and personalized medicine. He also gave a plug for an upcoming conference March 8-9, 2010 at the Arizona Biltmore sponsored by AAAS and Mayo, which also has a great deal of corporate support.

Prof. Marchant indicated that liability is the biggest issue regarding personalized medicine, and he sees doctors as “sitting ducks,” facing huge risks. If a doctor prescribes a treatment without doing a corresponding new diagnostic test, and that has complications, he can be sued. If he does the diagnostic test, it shows a very low likelihood of a disease recurrence, and advises against the treatment, and then the patient ends up being one of the rare people who has the recurrence, the doctor can be sued. The doctor is really in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation. The insurers and pharmaceutical companies are at less risk, since they have already developed enormous resources for dealing with the lawsuits that are a regular part of their existence. In a short discussion after the forum, I asked Prof. Marchant if doctors would be liable if they performed a diagnostic test, found that it showed a low likelihood of recurrence or benefit for a treatment, and then recommended the treatment anyway, knowing the insurance company would refuse to pay for it–would that shift the liability to the insurance company? He thought it might, though it would be unethical for a doctor to recommend treatment that he didn’t actually think was necessary, and there’s still the potential for liability if the insurance company pays for the treatment and the treatment itself produces complications. It seems that this problem really needs a legislative or regulatory fix of some sort, so that doctors have some limitation of liability in cases where they have made a recommendation that everyone would agree was the right course of action but a low-probability negative consequence occurs anyway.

Prof. Marchant observed that the liability issues are particularly problematic in states like Arizona, where each side in the suit is limited to a single expert witness. He said there is “no clear guidance or defense for doctors,” and the use of clinical guidelines in a defense has not been effective in court, in part because doctors don’t use them.

Q&A
A few additional points of interest from the Q&A sessions (some of which has already been combined into the above summaries):

Dr. LaBaer pointed out that most markers for diseases don’t seem to have any role in the cause of the disease, such as CA25 and ovarian cancer. So his lab is looking not just for biomarkers, but for those that will affect clinical decisions. 4 out of 5 positive results in a mammography for breast cancer are actually cases where there is nothing wrong and the woman will not end up getting breast cancer, but some procedure ends up being undergone, with no value. So he wants to find a companion test that can tell which are the 4 that don’t need further treatment.

George Poste pointed out that baby boomers are going to bankrupt the system as they reach the end of their lives, and about 70% of the $2.3 trillion in healthcare spending is spent in the last 2-3 years of life, with many treatments costing $60K-$100K per treatment cycle on drugs that add 2-3 weeks of life. The UK’s National Institute of Clinical Excellence has been making what are, in effect, rationing decisions by turning down all of the new cancer drugs that have come along because they have such great cost and such minimal benefit. He asked, “how much money could you save with a 90% accurate test of who’s going to die no matter what you do?"

Prof. Marchant said more about legal issues involving specimen repositories, including a case at ASU. The developer of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, William Catalona, had a specimen repository with 30,000 tissue samples at Washington University, that he wished to take with him to Northwestern University when he took a new position there. He began asking patients for permission to move the samples, and 6,000 gave permission. But Washington University sued him, claiming that the samples were property of the university. Patients pointed out that their consent agreement gave them the right to withdraw their samples from future research and they had only consented to research on prostate cancer, but federal judge Stephen Limbaugh ruled in favor of the university and that patients had no property rights in their tissue. This ruling has reduced incentives for patients to consent to give specimens for research.

A current lawsuit against ASU by the Havasupai Indian tribe involves blood samples that were given for a study of diabetes by researchers who are no longer at ASU. They wanted to take the samples with them, and samples had also been given to other researchers for use in studies of schizophrenia and the historical origins of the tribe, even though informed consent was apparently only given for the diabetes research. Although this case was originally dismissed, it was recently reinstated.

Other cases involve patent protection of genetic information. About 25% of the human genome is patented, including Myriad Genetics’ patent on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes which are predictive of breast cancer and can only legally be tested for by Myriad. This case is likely to go to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the issue of whether human genes can be patented. The courts so far have ruled that a gene in isolation outside of the human body is patentable, even though (in my opinion) this seems at odds with the requirement that patents be limited to inventions, not discoveries. There has already been a legislative limitation of patent protection for surgical procedures for the clinical context, so that doctors can’t be sued for patent infringement for performing a surgery that saves someone’s life; it’s possible that a similar limitation will be applied on gene patents in a clinical context, if they don’t get overturned completely by the courts.

These gene patents create a further problem for the multiplex tests, since they inevitably include many patented genes. Prof. Marchant observed that someone from Affymetrix spoke at an ASU seminar and stood up and said they were building their GeneChip DNA microarrays for testing for the presence of thousands of genes, and were ignoring gene patents. They were subsequently sued. Dr. LaBaer stated that his lab is doing the same thing with cloned genes–they’re cloning everything and giving them away, without regard to patents.

The session was videotaped and will be made available to the public online. I will add a link to this posting when it becomes available.

If you’ve read this far, you may also be interested in my summary of Dr. Fintan Steele’s talk at this year’s The Amazing Meeting 7, titled “Personalized Medicine or Personalized Mysticism?", in my summary of the Science-Based Medicine conference that took place just prior to TAM7, and in my short summary of Dr. Martin Pera’s talk on regenerative medicine and embryonic stem cells at the Atheist Alliance International convention that took place earlier this month.

Atheist Alliance International Convention summary in Arabic

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:01:00 +0000

The Arab Atheists Network has begun posting an Arabic translation of my summary of the AAI convention here. Thanks to Alpharabius and the Arab Atheists Network for doing that, and for their promotion of atheism in the Arab world!

Skepticism, belief revision, and science

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 05:57:00 +0000

In the comments of Massimo Pigliucci’s blog post about the scope of skepticism (which I’ve already discussed here), Skepdude pointed to a couple of blog posts he had written on similar topics some time ago, about what atheists have in common and skepticism and atheism. He argues that skeptics must be atheists and cannot be agnostics or theists, a position I disagree with. In an attempt to get to the bottom of our disagreement after a few exchanges in comments on his blog, I wrote the following set of questions which I first answered myself, so we can see how his answers differ.

Do we have voluntary control over what we believe?

In general, no. The credence we place in various propositions–our belief or rejection of them–is largely out of our voluntary control and dependent upon our perceptual experiences, memories, other beliefs, and established habits and methods of belief formation and revision. We can indirectly cause our beliefs to change by engaging in actions which change our habits–seeking out contrary information, learning new methods like forms of mathematics and logic, scientific methods, reading books, listening to others, etc.

How does someone become a skeptic?

People aren’t born as skeptics–they learn about skepticism and how it has been applied in various cases (only after learning a whole lot of other things that are necessary preconditions–like language and reasoning). If skepticism coheres with their other beliefs, established habits and methods of belief formation and revision, and/or they are persuaded by arguments in favor of it, either self-generated or from external sources, they accept it and, to some degree or another, apply it subsequently.

When someone becomes a skeptic, what happens to all of the other beliefs they already have?

They are initially retained, but may be revised and rejected as they are examined through the application of skeptical methods and other retained habits and methods of belief formation and revision. Levels of trust in some sources will likely be reduced, either within particular domains or in general, if they are discovered to be unreliable. It’s probably not possible to start from a clean slate, as Descartes tried to do in his Meditations.

Is everything a skeptic believes something which is a conclusion reached by scientific methods?

No. Much of what we believe, we believe on the basis of testimony from other people who we trust, including our knowledge of our own names and date and place of birth, parts of our childhood history, the history of our communities and culture, and knowledge of places we haven’t visited. We also have various beliefs that are not scientifically testable, such as that there is an external world that persists independently of our experience of it, that there are other minds having experiences, that certain experiences and outcomes are intrinsically or instrumentally valuable, that the future will continue to resemble the past in various predictable ways, etc. If you did believe that skeptics should only believe conclusions which are reached by scientific methods, that would be a belief that is not reached by scientific methods.

Massimo Pigliucci on the scope of skeptical inquiry

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:07:00 +0000

Massimo Pigliucci, a biologist and philosopher at the City University of New York and regular writer for the Skeptical Inquirer, has offered up his thoughts about the relationship between skepticism, atheism, and politics. He wants to argue that skepticism and skeptical inquiry are identical with scientific skepticism, and mostly distinct from philosophy, religion, and politics. He restricts the domain of skeptical inquiry to “the critical examination of evidential claims of the para- or super-normal,” and further restricts his notion of “evidential” to the empirical. (He subsequently refers to philosophical arguments and reasons as “non-evidence based approaches.” I disagree, though this may be strictly a terminological dispute–I often use the word “evidence” to apply to reasons and arguments, not just empirical observations or reports of empirical observations, and I think this is common usage.)

He ends up drawing a Venn-style diagram which has an outer circle labeled with “critical thinking” and “rational analysis,” within which is a series of three overlapping circles labeled “atheism,” “skeptical inquiry,” and “political philosophy.” He argues that skeptical inquiry only overlaps with atheism where religions make empirical claims that are subject to scientific investigation, and likewise for political philosophy.

I offered a few critical comments at his blog, noting that it is odd that “atheism” is the only label on his diagram which is the name of a specific position rather than a method or discipline, and suggesting that it be labeled something like “views on religion.” I also suggested that that circle extend beyond the scope of the “critical thinking” and “rational analysis” circle, though that’s presupposing his diagram is descriptive rather than normative. [Note added 1:31 p.m.: If his diagram is understood as a diagram of what is appropriate subject matter for critical thinking, rational analysis, and skeptical inquiry with respect to atheism and political philosophy, then those two circles should arguably not extend outside the border of critical thinking/rational analysis.] Similar considerations should apply to the “political philosophy” circle. People hold religious and political views for reasons other than those produced as a result of critical thinking and rational analysis.

I also took issue with his identifying “skeptical inquiry” with scientific skepticism. Skeptics have always used philosophical tools as well as scientific ones, but I would find his diagram more accurate if the middle circle was labeled “scientific skepticism” or even “scientific inquiry."

I also have some skepticism about this taxonomic enterprise in general, which is arguably both philosophical and political itself–Pigliucci is not using scientific methods to set up this framework, it’s philosophy, and there are political and pragmatic reasons for wanting us to accept it–to issue in a ruling that certain domains are off-limits for skepticism, namely the examination of religious and political claims that are not subject to empirical investigation.

I think there are good pragmatic reasons for skeptical organizations to restrict themselves in such a way–the methods of skepticism can be used by anyone, regardless of their political or religious views, and organized skepticism has tried to appeal to a broad audience to focus critical attention on paranormal claims where scientific methodology can be brought to bear. But I’m skeptical of this as a general picture of the applicable domain of the methods of skepticism or skeptical inquiry. (I should note that I don’t think that atheism implies skepticism–thus the reason for extending a circle with that name outside the boundaries of critical thinking and rational analysis–nor that skepticism implies atheism. Skepticism is about the methods used, not the conclusions reached. An atheist might think that any consistent application of skepticism will lead to atheism, but that presumes both that atheism is true and that consistent application of skepticism is a guarantee of truth, which it is not.)

I agree with commenter Maarten that the boundaries of these circles are fuzzy–just as the boundary between science and non-science doesn’t admit to a bright-line demarcation. People can conceptualize the boundaries differently, even granting Pigliucci’s conception of “empirically investigatable” as the domain of skeptical inquiry or scientific skepticism. The boundaries between scientific disciplines are themselves fuzzy and they use different methodologies, with huge differences between experimental and historical sciences, for example.

Finally, I agree with commenter Scott (Scott Hurst), who observes that religious believers do make very specific claims “about the nature of the universe, how it works, and its history (including our own),” and specifically noting belief in the power of prayer. These things are empirically testable and do make at least some common (one could say “vulgar”) conceptions of God and religion refutable by science. The fact that a more sophisticated believer or theologian can construct a view that uses the same words yet withdraws from the realm of the empirical doesn’t mean that the vulgar conception hasn’t been refuted. This is perhaps more obvious with modern religions such as Mormonism and Scientology, where in the former case historical evidence and DNA evidence falsifies some key claims, and in the latter case where scientific evidence falsifies a great number of its claims. Hubbard’s cosmology, for example, includes the idea that Xenu dropped thetans into a volcano on Hawaii 75 million years ago, but Hawaii didn’t exist 75 million years ago. His book History of Man includes Piltdown Man in the human lineage, even though that fossil was discovered to be a hoax shortly after the book was published. And so forth.

It’s fine for Pigliucci to define and use the terms the way he wants, but I don’t think he’s given strong reasons for the rest of us to accept the specifics of his formulation.

UPDATE (October 24, 2009): Russell Blackford has written “Pigliucci on science and the scope of skeptical inquiry” at the Sentient Developments blog, which comes to similar conclusions with a somewhat more comprehensive argument.

Vote for RESCUE!!

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:59:00 +0000

There is a new contest for animal rescues and shelters to win big money. Please visit the Mutt Madness Contest, and vote for RESCUE (third bracket down on the left). You do have to register and vote in each bracket, but there is a grand prize of $50,000!!!

Voting for the first round ends October 25th. If they win this round, they receive $1,000 and advance to the next round. Please vote today and ask others to vote!

No God on Twitter

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:37:00 +0000

The #1 “trending topic” on Twitter is “No God," apparently started by re-tweeting of “Know God, Know Peace. No God, No Peace.” This prompted atheists to jump in promoting the “No God” part of it, and then angry theists to complain about “No God” being the top trending topic–but perpetuating it with each of their complaints.

The topic is generating lots of hilarity, as Attempts at Rational Behavior (@rationalbehavio) has pointed out in a couple of blog posts, with some people trying to start “Yes God” as an alternative topic–but including the words “No God” in their tweets!

UPDATE (4:41 p.m., Arizona time): Twitter has decided to censor its “Trending Topics” list, and has merged tweets matching either “No God” or “Know God” into a topic labeled “Know God." If you actually click on that link to see the matching tweets (it explicitly does a search for either string), there are still a lot more that match “No God” than “Know God."

UPDATE (10:10 p.m., Arizona time): Benjamin Black offers this entertaining commentary of what almost happened, which provides a better explanation of “Trending Topics” for those unfamiliar with Twitter.

Atheist Alliance International conference, quick version

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:02:00 +0000

The Atheist Alliance International convention took place over the weekend, October 2-4, 2009, at the Burbank Airport Marriott hotel, and I took my usual level of notes for the talks I attended. But rather than (or perhaps temporarily in lieu of) giving detailed summaries of each talk over the next several weeks, this will be one post with brief comments on each. If there’s demand, I can follow this up with more detailed posts on individual talks of interest.

There were over 700 attendees at the conference, and I believe I heard that last year’s conference was about 450. It’s not as big as The Amazing Meeting, but if that rate of growth isn’t an artifact of say, the fact that this conference was co-sponsored by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason and featured an unbelievable set of high-powered speakers, then they’ll catch up quickly. The AAI conference participation seemed to be more diverse than TAM, with a higher proportion of women and minorities, though it’s still not close to representative of the population–there’s still a white male dominance.

The conference talks were divided into “tracks” which were really more just rough categories than a system of tracks that could be followed, which were Science, Advocacy, Heritage, and Development. Events that weren’t talks included an optional pre-conference event of attending a live studio taping of a TV show (“100 Questions”), an optional post-conference event of an L.A. bus tour and visit to the La Brea tarpits, a live viewing of “Real Time with Bill Maher” featuring Richard Dawkins (shortly before they both showed up in person), entertainment by Mr. Deity (including live performance and a few of the shows, as well as some personal background from Brian Keith Dalton), a live recording of the Dogma Free America podcast with a panel of speakers, a standup comedy showcase hosted by Comedy Jesus Troy Conrad, a “taste of Camp Quest” for kids, and an Atheist Nexus live music party.

Friday
I arrived a bit later than planned–my expected driving time of just under six hours turned out to take over seven due to a few traffic issues along the way–and I missed three things I had wanted to attend. Those were Rich Orman’s panel discussion for his Dogma Free America podcast, with P.Z. Myers, William B. Davis, and Sunsara Taylor; Alpharabius’ talk on atheism in the Arab world; and Russell Blackford’s talk on attempts to regulate against “defamation of religion.” Fortunately, Alpharabius gave me a capsule summary of his talk and I had a few chances to chat with Russell Blackford and Rich Orman, so that partly made up for it.

P.Z. Myers gave an entertaining talk on “Design v. Chance” that began with a parody of a typical intelligent design creationist presentation, argued that ID arguments are at root an “over-extended metaphor” of design accompanied by misrepresentations of science. He showed how the ID claim that Darwin thought cells were mere “balls of protoplasm” is false, and presented evidence that various features thought to be characteristic of multicellular life have been found to be present in choanoflagellate protists. He ended by sharing a couple of useful words, “kipple” (from Philip K. Dick’s “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” meaning accumulated useless objects) and “granfalloon” (from Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.’s Cat’s Cradle, meaning a label on a group that doesn’t really have anything significant in common, like “Hoosier”). For “granfalloon,” he quoted the statement from Bokonon in Vonnegut’s book, “if you wish to study a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon.” Isn’t “atheist” a good example of a granfalloon, if all we share is lack of a belief in God? (This ended up being relevant to Brian Parra’s talk at the end of the conference.)

After a cocktail and socializing session, the main ballroom showed “Real Time with Bill Maher” on a big screen, featuring his guests Janeane Garofalo, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, and Thomas Friedman, then joined by Richard Dawkins. Maher demonstrated the witty and incisive criticism of religion that won him the Dawkins award, though he also made some comments about environmental causes of cancer that have raised controversy about his receiving an award with “science” in its name when he has pseudoscientific opinions about matters such as medicine (as Orac has forcefully argued in a series of posts at his Respectful Insolence blog: one, two, three, four). This was followed by entertainment from Mr. Deity in the form of both live performance and videos, along with some personal history from Brian Keith Dalton. Then Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins entered the room. Dawkins recounted the highlights of Maher’s “Religulous” as the reasons for the award, and Maher accepted the award, noting (accurately) that Dawkins summary was better than the movie itself, followed by his routine of reading from Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life which you can find on YouTube. Maher was the least-approachable celebrity at the entire conference; even those sitting at his VIP table were unable to ask him questions, as P.Z. Myers reported firsthand.

Saturday
Ed Buckner gave a talk about how atheist and freethought organizations are learning to cooperate, which I live-tweeted comments on.

Lawrence Krauss gave a talk on “Our Miserable Future” or “Life, the Universe, and Nothing: The Future of Life and Science in an Expanding Universe,” in which he argued that the best evidence shows that we are in a flat, rather than an open or closed universe, which means that it will continue expanding towards some limit. He gave a history of cosmology from the discovery of the expansion of the universe to dark matter, and pointed out that we are fortunate to live in a time when the energy density of dark matter vs. ordinary matter in the universe is approximately the same, and the expanding universe is at a point where other galaxies are still visible. The upshot of this is that we are fortunate to live in a time where we have the evidence of Hubble expansion and the Big Bang. Intelligent civilizations of the distant future will be unable to see any galaxies other than their own, or any evidence of the Big Bang, and will conclude that they are in a static and eternal universe based on the best evidence that they have. Such people will be “lonely and ignorant, but dominant,” which Krauss said those of us here in the U.S. are already used to. They will have an irreparably wrong picture of the universe from their epistemological blindness due to state of the universe around them. (What similar blindness do we suffer from due to our current place in the universe and observational abilities?)

Carolyn Porco gave a talk which began as a celebration of Galileo’s steps towards a scientific method, which she said couldn’t be applied to God because no experiment is possible that is relevant to God. (This strikes me as erroneous in a number of ways, since claims about God usually have empirical consequences, it’s possible to make philosophical arguments which draw upon scientific data, and her picture of science seemed to be based on an overly simplified Popperian philosophy of science.) She argued that it is “very difficult to prove a negative” (as if “proof” is what science cares about–but at least she didn’t make the mistake of saying it’s impossible). She claimed that science and religion are “completely different” and are not only not equivalent (certainly true) but are “not intersecting”–apparently advocating something like Stephen Jay Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria” view, which is falsified by the fact that religions do make empirical claims. She complained about Hollywood’s depiction of scientists in a negative light and blamed it for deterring young people from going into science, though she supplied no scientific evidence to support this (though she referred to a survey of science-related films from 1920-1994 by two researchers that concluded depictions were overwhelmingly negative). I think it’s unlikely that such depictions have much of a negative effect at all, since polls in the U.S. and other countries about what professions are most trusted put doctors, teachers, and scientists very high compared to most other professions. Businessmen are similarly victims of negative portrayals in Hollywood, and are also less trusted, but that doesn’t seem to translate into fewer undergraduates choosing to become business majors. I suspect a better explanation of any reduction in science enrollments (if that’s actually happening) would be found in elementary and secondary education, along with the fact that people find science and math difficult. She concluded with a series of fantastic photographs of Saturn and its moon Enceladus from the Cassini mission.

Martin Pera spoke about embryonic stem cells, science and policy, arguing that it will revolutionize medicine by allowing restoration of cell loss through transplantation as well as the development of new methods of research using stem cells. He pointed out various challenges to “regenerative medicine,” including rejection, tumor formation, and implanted stem cells developing the same pathologies that they’re designed to treat, but observed that these also present new opportunities to learn. On the public policy side, he argued that scientists need to engage more with the public, patient advocacy plays a key role in policy discussions, and careful and thoughtful regulation is preferable to “premature prescriptive regulation.” (This ties into a lot of the subject matter in law, science, and technology I’m studying this semester, and Pera’s talk had considerable overlap with a talk I attended earlier this year at the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix on embryonic stem cells by Prof. Jane Maienschein of ASU. If I write up a more detailed summary of this talk, I’ll bring some of that into it.)

Jerry Coyne gave a summary of his book, Why Evolution is True. He defined five constituents of the theory of evolution and pointed out predictions, retrodictions, and evidence supporting each of them from a variety of scientific disciplines. He book-ended his discussion with the famous chart of rate of acceptance of evolution by country (from a study co-authored by Eugenie Scott) at the start, and a suggestion as to why that pattern of acceptance holds at the end (appealing to Greg Paul’s evidence that belief in God is correlated with social dysfunction). He concluded that the real way to increase the effectiveness of teaching of evolution is to build a better, more just society. I’m skeptical–I think there are likely other causes behind the correlation, and that the strength of religious belief in the U.S. may be the result of religious competition due to the lack of an official state religion.

Daniel Dennett gave what I thought was the most interesting talk of the conference, titled “The Evolution of Confusion." His initial premise is that you reverse engineer things by trying to break them, and to reverse engineer religion, you can look for “experiments of nature” in the same way neuroscientists reverse engineer the brain by looking for cases of humans with particular brain lesions or damage due to accidents, and compare them to those without. In the case of religion, the form of pathology he chose to study is preachers who are atheists. Not former preachers who are atheists, but those who are still in the pulpit and in the closet, yet don’t believe in God. Working with Linda LaScala, he’s found six cases of such preachers (who themselves think there are many others), ages 37-72, one female and five male, three in liberal denominations and three in literalist/fundamentalist denominations. These people have fallen into what he called “the not so tender trap” where they have financial dependence upon their jobs, have lost opportunities for other training, and find it “difficult to say to the rest of the world I have wasted the last 40 years of my life.” Half of them, though, he thinks will go public in the near future, while two will probably never do so, because they feel like they will do less harm by living a lie than by coming clean.

Dennett compared these closeted atheist clergy to homosexuals in the 1950’s, either having no “gaydar” or being afraid to test it. They’ll occasionally resort to the age-old subterfuge of saying things like “I have an uncle who thinks X, what do you think of that” to their colleagues to try to identify other possible atheists by expressing their doubts with a thin veil of plausible deniability.

Each traces the roots of their problems to seminary, because professors of Bible studies tend to tell the truth about the evidence, and the evidence isn’t good for the Bible. But they do so with a theological spin that is an attempt to use clever ways of speaking to glide over problems and provide ministers with answers to “What can I say to the parishioners?” which have the features of not being a bare-faced lie, relieving skepticism without arousing curiosity, and seeming to be profound. Dennett introduced the concept of a “deepity”–propositions that seem to be profound, because they are actually logically ill-formed, having one meaning that is trivially true and another which is false but would be earth-shattering if true. A familiar deepity is “Love is just a word.” On one reading, it’s true–“love” is just a word. On another, it’s false–“whatever love is, it isn’t a word,” he observed, and noted “You can’t find love in a dictionary–that’s almost a deepity itself.” This is an elementary logical mistake, failing to distinguish the use of a word (in the latter case) from a mention of a word (in the former case). If you quote a word to talk about the word itself, that’s a mention; if you use the word to convey its meaning, in order to refer to the things described by the word, that’s a use. This is a common error in undergraduate philosophy papers, so common that many graders identify it as “UME” – “use-mention error."

Dennett gave examples of such errors in statements by Karen Armstrong, including in the title of her book, A History of God. It’s not a history of God, it’s a history of the concept of God. Similarly for Robert Wright’s recent The Evolution of God. And he provided some further examples from sociologist of religion Rodney Stark (who seems to me to be using the “symmetry principle” just as sociologists of science do) and from Karen Armstrong, including this answer from the latter in response to the question “Do you believe God exists?” from Terry Gross on NPR: “That’s the wrong question. It presupposes that God is the sort of being that could exist or not exit. God is no being at all. God is being itself. God is the God beyond God.” Dennett observed that “God is no being at all” is sophisticated theology, while “No being at all is God” is crude atheism, yet those are logically equivalent statements. Theology, Dennett argued, is “like a magician doing a trick where you can see the card up his sleeve."

At dinner, we watched a short three-minute promotional video for the Richard Dawkins Foundation that featured Michael Shermer, P.Z. Myers, and Brian Greene, among others, talking about what is science. Richard Dawkins then spoke, summarizing the last chapter of his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, which has chapter sections related to and titled from the words of the last paragraph of Darwin’s Origin of Species. One of the more memorable sections was about “The Four Memories” we have–the memory of past successes encoded into our biology and preserved by natural selection, the immune system’s memory of diseases we’ve experienced during our lifetime, the memories accumulated by our brains, and the collective memory of transmitted culture.

Dawkins spent a very, very long time signing books, and looked exhausted when he signed my copy of The Blind Watchmaker near the end of the line.

The evening ended with a live music and karaoke party put on by Atheist Nexus.

Sunday
The first talk of the morning I attended (and live-tweeted) was Gerardo Romero of Ateismo desde Mexico, about atheism in Mexico. His group has been around for about 10 years. It first started on MSN forums but migrated to its own website and forums, and has now begun to migrate into the real world with two atheist marches. The First World Atheist March occurred on September 28, 2008 in Mexico City and Guadalajara in Mexico, as well as in Italy, Spain, Peru, and Colombia. They received newspaper coverage in the Excelsior, a major Mexico City newspaper. A second march was held on September 27, 2009 (Spain did theirs on a different day due to a holiday conflict), with participation also from ArgAtea in Argentina and Ateos from Peru. He talked about ADM’s plans for further activism to promote science and critical thinking, separation of church and state, and distribution of condoms. ADM has a podcast, Masa Critica, as well as an electronic magazine, Hidra, published on their website.

Jonathan Kirsch spoke about the “Inquisitorial toolbox,” first in the context of the history of the Inquisition and then as applied to more recent events. The main tools he described were the use of torture as punishment for wrong belief (as opposed to wrong action), calling this torture by a different name to conceal the real purpose behind the act, and requiring the “naming of names” as an act of contrition to show the sincerity of a recantation. In practice, this was used to eliminate competition and accumulate wealth, as well as to combat heresy (a word that derives from the Greek word for a free choice). He described the beginnings of the Inquisition as a tool to root out and eliminate the Cathars or Albigensians, whose heresy was to disbelieve in the newly-introduced 13th century doctrine of transsubstantiation. The Cathars reasoned that this doctrine was the opposite of holy belief–if we believe it, we must believe that “when we go to the privy we will piss out the blood of our savior, and excrete the body of our savior.” A crusade against them failed to wipe them out, and so the Inquisition was invented to root them out by using informants, the threat and actuality of torture, and the collection of names. The Inquisition was subsequently used to wipe out the Templars and seize their wealth–forfeiture was also a key tool in the toolbox, making the victims pay for the privilege of being tortured.

Kirsch gave more modern examples including the use of “spectral evidence” in the Salem witch trials, the show trials of Stalinist Russia, and Hitler’s forcing Jews to wear identifying badges and the identification of Jews in terms of bloodline as elements consciously copied from the Spanish Inquisition. And although the last victim of the Inquisition was executed in 1826 (garroted and placed in a barrel with flames painted on it as a reminder of the glory days of burnings at the stake) and the Inquisition was formally ended in 1834, The Holy Office which was created to run the Inquisition still exists to this day under a different name (“Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith”), headed by the Pope. I was reminded of how the Church of Scientology, after being prosecuted for criminal activity associated with its “Guardian Office,” claimed to reform by changing the name of that unit to the “Office of Special Affairs."

Kirsch also observed that the tactics of the McCarthy Era and of the “global war on terror” have also used tools from the Inquisitor’s toolbox. I think he could have also pointed out uses of the toolbox in the war on drugs (especially the use of civil forfeiture and “naming of names”).

Eugenie Scott gave a talk about intelligent design which focused primarily on the strategies that have been used to try to get it into the public schools. While the direct approach failed in Kitzmiller v. Dover, the latest approach has been with “academic freedom” and “explore alternative evidence” bills and attempts to change state educational standards. She recounted recent events in Texas regarding attempts to put “teach the controversy”-style wording into the Texas Educational Knowledge and Skills document, which started as a requirement to teach “strengths and weaknesses” across all domains, and ended with “all sides of scientific reasoning.” She then looked at some 1990’s-2000 cases where individual teachers tried to teach creationism and were slapped down (Ray Webster, John Peloza, and Rodney LaVake), and noted that the “academic freedom” bills are essentially an attempt to legislate against such further slapdowns. Such a bill has passed in Louisiana, which allows teachers to bring in supplemental materials to critique biological evolution, global warming, and human cloning. She pointed to a phylogeny of these bills constructed by Anton Mates that showed how they have evolved.

These bills are constructed to try to avoid the possibility of legal challenge. They avoid any mention of religion to avoid establishment clause violations. They stress free speech and academic freedom. They are phrased as protective of a teacher’s right to teach alternatives. And they are formulated as permissive rather than directive bills, which means that they have avoided a facial challenge–a judge isn’t likely to grant an injunction against them on the vague language of the bill, but only to do so on the basis of an “as applied” challenge if there’s a particular case of where a teacher following the bill engages in activity that infringes the constitution and a parent and student with standing can be found to sue.

The final talk of the day I attended was Brian Parra’s talk, “All Together Now: Strategies for Growing the Freethought Community.” He distinguished identity vs. beliefs, pointing out that the Pew polls on belief are structured by first asking how a person self-identifies, then asking them a series of questions about belief. Only 1.6% of the U.S. population self-identifies as atheist, and it can be daunting to look at 1.6% vs. 98.4% of everybody else. But if you add agnostics, you get another 2.6%, a total of 4.2%, which is a group larger than Jews and Mormons put together. If you add “none”’s, you get another 12.1%, and a total of 16.3%–about the size of the black community. If you add in the “don’t know” answerers, and adherents of nontheistic religions, you get up to 18.5%. If you look at not-monotheists, you get 20.1%. And if you look at not-evangelical-Christians, you get 74.3%.

He further noted that if you look at how self-identified Catholics answer the question “Do you believe in God?”, you’ll find that 25% of them said no. (By the same token, though, if you look at how self-identified atheists answered that question, you’ll find that 21% of them said yes.)

He suggested that we define positive aspects of atheism and create coalitions based on common ground, and drew squiggly circles around a diagram that showed all of these groups regarding their answers to the questions, for those who don’t believe in God, who believe in a physical universe and natural cause (I believe he meant only in, i.e., rejection of the supernatural), who support secular government, humanistic ethics, and have confidence in science and reason. These he identified as the “Big Five” for creating an atheist worldview. Afterward, I asked him what’s the difference between his “Big Five” and secular humanism, to which he answered “Nothing.” If it is different, it is only in being somewhat more concisely (and vaguely) formulated.

He concluded by saying that a possible model for success is church minus the theology–it’s just a community that plans varied activities aimed at different age groups and interests, not just about atheism but in the name of atheism, which stays in touch with constituents via various media, which brings new people into positions of responsibility, and which seeks out “public displays of atheism, not merely for protest and activism, but also to demonstrate that atheists exist and are nice people."

I’m not sure I’m optimistic about that approach. Not only is it already being done by the humanists (including both CFI and AHA), while his initial remarks were about ways to increase the scope and size of coalitions, his “Big Five,” by looking at the intersection of those “squigglies” rather than the union, inherently shrinks them. And by far, the one that cuts down the group the most is the first one, nonbelief in Gods. I think this is, to some degree, an advantage that skeptics have over atheists, which is that they put the emphasis on the last item on his list, support for science and critical thinking, rather than the first. I’m inclined to think that the last three of the “Big Five” are far more important things to share in a civil society than the first two.

All in all, it was a great conference, despite a few glitches involving errors in room assignment, last-minute schedule changes, and technology. The most appealing aspects for me were the top-notch speakers on science and the chance to socialize and engage in discussion with many like-minded, intelligent people, even if they are part of a granfalloon.

UPDATE (October 11, 2009): Relevant to Brian Parra’s talk is Luke Galen’s sociological study of nonbelievers, the Non-Religious Identification Survey, as well as Bruce E. Hunsberger and Bob Altemeyer’s book Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America’s Nonbelievers, which I just read about in the presentation slides of a talk by Taner Edis of the Secular Outpost.

UPDATE (October 23, 2009): You can find a translation of this summary into Arabic at the Arab Atheists Network website.

UPDATE (November 16, 2009): Daniel Dennett’s talk from the AAI conference is online here.

UPDATE (December 27, 2009): Lawrence Krauss’s talk, Jerry Coyne’s talk, Andy Thomson’s talk, Richard Dawkins’ talk, P.Z. Myers’ talk, and Carolyn Porco’s talk are all on YouTube as well.

Other Blogs on the AAI Convention
P.Z. Myers wrote about Russell Blackford’s talk on defamation of religion, Toni Marano, Robert Richert’s talk on Vietnam, Maurice Bisheff’s apparently kooky talk on Thomas Paine, the Dogma Free America panel, the Maher/Dawkins Award ceremony, an exhibit on Evolutionary Genealogy, a gift of a bottle of wine supplied while having dinner with Daniel Dennett, acting in a forthcoming Mr. Deity episode, other gifts of wine and Surly-Ramics jewelry, proof of meeting Mr. Deity and Lucy supplied by your truly, and a challenge regarding the Atheist Nexus.

Paul Fidalgo wrote summaries of the Dogma Free America panel, Lawrence Krauss’s talk, Caroline Porco’s talk, and the Bill Maher award.

John Crippen describes his AAI convention experience in three posts: one, two, and three.

Surly Amy offers her observations on why “You Don’t Have to Be a Skeptic to Be an Atheist," which nicely complements P.Z. Myers’ review of Maurice Bisheff’s talk. I agree with her, and also note that you don’t have to be an atheist to be a skeptic. These two posts illustrate why I prefer to self-identify with skeptics.

Rich Orman interviewed a number of the speakers for his Dogma Free America podcast, including P.Z. Myers, Ed Buckner, Stuart Bechman, Sean Faircloth, Alpharabius, and Brother Richard of AtheistNexus.

If anyone comes across other summaries worthy of mention, note them in the comments or in email and I’ll append them here.

(Photo of UFO sighting in Marriott lobby by Reed Esau.)

Mirror neurons and the study of science

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:12:00 +0000

Tony Barnhart was kind enough to invite me to a psychology seminar yesterday afternoon that was a discussion of mirror neurons, at least partly inspired by (or inflamed by) Marco Iacoboni’s August 27 talk which I attended and summarized.

I found the discussion particularly interesting in light of my current studies, as it touched repeatedly on issues of what’s appropriate in science–what does and does not conform to the norms of good science.

The discussion leaders began with quotes from V.S. Ramachandran and Marco Iacoboni:

ApostAZ podcast #18

Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:32:00 +0000

The 18th episode of the ApostAZ podcast is available:
Episode 018 Atheism and Free Twizzering in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! Mark 19? Criticism and analysis. http://arizonacor.org Intro- Immortal Technique- Freedom of Speech from Revolutionary Vol 2. Outro- Greydon Square ‘Dream’ from the Compton Effect.

Grassroots Skeptics website launched

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:00:00 +0000

The grassrootsskeptics.org website officially launches today:
Philadelphia, PA – 9/4/2009: Grassroots Skeptics today announced the official launch of its website, GrassrootsSkeptics.org. The website is the centerpiece of the group’s planned outreach and advocacy in the skeptical community.

“There are a lot of passionate advocates and community groups working diligently to advance critical thinking,” said Grassroots Skeptics founder K.O. Myers. “We want to help increase their effectiveness, by making it easier for them to find new members, share resources, and identify methods for getting their message out.”

The group plans to use the site to gather and organize information about skeptical advocacy. At launch, the site will feature an index of local skeptics groups, information on many skeptical blogs and podcasts, discussion forums, and a calendar of skeptical events. The events calendar is a joint project, maintained in collaboration with the prominent skeptical website Skepchick.org.

“There is an amazing amount of information out there that could be helpful for people who want to start or join a skeptical organization,” Myers said. “We want to collect and organize it, to make it more useful for the dedicated individuals who volunteer their time to promote an evidence-based lifestyle.”

“Widespread misinformation about vaccines has lead to a resurgence in preventable illnesses; scam artists posing as ‘psychics’ prey on the grieving; ‘alternative medicine’ companies sell billions of dollars of dubious treatments, with almost no government regulation,” said Myers. “Critical thinking is more important than ever, and local skeptics groups are working hard to spread that message. With GrassrootsSkeptics.org, we hope we can make their outreach more effective.”

Future plans for the site include a skeptical speakers’ bureau, a searchable map of skeptics groups and skeptic-friendly attractions, and a development kit for skeptics who want to start new groups. “We’re excited about this launch,” said Myers, “but we’re already looking forward to making GrassrootsSkeptics.org a richer, deeper resource for the organized skeptical community.”

Grassroots Skeptics is a volunteer organization that promotes critical thinking and a reason-centered worldview by helping local skeptics groups to share tools, information and strategies, and connect with skeptical individuals and activists both locally and globally.
You can also follow Grassroots Skeptics on Facebook and Twitter.

Marco Iacoboni on imitation and sociality

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:14:00 +0000

Thanks to a tip from Tony Barnhart, I learned this morning of a talk at ASU today relevant to my last post (“Imitation, isolation, and independence”) by UCLA neuroscientist Marco Iacoboni. Although I wasn’t able to stay for the Q&A session, I did get to hear his entire presentation, titled “Imitation and Sociality: The Role of Neural Mirroring.” His talk covered the following points (from his initial agenda slide):
Imitation in human behavior
Potential neural precursors in primates
Neural mechanisms of human imitation
Neural circuitry for imitation and language
Imitation and empathy
Dr. Iacoboni was introduced by new ASU prof. Art Glenberg, who started right off by pointing out that the existence of mirror neurons is itself controversial, and some “don’t think there’s much of interest proved about mirror neuron systems.” Dr. Iacoboni thanked Prof. Glenberg for beginning with the “elephant in the room,” and said that the question has never been raised about the existence of mirror neurons in monkeys, and suggested that some people don’t want there to be homologous systems in humans, e.g., for the sake of human exceptionalism or denial of evolution. (Has your blood pressure gone up yet, Tony?)

Imitation in human behavior
He started by briefly discussing the role of imitation in human behavior, citing Andrew Meltzoff’s 1977 article in Science (“Imitation of Facial and Manual Gestures by Human Neonates," (PDF) 198:75-78), noting that Meltzoff is probably the only guy to publish a photograph of himself sticking out his tongue in Science. Imitation, the copying of the behavior of another, is pervasive by humans. People copy body positions and movements, and such imitation promotes liking. (As an aside, he said that he has been interviewed by Glamour (July 2003) about his work, and can have a second career as a consultant to Internet dating services if mirror neurons turn out not to exist.) Imitation facilitates communication and conversation, and people tend to even synchronize the way they talk. (I know I’ve heard multiple stories of people whose accents have been changed by being around people with different accents.)

Potential neural precursors in primates
Mirror neurons were first discovered in macaque monkeys, in the ventral premotor cortex. It was found that neurons in this area fired when monkeys engaged in grasping behavior, and also fired to a lesser extent when those monkeys observed other monkeys engaged in grasping behavior. (Here, Iacoboni cited Gallese et al., Brain, 1996.)

Neural mechanisms of human imitation
Iacoboni said that the term “mirror” may be good for marketing, but may also be misleading. Mirror neurons are defined physiologically rather than anatomically, by behavior rather than location in the brain. They have motor properties, and are specialized for actions, including sensory attributes of actions, but not mere peceptions. They are not simply “monkey-see, monkey-do” cells–while 1/3 tend to fire for very specific actions, 2/3 fire for other sorts of complementary actions. Mirror neurons have abstract codings for hidden actions, action sounds, and intentions, not just specific actions. Mirror neurons that fire in response to a grasping action of picking up a laser pointer would also fire if the details of the action were obscured by a screen. The sound of tearing paper can fire mirror neurons that fire when observing paper being ripped. And if there are variant actions that achieve the same purpose, such as bringing food to the mouth, the same mirror neurons can fire. Mirror neurons learn and have some degree of plasticity.

Iacoboni’s model predicts that observing an action should have the lowest level of activation for mirror neurons, performing a motor task should have a medium level, and imitation–both seeing and doing an action–should have the strongest level of activation. And that is what his research has found.

At UCLA, they’ve done parallel work with monkeys and humans, and identified apparently homologous brain regions between the two. The specific region where mirror neurons were first discovered, the F5 region, appears to be homologous to the BA44 region of the human brain. The “BA” stands for Brodmann Area, a part of Broca’s area associated with language–those with lesions to that area have Broca’s aphasia, which reduces language fluency and makes speech slow and difficult. This raises the question of whether the mirroring is effectively covert verbalization in humans.

Experiments with transcranium magnetic stimulation (TMS), where a magnetic copper coil placed against the head creates an electrical flow in the brain, interfering with the underlying electrical activity in the brain–essentially adding noise and causing disruption–have enabled a way to demonstrate causation where functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) could only show correlation. Iacoboni called this a shift “from brain mapping to brain zapping.” If you zap an area and cause a deficit in a particular behavior or function, you show the causal involvement of that area in the production of that behavior. Doing experiments with TMS of Broca’s area vs. a control site, using an imitation task and a control task, show the essential role of Broca’s area in imitation. (Here, Iacoboni cited Heiser, et al., Eur. J. of Neuroscience, 2003.)

Iacoboni showed a diagram that he labeled the “core imitation circuit” which involved three locations of the brain–the superior temporal surface (STS), which manages visual input to the system via a visual or pictorial description of an action, which then feeds to the parietal mirror neuron system (MNS), which has the motor details of an action, which then feeds to the frontal MNS, which deals with the goal or intention of an action. (There were two-way arrows between STS and parietal MNS, and between parietal MNS and frontal MNS.)

Neural circuitry for imitation and language
Iacoboni said that an old theory of speech perception which had been abandoned has now been brought back by mirror neurons. That theory is the motor neuron theory, which says that to perceive speech sounds, you simulate the generation of the same speech. Speech perception involves speech simulation. In experiments that compared brain activation of speaking and listening, he suggested that he found evidence to support this. (This must be complicated by the fact that when you speak, you hear yourself. He cited Meister, et al., Current Biology, 2007.)

He discussed hemispheres of the brain and action sounds, where the right and left motor cortexes were subjected to TMS stimulation. I didn’t quite get the details of this, but apparently a response was stronger for the left hemisphere, which is dominant for language. (He cited Azir-Zadeh et al., Eur. J. of Neuroscience, 2004.) He also referred to research of somatotopic maps, indicating that even when you read sentences about hand and foot actions (as opposed to seeing them), you get activation of the motor neurons for those areas.

He then spoke about how meaning is encoded in the brain, distinguishing a symbolic approach to “embodied semantics,” favoring the latter view. In the embodied view, the meanings of words are grounded in sensorimotor experience and meaning is given by associations with sensorimotor activation.

He described an experiment in how mirror neurons code intentions, where subjects were shown short videos. There were first contexts, such as a set of cookies, a teapot, gnutella, etc., set up as though someone was going to have a snack; contrasted with this was the same items, with just cookie crumbs, and empty cup, and so forth, as though someone had already had a snack. There were contrasting actions–a hand grasping the edge of a cup (as though putting it down or picking it up to serve someone else), vs. a hand grasping the handle of a cup, for the action of drinking. And then there were intention conditions, with each combination of actions embedded in a context. The result was to find a difference in activation between the intention settings, as well as between action and intention; with the act of drinking generating more activation in the inferior frontal gyrus. (Here he cited Iacoboni, PLoS Biology, 2005, “Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror neuron system.")

He next showed a diagram of MNS interactions, showing imitative learning and social mirroring (or empathy, or “emotional contagion”). Imitative learning involves the MNS interacting with the pre-motor cortex, while social mirroring involves the MNS interacting with the insula and the limbic system.

Imitation and empathy
He spoke about “the chameleon effect”–some people are more imitative than others, and a tendency to imitate is correlated with a tendency to be more empathetic. He showed two photographs of President Jimmy Carter and his chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, at two different times at the same event; in both cases the chief of staff was in the same physical position as Carter, standing next to or slightly behind him.

When feeling what others feel, the mirror neurons simulate facial expressions, which then feed through the insula to the limbic system, where you feel the emotion. He referred to research on imitating and observing facial expressions proposing a neural model of empathy in humans (Carr et al., PNAS, 2003).

We are “wired for empathy,” he said, and notes that he used to quote a French phenomenologist on this point, but since that’s not popular among U.S. philosophers he needed to find a champion of the analytic school of philosophy. He offered two quotes from Ludwig Wittgenstein, one which began “We see emotions. We do not see facial contortions and make the inference that he is feeling joy, grief, boredom. We describe a face immediately as sad, radiant, bored, even when we are unable to give any other description of the features.” (From Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 2, p. 100.) The other began “‘I see that the child wants to touch the dog but doesn’t dare.’ How can I see that? - Is this description of what is seen on the same level as a description of moving shapes and colors? Is an interpretation in question?Well, remember that you may also mimic a human being who would like to touch something, but doesn’t dare. And what you mimic is after all a piece of behaviour.” (From Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol. 1, p. 177.)

He then spoke of experiments with facial expression photos shown to kids and asked to imitate them, where they used fMRI and compared to measures of social competence, number of play dates, number of friends, etc., and found a high correlation between mirror neuron activation and social competence. (He cited Pfeifer et al., NeuroImage, 2008.)

This then led to the issue of autism, which he described with a slide heading titled, “Broken mirrors in autism?” He spoke of observation/imitation tasks with two groups of kids, those with autism spectrum disorder and a control set, which yielded differential activity in motor neurons. (He cited Dapretto et al., Nature Neuroscience, 2006.)

After a quote from Eric Hoffer (“When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other”), he spoke about human single-neuron recordings done with depth electrode readings on epilepsy patients undergoing very invasive methods to identify the focal points of seizures for surgery to remove or destroy minimal amounts of brain tissue to stop the seizures. They have studied about 10 patients per year over the last three years, using modified depth electrodes that each have 9 microwires, extending from them into the brain, one ground, and eight which each record for a single cell. On these patients they’ve done experiments with observation and execution of a grasping task, and with observation and imitation of facial expressions. They’ve taken records from the temporal lobe, amygdala, hippocampus, and other parts of the brain, and found that about 8% of cells measured have mirroring properties.

He then described some differences between human and monkey mirror neurons, the key one of which is that in some cases where mirror neurons show an increase in firings from an execution or imitation, a decrease is seen when observing. For monkeys, by contrast, the activations always go up for both observation and execution. He suggested that this may be due to a human differentiation between self and other. Humans have cases where there are excitatory effects, inhibitory effects, and opposite effects between observation and execution. There are mirror responses in humans in areas where they are not found in monkeys, the results appear to be more flexible, and there can be more prolonged responses, perhaps due to greater complexity (e.g., the language and meaning aspect?).

He ended by saying he was proud to say that his work falls within the tradition and support of Darwinian evolution–that his book, Mirroring People: The New Science of How We Connect with Others (I think you should always be skeptical of any book with a subtitle that starts with the words “The New Science of …”), argues that mirror neurons have been selected (naturally) to facilitate social interactions. He asserted that this solves the problem of other minds, and provokes a major revision of long-standing beliefs–that we need to change the idea that we’ve evolved for self-preservation, and instead we’re “wired for involvement and care.” He concluded that he is a believer in the importance of neuroscience to society, and that rather than being isolated in an ivory tower, scientists have a responsibility to go to society and communicate their work. (And his book is written for a popular audience.)

Imitation, isolation, and independence

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:02:00 +0000

This post is going to be highly speculative, based on a few things that I’ve coincidentally just read over the last 24 hours and some past wonderings.

Last night, I read an article in the ASU State Press newspaper from Tuesday, August 25 about Robert Cialdini, professor emeritus of psychology and marketing who I had been interested in working with in my Ph.D. program because of his fascinating work on the subject of influence and persuasion. (He just “retired,” though the article notes he is still working 60 hours a week on his research.) That article noted the phenomenon of “social proof,” where people are more likely to do something if they think that other people do it:
Social proof is a simple way for people to decide what actions would be appropriate in a given situation, based off what others like them have done in similar situations, Cialdini said. Those kinds of norms have been very powerful in moving people to conserve energy, recycle and refrain from littering, he said.
…
Cialdini and his colleagues have recently done research on energy conservation in several hotels in the Phoenix area. The hotel managers allowed Cialdini to place different signs inside hotel rooms and depending on what the signs said, the colleagues were able to significantly increase the willingness of people to hang up their bath towels.

Joel Garreau on the future of cities

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 03:16:00 +0000

Today I attended a lecture at ASU by Washington Post writer Joel Garreau, author of Edge Cities and Radical Evolution, about the future of cities. What follows is a rough sketch of his talk based on my notes.

He began by saying that he’s interested in culture and values, and isn’t a “gear-head” about the emerging technologies that he’s written about (“GRIN” technologies–genetics, robotics, information systems, and nanotechnology).

He currently studies cities–how they are shaped by technology, and how cities shape us.

He started with a slide of an old Spanish map of the New World, which was mostly accurate, except for an oversized Florida and drawing California as an island. Why was California shown as an island? Because explorers in the Seattle area saw a body of water that went very far to the south, and explorers in the Baja California area saw a body of water that went very far to the north, and they just connected the dots. That error took 100 years to correct. Spanish explorers would land in Monterey Bay and carry boats inland, expecting to hit water, and they always commented that the Indians in the area seemed to be friendly. Garreau suggested that they were actually laughing at them for pointlessly carrying boats inland. When the explorers would fail to hit another body of water, they would report back that the map was wrong, only to be told that they must not have been where they thought they were. It finally took a decree from the King of Spain to change the map.

His next slide was of the Los Angeles area, pointing out what he called “edge cities,” which he called “the biggest change in 150 years of how we build cities.” “Edge cities” are major and new urban centers around old big cities. They have a large amount of office and retail space, lots of jobs, and didn’t exist 30-40 years ago. They are popping up everywhere there is major growth. The area around John Wayne Airport in Orange County, California, is an edge city–it has 5 million square feet of office space (more than Memphis), 600,000 square feet of retail space. It’s not a suburb, or sub-anything. It’s not a bedroom community. It has the features of office parks and all traditional city functions. The edge cities in New Jersey in the greater New York area have more jobs than Manhattan.

Phoenix was one of the earliest places to recognize that it was going to have more than one city center–we have major centers downtown, uptown/Central Avenure, Camelback/Biltmore, South Mountain, and Tempe (among others), and these were recognized as centers that would exist by city planners a couple of decades ago.

Paris has La Defense as an edge city, as well as Marne-la-Vallee, where EuroDisney is. When superior locations for growth are first found, the rich people move in first, and tend to go uphill, upwind, and upriver, byt Marne-la-Vallee was a poor area that was planned to be an edge city by selecting it as the location for EuroDisney, and it succeeded.

Boston edge cities include the Burlington Mall area, MIT area, downtown, Quincy/Braintree, and Framingham area.

One major factor that has changed cities are the available modes of transportation. Chicago was formed as a rail town, based around inter- and intra-urban rail. Detroit was formed as an automobile town.

The last industrial age downtown built in North America was Calgary, Alberta, Canada in 1914. In 1915, the one millionth Model T Ford came off the assembly line, and ended the old downtowns. The old industrial downtowns were from the 1840s to 1914, and existed because of the necessity of collecting raw materials in one place and having thousands of people there to work on those materials.

Prior to those downtowns, cities were places like Jefferson’s Charlottesville, Washington’s Alexandria, and Lincoln’s Philadelphia. Most people earned a living from the land, and lived outside of cities.

The automobile suddenly made places outside the old industrial cities far more valuable, like Long Island.

Until 1955, the southwestern-most Major League Baseball team was in St. Louis, because movement by train placed constraints on scheduling. The Cardinals were thus the team rooted for by everyone further south and west. Once airplanes came into the picture, baseball could spread, and other cities could become major cities–Los Angeles, Dallas, Phoenix, Seattle, Houston.

Garreau asked, if Chicago were leveled, what would you rebuild first–O’Hare, or downtown. O’Hare is more critical today.

But the changes caused by automobiles and airplanes is nothing compared to the networked computer, which is making changes more significant and more rapidly than the automobile.

He showed a photograph of a Kresge’s in the Capitol Hill area of D.C., explaining that it was a discount 5 & dime store, the K in K-Mart. He said Kresge’s is dead, and K-Mart is dying, but do you think the building is still there, and if so, what is it? The first guess–Starbuck’s–was almost correct. It is a coffee shop. He argued that Kresge’s and K-Mart has been killed by Wal-Mart, which is really an IT company that happens to sell sneakers. He claimed that when you buy a pair of sneakers at Wal-Mart, a process kicks off at check out that starts to make a replacement pair in Malaysia within 24 hours.

So why are coffee shops popular, and why do people pay $4 for coffee? Is it the free wireless? He argued that it is a social thing, only marginally about the coffee and the wifi. The main factor around the physical environment is that the rare stuff we can’t digitize, like face-to-face contact, has much higher relative value than it did before.

Bill Mitchell of the MIT Media Lab, and former head of the architecture department, has catalogued 87 forms of real estate in cities, all being transformed by information technology. One form is super markets. Garreau asked, if you could get hamburger and toilet paper delivered to your home for free, why would you get in your car to go get groceries? To buy produce or meat, was the answer suggested by the audience. He then showed a photo of a Freshfields, a modern farmer’s market, and showed a photo of booths with tables inside it–it’s also a place to sit and socialize.

Another type of building is a prison. He suggested that we don’t need as many prisons if we use GPS anklets or bracelets for nonviolent offenses.

He then argued that Moore’s Law will continue to hold for the forseeable future, and we’ve already seen 32 doublings in processors since 1959. The only thing comparable is railroad capacity doubling, which saw 14.5 doublings before leveling out due to requirements of coal, steel, and land, and being superseded by the automobile. The IT limits are the laws of physics, the marketplace, human ingenuity, and our culture and values, and he argued that only our culture and values set real limits for the forseeable future. (In a class yesterday, one of my professors said that a physics professor speaking at ASU last year said that we’ve reached the physical limits for silicon chips, and won’t see any more doublings, but a subsequent new development has already refuted him with a four-times improvement due to nanotechnology–presumably this.)

Sequencing the human genome was thought nuts, impossible, and/or would cost a fortune, but was done in 2000 at a fraction of the expected cost, far sooner than anyone expected, thanks to Moore’s Law.

Garreau suggested that ten years from now, anything you can put in a lab for $1 million will be something you can put in your home for $1,000; anything you can get now for $1,000 will be “pocket lint.” He used USB memory fobs as an example of today’s “pocket lint."

He showed a photo of students at CMU in a computer lab, and asked, “Is there a future for physical university campuses?” He gave a yes, on the grounds that this is where you “meet your first spouse and friends for a lifetime”–the social aspects. Distance learning has been around for a very long time (Benjamin Franklin did learning-by-mail), but it’s always a second choice.

Shopping malls, he said, are turning into entertainment spaces. He cited his friend Jaron Lanier (a virtual reality pioneer), who suggests that the first thing to disappear will be escalators, replaced by rides–so when you go up by ferris wheel and come down by water slide, think of Lanier. He observed that if you go to a mall at 10 a.m., you’ll see the senior mall walkers, and if you go in the afternoon, you’ll see “drug dealing rugrats.” (He didn’t note, but I thought of how Arizona Mills Mall in Tempe has turned one space into an indoor miniature golf course.)

Office space–is there any future to it? Again, he argued for the social aspect, and maintained that the accidental casual face-to-face contact is impossible to digitize, yet he finds the random conversation at the printer jam (the modern equivalent of the water cooler) to be his most productive time of day. To this, Prof. Brad Allenby objected that there is casual contact in World of Warcraft and Second Life, and we shouldn’t assume that such things can’t be digitizable.

Another audience member suggested that because human beings need touch, we need real physical contact. (But that assumes the impossibility of tactile telepresence.) Yet another pointed out that movie theater attendance is up, even though you can watch online or at home cheaper.

Garreau said, supposed you decide face-to-face matters, but only need it two days a week–how would that affect where you live? If you only needed it 3 days a month, then where might you live?

He said some cities will live, if they are good for face-to-face contact. Others will die, if they aren’t. We’re headed to a profound shift of what is urban/urbane, and cities like Santa Fe are the future. It has 63,000 people, opera, restaurants, second-hand boot stores.

The top fastest-growing metro areas are smaller cities that are like villages with face-to-face spaces and are somewhat dispersed. The top ones are Wenatchee, WA, Provo-Orem, UT, Grand Junction, CO, Gulfport-Biloxi, MS, and Myrtle Beach, SC. The top states for real estate price appreciation are Utah, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Other example cities in this model include the Adams-Morgan area of D.C., Tempe, AZ, and Marrakesh.

He then briefly turned to other technologies. He said that Craig Venter says that by the end of this year he will have an organism that “eats CO2 and poops gasoline.” (And his company has just received $600 million in funding from ExxonMobil.) Nanotech may build membranes that purify water. These things will impact where cities become feasible. “Is Darfur the next garden spot?"

He then referred to a book by Leo Marx of MIT, titled The Machine in the Garden. He argued that in the industrial age, we suffered a split–we had to come into the cities and leave nature behind. Now we’re trying to put what we like about cities into a garden.

In the final Q&A, he said he has a hidden assumption that we will continue moving forward and not go back to pre-industrial society; he said “no petroleum engineers think we’re running out of oil, only cheap oil."

He said that we’re seeing a new explosion of religious fervor, and included environmentalism in that, saying that it has its own saints and heretics. He thinks human beings are “hardwired to have faith–even Russia made Marxism into faith,” but said that he’s “a hardcore rationalist” even though “rationalism doesn’t seem to be emotionally satisfying.” He said, following Popper, that “science can’t tell you what is true, only what is false, but it can changes minds without killing people.” (I disagree with his statement that science can’t tell you what is true–theories that keep passing tests do at least approximate truth.)

An audience member commented that virtual environments can convey mental and physical aspects, but not emotional and spiritual. Garreau agreed, but I think both (and a few other questioners) were making an unwarranted assumption that virtual environments will not be able to reach a point of being indistinguishable (or very nearly so) from real environments, and thus allowing effective conveyance of body language, subtle gestures, and so forth, perfectly adequate for transmitting emotional information. (As for spiritual properties, I think they’re in need of demonstration before we worry about them–and given claims that have been made about them, it’s surprising that the questioner thought physical proximity was a limitation.) In a conversation with Prof. Allenby afterward, he also pointed out that we may be better able to make judgments of trust in a virtual environment because we are more alert to the possibility of a partial presentation of a personality and to intentional distortions. There are also some types of cues that are more accurately picked up audibly, while visual information can overwhelm those cues.

Prof. Allenby also noted that major technological changes may turn what we now think of as fundamental truths into contingencies, and that may include some aspects of what we call human nature.

Garreau ended by observing that past predictions of what the future will be like have usually been wrong, becasue things are more complex and more expensive then we think–and then we get blindsided by innovations like the iPhone.

Bob Larson is still around and performing exorcisms

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:26:00 +0000

Pierre Stromberg has an entertaining tale of his visit to a performance by former radio broadcaster, self-proclaimed cult expert, and exorcist Bob Larson at his new Paranormal Amerika blog. Larson suffered a significant blow to his career as a result of criticisms from his fellow Coloradoan Ken Smith’s “Bob Larson Fan Club." Further damage came from exposure at the hands of Cornerstone magazine, which published carefully investigated exposures of deception, misuse of funds, fabricated biographical events, and so forth. Others exposed by Cornerstone included alleged former Satanist turned Christian comedian Mike Warnke and claimed Satanic ritual abuse victim “Lauren Stratford,” author of Satan’s Underground.

Larson is, unfortunately, now based here in the Phoenix area, with his “Spiritual Freedom Church of Phoenix” at 9096 E. Bahia Drive in Scottsdale, though for some reason it has a mailing address of a post office box in Denver.

Mexico decriminalizes personal possession of drugs

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:08:00 +0000

After at least two prior attempts in 2006 and 2008, Mexico has decriminalized the personal possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, and methamphetamine in order to unclog the courts and focus only on heavy trafficking. This will be an interesting experiment in decriminalization that will no doubt also provoke drug tourism to Mexico.

It appears that the new law is similar to the 2006 proposal, which was less radical than it may have originally appeared–it allowed local police as well as federal police to pursue drug crimes (a strengthening of the prosecution of drug crime) and allowed diversion to treatment for possession of small amounts of drugs rather than criminal prosecution. The new law doesn’t allow criminal prosecution for personal possession, and mandates treatment diversion on a third offense. So it’s not legalization, it’s decriminalization.

Skeptical Blog Anthology 2009 seeking nominations

Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:40:00 +0000

From the Young Australian Skeptics:
Inspired by the annual The Open Laboratory, the Skeptical Blog Anthology is a printed anthology of blog posts voted the very best of 2009, managed by the Young Australian Skeptics in conjunction with the Critical Teaching Education Group (CTEG). The anthology is an attempt to bring a greater awareness of the skeptical content on blog sites and showcase some of the range and diversity in the blogosphere.

With an aim to provide text-based resources to classes and readers who may be interested or intrigued by what skepticism has to offer, entries from January 1st to December 1st 2009 are eligible for submission. Both a print and Portable Document Format (pdf) will be made available for purchase via Lulu.com, with estimated printing early in 2010.

Entries can be self-nominated or proposed by readers of skeptical blog sites. The guidelines proposed by the popular Skeptics’ Circle are a fine indicator of the kind of content suitable for the anthology, including urban legends, the paranormal, quackery, pseudoscience, intelligent design, historical revisionism, critical thinking, skeptical parenting/educating skeptically, superstitions, etc.
There’s a submission form at the Young Aus Skeptics website.

Brian Dunning on debate

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:21:00 +0000

In Skeptoid #167, Brian Dunning argues that scientists should never engage in debate on pseudoscientific topics. His arguments include:
It’s a waste of time.
It gives pseudoscience undeserved credibility by putting it on an equal footing with science.
There are few people in the audience who haven’t already made up their minds.
Most of the people in the audience can’t distinguish good from bad arguments.
His position is similar to that of Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, who recommends that scientists not engage in formal debates with creationists.

While Dunning correctly points out some major flaws in how formal debates have frequently gone, and I agree that such debates should be discouraged, I think there are cases where they are worthwhile–it depends on the formulation of the resolution to be debated, the setting of the debate, and, perhaps most importantly, the quality of the debater. Too many creation/evolution debates have involved scientists who believe themselves to be good debaters, but who don’t understand how debate works and aren’t sufficiently familiar with creationist arguments to an appropriate breadth and depth. Unfortunately, many of those scientists think they won the debate or did a passable job when in fact they performed very poorly.

The resolution to be debated should be formulated so that there is a clear burden of evidence on the promoter of the pseudoscience, where it belongs. It’s a mistake to formulate a debate resolution as a false dilemma, where if the scientist can’t refute scattershot attacks, the pseudoscientist wins. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research won most of his debates by not only engaging in such a shotgun approach (the “Gish Gallop”), but also by refusing to talk about the age of the earth or flood geology, thus freeing himself from having to present any positive evidence in favor of his view. (I spoke a bit more about Gish’s debate success and how to successfully counter his debate strategies in my workshop session at this year’s American Humanist Association conference.)

The setting of the debate is also important, and is relevant to Dunning’s concern about audience. An academic debate at a university is more likely to have audience members who are actually interested in the evidence than, say, a debate at a church. It’s also significant whether the debate is being recorded and will be distributed further–a well-done debate that is recorded and transcribed, and distributed in the form of a book, DVD, or online is going to have a much larger audience and may have much more significant consequences than the potential persuasion of five people in Dunning’s example. There are also debates conducted in written form, which provide the possibility of much more comprehensive argument and references to other material than an oral debate on a stage or on television, which I think generally makes them preferable.

The concern about giving a pseudoscience proponent undeserved credibility is a real one, and for that reason it’s probably a good idea for the debater to be someone of similar or lesser public stature, as well as someone well-versed in both debate and the details of the pseudoscience’s claims. Proponents of pseudoscience often issue challenges to prominent individuals for the primary purpose of getting publicity from it, which they may get to some degree either from denial or acceptance–but much more from acceptance if they so much as appear to hold their own.

Dunning dismisses the concern that failure to debate leaves pseudoscience unchallenged, but I think there is a real potential concern here, as a refusal to debate can give proponents of pseudoscience a rhetorical weapon when there’s the appearance that no one is willing to challenge their arguments. This can, to a large extent, be defused if you can point to resources that refute the proponent’s claims in detail, and make the counter-argument that the proponents views aren’t deserving of a public forum. But in cases where the proponent’s views have received a large public following and there aren’t comprehensive resources that refute them, or such resources are little-known, I think that builds a case for debate.

I think Dunning is right that it’s generally better to produce direct responses to pseudoscientific claims in a one-way format, but even that can be a form of debate to the extent it actually engages the proponents and they respond. What’s distinctive about a debate–at least a good one–is that it does involve engagement by both sides with the arguments and evidence of the other, and produces a record of that engagement for others to examine. That has advantages over siloed separate arguments that never directly respond to each other. I think that such engagement should be beneficial for scientists by identifying forms of misunderstanding that need corrections in the form of better communication, as well as locating possible weaknesses in their own evidence and arguments that need further work. It’s also beneficial for the proponent of pseudoscience in that it puts them into a situation where they must, at least momentarily, think about the arguments and evidence against their positions.

Back to school

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:28:00 +0000

This blog is entering its fifth year today, and the content will be shifting a bit now that I am returning to school. Today was my first day of new graduate student orientation before classes begin next week; I’m a Ph.D. student in Arizona State University’s Human and Social Dimensions of Science and Technology program, which is beginning its second year. This is an interdisciplinary program within the Graduate College and allied with the School of Life Sciences, so today’s orientation was with new graduate students from other programs in SoLS. SoLS has 250 graduate students in 11 programs, of which 49 are entering this semester. (I chatted a bit with a couple of new graduate students in neuroscience.)

There seems to be a wealth of supporting organizations and structures to SoLS programs to assist in getting funding, doing research, participating in education and public outreach, and dealing with administrivia. I’ll be delving into as much of it as I can, and periodically reporting on items of particular interest here.

From today’s orientation, a few items that are part of SoLS education and public outreach are worthy of note. ASU has an “Ask-a-Biologist” program online, which you can also follow via Twitter. That program is intended for students in grades K-12, and is projected to hit a million visitors this year. There’s also the Science Studio Podcasts for adult education. And the International Institute for Species Exploration website. There’s also a program run by SoLS graduate students called Graduate Partners in Science Education, where graduate student volunteers work with underprivileged and at-risk junior high school students on field biology research projects.

My current aim in the HSDST program is to build upon my past graduate experience in philosophy and cognitive science, my career in Internet services and information security, my interest in skeptical inquiry and critical thinking, and my interest in law to explore the concepts of trust and reputation as they pertain to online and digital media. At the moment, I’m signed up for a seminar on “Law, Science, and Technology,” a seminar on “Human and Social Dimensions of Climate Change,” the HSDST Core Seminar and Colloquium, and a course with one of my favorite undergraduate philosophy professors on Advanced Logic (that’s my “just for fun” class).

Tomorrow’s a reception for all of the new graduate students at ASU’s Tempe campus, and later in the week I have some training on fire and lab safety–and next week, it’s back to class.

ApostAZ podcast #17

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:50:00 +0000

ApostAZ podcast number 17 is out:
Episode 017 Atheism and Voluntarily Free Thought in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! Special Guest Representatives of AZ Coalition of Reason Matt Schoenley, Jim Lippard, and Apostaz hosts Shannon and Brad. AZCoR, Who What what not Why and why not? Tam 7 and Skepticamp. http://arizonacor.org http://discord.org http://meetup.com/phoenix-atheists Intro- Greydon Square ‘Cubed’ from the Compton Effect. Outro- Vocab Malone ‘Track 12’.
This was my first time sitting in on the whole recording, rather than just contributing a short skepticism segment. While this was mainly about the Arizona Coalition of Reason, I did talk a little bit about TAM7 and SkeptiCamp Phoenix.

The Amazing Meeting 7: Sunday paper sessions, Million Dollar Challenge

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:56:00 +0000

This is the sixth and final part of my summary of TAM7, covering the last day’s events on Sunday, July 11. Part 1 is here, part 2 is here, part 3 is here, part 4 is here, part 5 is here, and my coverage of the Science-based Medicine conference begins here.

Sunday’s continental breakfast was served while an old James Randi television appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show from 1986 was shown. This brought back some old memories–I think I have the show on videotape in my archives, as I think we showed it at a meeting of the Phoenix Skeptics. Randi appeared with a faith healer (“Amazing Grace”), a psychic (Joyce Keller), and an astrologer (Irene Hughes), which led to some entertaining and ridiculous exchanges of words. Randi showed his footage that exposed Peter Popoff using a wireless transmitter and receiver to fake the “word of knowledge,” and did some spoon bending. Joyce Keller claimed she was entitled to his $10,000 prize, and Oprah mistakenly claimed that Randi had brought his own spoons, which she corrected herself about after a commercial break.

This was followed by the Sunday refereed papers, which were again organized and moderated by Ray Hall, professor of physics at California State University, Fresno and at Fermi National Labs.

Don Riefler, “Teaching Critical Thinking in a Therapeutic Setting”
Don Riefler, Direct Care Supervisor at the Jessie Levering Cary Home for Children in Lafayette, Indiana, gave a talk about strategies he’s used to teach critical thinking to underprivileged/institutionalized children at the Cary Home, complete with positive reinforcement in the form of candy distributed to members of the audience who gave good answers. He discussed several categories of common “thinking errors” which included both logical fallacies and heuristics that lead to problems when overgeneralized. As part of his teaching, he has kids conduct ESP experiments with Zener cards, which he uses to teach them about erroneous inferences they draw about their skills. This provoked the first critical question (from regular ScienceBlogs commenter Sastra), asking whether his referral to “success” and “failure” in the Zener test suggests to kids that it’s a matter of effort. (I neglected to record his response.) In answer to a question of how he deals with religion he said that he avoids it and shuts down talk of religion or ideology.

David Green, “Patently Ridiculous: The Perfect Sommelier”
David Green, a Senior Patent Examiner at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, gave a talk that was essentially a sequel to a talk he gave at TAM5. He spoke about “The Perfect Sommelier,” a product that claims to “align tannin molecules with magnets to age wine faster.” He compared how the patent application for this product was handled in the U.S. vs. Canada.

In the U.S., patent examiners made two objections to the application, first, that it was obvious or already known, and second that the “subject matter is inoperable–the theory of operation cannot be correct.” The first objection failed, since the invention was sufficiently different from prior art in various ways (such as having magnets at both ends of the bottle, not just at one end). And, based on the Longer (“lawn-jay”) test, under which the description of the invention must be accepted as true unless there’s a reason to doubt it, it passed on the second as well, and was granted two U.S. patents. Green said that it essentially comes down to a he-said/she-said debate, and the patent office has to be biased towards issuance of the patent.

In Canada, the same objections were made as in the U.S., along with a third. David Green had read a Swift article about a test of the product, so the third objection was a rejection on the basis of double-blind research evidence showing that the product doesn’t work, published in the Journal of Wine Research. That study concluded that “no evidence was found to suggest that The Perfect Sommelier improves the palatability of cheap red wine.” The manufacturers responded to the first two objections in the same way they did in the U.S., but for the third, they asserted that their evidence in the form of testimony overrides the double-blind research.

And then they abandoned their patent claim in Canada.

The reason they did this, Green explained, is because of “U.S. file wrapper estoppels”–that what you do in a foreign patent application can affect your patent in U.S. court. If they had continued with their claim in Canada and been denied–or if they had failed to file a response to the objections–that could have impacted their U.S. patent.

What this demonstrates, Green argued, is the importance of doing solid investigations and research on such products, and getting them published and spreading the information around (e.g., online), so that patent examiners can find it. It can make the difference between a nonsensical product getting a patent or being denied a patent.

At this point I took some time to chat with Ray Hyman, and came in a little bit late for the next presentation.

Adam Slagell, “Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt: The Pillars of Justification for Cyber Security”
Adam Slagell, Senior Security Engineer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, spoke about claims made for security and security products that we should be skeptical of. He pointed out that there’s no such thing as perfect security, and there are always tradeoffs to be made between security and usability/convenience/etc. He spoke a little bit about TSA “security theater,” pointing out the gaping flaw in the “no fly lists” that comes from the separation of checking ID and boarding pass at the security checkpoint from checking your boarding pass at the gate. He also questioned the point of shoe removal, which led to the first comment on his talk from Ian, an airport security officer at Gatwick, who argued that forcing shoes to go through the X-ray machine does close a genuine vulnerability. (Ian also argued that the liquid restriction makes sense, though he didn’t respond to Slagell’s point that you can carry multiple 3-ounce containers and combine their contents with those of your associates after you go through screening. Most interestingly, Ian said that airport metal detectors go off randomly in addition to when they detect metal.)

Slagell argued that signature-based antivirus products are obsolete, since polymorphic malware and use of packers are extremely effective at eliminating signatures, and observed that companies are starting to create products based on white-listing, only allowing pre-defined sets of software to run on a machine. (At last year’s New Mexico InfraGard conference, Anthony Clark and Danny Quist spoke in some detail about different kinds of packers, and offered a set of criteria for measuring AV effectiveness that included use of methods other than signature-detection, such as anomalous behavior detection.) He unfortunately didn’t have time to talk about passwords.

Another questioner asked what users behaviors are useful to stay secure, to which Slagell replied that you should keep systems patched and backed up. (There is actually some argument, at least for corporations, to be somewhat selective in patching, since many patches aren’t applicable, have other mitigations, and have potential for reducing availability themselves–but there is no substitute for having a vulnerability management program in place.)

Steve Cuno, “The Constructive Skeptic: Rebranding Skepticism at the Grassroots Level”
Steve Cuno, chairman of RESPONSE Agency, Inc., gave an excellent talk last year at TAM6, and he gave another great presentation this time as well. He started by saying that skeptics have a branding problem.

What is a brand? Is it a name and logo? A great slogan? What you say about yourself?

He gave some counterexamples for each of these, including some nice vintage ads (e.g., “They’re happy because they eat lard” from the Lard Information Council). AIG had the slogan “The strength to be here.” (He didn’t mention any of my favorite unintentionally ironic bank slogans.)

He gave an example slogan for skepticism: “Skepticism: Doubt worth believing in.” He called all of these proposed brand definitions “brand flatulence: you may like the sound and smell of your farts, but nobody else does."

He gave as his prototypical example of what branding really is the example of Nordstrom’s. There’s no particular logo or slogan involved, but people think of Nordstrom on the basis of the values that are expressed by the company through its employees and the experience you have as a customer. The essence of creating a brand is creating a positive customer experience.

And the way for skeptics to give skepticism a good name is by self-policing “to deliver positive brand experience."

He suggested that the way to do this is to delay giving yourself a label, and when you do identify yourself with a label, anchor it in something positive. Instead of saying “I don’t believe in …”, think through and express what you do support. For example:
I believe in what the evidence supports.
I believe in honesty, integrity, equal rights, and treating one another with dignity and respect.
I believe in and defend the right of all people to believe as they choose.
Do things that are positive. He gave the example of the GLBT protests at the annual April Mormon Church Conference, which, rather than picketing and protesting, engaged in protest by cleaning up parks, visiting shut-ins, and doing positive and helpful things in the name of their cause. The result was to get tons of positive press.

He heartily endorsed TAM7’s vaccination support and food drive, and further added that we should play nice. Being controversial and using insults may work for media figures, but not for the grassroots. Be sure that messages are well-timed. And remember that some people just don’t care–to quote Will Rogers, “Never miss a good opportunity to shut up."

A summary of Cuno’s talk may be found on his blog.

Brian Dunning, “What Were the ‘Lost Cosmonaut’ Radio Transmissions?"
Brian Dunning’s talk was a sequel to one of his Skeptoid podcasts on Achille and Giovanni Judica-Cordiglia, a pair of Italian brothers who built equipment to monitor radio transmissions from spacecraft at an installation they called Torre Bert. They successfully recorded the October 1957 launch of Sputnik I, Sputnik II with Laika the dog in November 1957, and then a few oddities. In February 1961, they recorded what they reported as a “failing human heartbeat,” when there was no known flight. In the same month, they recorded a “voice of a dying man,” again with no known flight. In May 1961, they recorded the voice of a woman, Ludmila, speaking about how she was “going to re-enter,” which they attributed to a secret female cosmonaut mission that resulted in her death.

There are no corroborating reports of these transmissions, despite the fact that the U.S. Defense Early Warning system began in 1959. And there were no female cosmonauts in 1961. The female cosmonaut program wasn’t approved until five months after the recording, and the first five women selected for the program a year later. Yuri Gagarin had just launched in Vostok 1 in May 1961, and for the Vostok 2 launch in August 1961, they had to scavenge Gagarin’s space suit to make a suit for the second cosmonaut. So there was no way there was a female cosmonaut launch in May 1961.

At the time, the U.S. was flying X-15s. Did the Soviets have some kind of space plane? The Soviet Kosmoplan never got off the drawing board, and its Raketoplan was developed, but wasn’t ready for testing until 1962.

A jet fighter? The YC-150 didn’t fly high enough. Dunning also ruled out the Mig-21 and high-altitude balloons.

The conclusion–get your own Russian translators. Dunning got four Russians to listen to the recording, and found that it didn’t say what was claimed, but instead was almost 99% unintelligible, with the rest being numbers. He also found that the source of the transmission was not moving, but was at a fixed position.

Although he didn’t come to a definitive conclusion, he was able to at least eliminate a number of possibilities–sometimes that’s the best you can do.

Christian Walters and Tim Farley, “How Are We Doing? Attracting and Keeping Visitors to Skeptical Websites”
Tim Farley was another return speaker, this time with Christian Walters. They talked about how the over 650 skeptical websites should measure acquisition of visitors and take actions to keep them and to obtain high search engine rankings.

First, how you’re acquiring visitors can be measured by looking at rankings on search engine result pages (SERPs), Google PageRank, and Yahoo link strength measurements. These measures are all increased by receiving links from other web sources, of which important sites are social media sites like digg, reddit, delicio.us, Facebook, and Twitter.

Another important factor is having good page titles, which include popular search terms. The META keyword tags are no longer so important. By using the Google AdWords Keyword Tool, you can find what popular search terms are. Sometimes they are surprising–for instance misspellings of some terms (like accupuncture) get more search hits than the correct spelling.

It’s also a good idea to put the keywords from your title into the URL, rather than use URLs as some blogs do that only have a page ID in them.

The anchor text of hyperlinks to your pages should also contain the appropriate keywords, and so your internal links within a site should make a point of using them.

It’s important to describe your site with an XML SiteMap or via RSS feed, which you get for free with blogs. When you link to other sites, you are dividing up your own link strength among the sites you link to, unless you use the NOFOLLOW tag, which you should do when linking to sites you don’t want to promote in search engine results. NOFOLLOW is also a good idea when linking to sites that may engage in spam or other abuse, to prevent that abuse from reflecting on your site, as it might in Google search engine results, for example.

The Million Dollar Challenge: Dowser Connie Sonne
Everyone had to leave the auditorium for preparation for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge, with Danish dowser and former police detective Connie Sonne (who has described her alleged powers in an interview with Alison Smith of JREF). Everyone had to sign an agreement to remain silent and not disturb the proceedings before filing back in–and everyone remained quite quiet for the hour or so that it took for the test.

This was a preliminary test, with a 1 in 1000 probability of success by chance, which, if successful, would allow Connie Sonne to go on to the official challenge for the JREF’s $1,000,000. The protocol for the test was developed in conjunction with Connie Sonne and both sides approved. She signed paperwork describing the protocol and agreeing that she woudl go ahead with the test.

Connie Sonne claimed to be able to use a pendulum to identify playing cards without looking at them, and she successfully did this when she was able to see the cards. Sets of playing cards, A-10, for each of three suits were placed separately into envelopes. Each of those envelopes for the same suit was placed into a larger envelope, with the suit written on the outside. Banachek ran the test (I thought to myself at the time that this was a likely source of future complaint, given his skill at illusion), opening each of the three suit envelopes, one at a time, and rolling a 10-sided die to indicate which card from the suit Connie Sonne was required to locate. The ten individual card envelopes were spread out in front of her, and she used the pendulum to identify which envelope she believed contained the appropriate card. For the first set, she was supposed to find the 3 of hearts, for the second, the 7 of clubs, and for the third, the ace of spades. The cards she picked were the 2 of hearts, which was in the second envelope of the first set, the ace of clubs, which was in the seventh envelope of the second set, and the 2 of spades, which was in the first envelope of the third set. Banachek opened all of the envelopes from each of the three sets so that she could see that there was no trickery, and she agreed that all was done fairly.

At the subsequent press conference, she continued to maintain that all was fair, but that there was some reason she wasn’t supposed to reveal her powers to the world yet.

But by the next day, she decided that she had been cheated somehow by Banachek. Her main point of evidence was that Banachek identified the ace of spades from the third set before pulling the card out of the envelope–but it was the last card of the set to be opened, and he identified it after the end of the envelope had been cut off and as he started to pull it out. The cards were visible inside the envelopes once the ends were opened.

On July 13, she made her accusation of cheating on the JREF Forums:
Hi out there…now I know why Banacheck was “the card handler”. I have been cheated. I did find the right cards. And there is one more thing. At the stage, Banacheck said to me BEFORE he even looked in the envelope I had cut…and here is spade ace, the one you looked for!!!! I first hit me now about that ….but maybe you can see it yourself if someone get the video. I dont care about the money, that wasnt the reason why I came. So no matter what you think out there……I was CHEATED!!!!!

Connie
It was a typical response to the Randi challenge from an honest proponent of a claim who doesn’t understand why the claim failed under test conditions, resolving the cognitive dissonance by placing blame on the experimenter.

That concludes my summary of TAM7–I look forward to attending TAM8 next year.

The Arizona Skeptic online: vol. 7, 1994

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:18:00 +0000

Concluding the postings of The Arizona Skeptic; you can find volume 1 (1987-1988) here, volume 2 (1988-1989) here, volume 3 (1989-1990) is here, volume 4 (1990-1991) is here, and volume 5 (1991-1992) is here, and volume 6 (1992-1993) here. Volume 7 was edited by Mike Stackpole.

An index to all issues by title, author, and subject may be found here.

The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 7, no. 1, Summer 1994:

"Oh No--Spooks in a Skeptic's Home" by Hans Sebald

"Skeptics Predictions for 1994"

"Meeting Schedule for 1994"

"Where Have We Been?"

"What Harm Superstition?" by Michael A. Stackpole

"Skeptically Entertaining" by Michael A. Stackpole

While that was the last issue of The Arizona Skeptic published, there have been at least two published lists of skeptical predictions by the Phoenix Skeptics, for 1996, 2006, and 2007, and the group continues to meet on a monthly basis--at 12 p.m. (noon) on the first Saturday of each month at Jim's Coney Island Cafe in Tempe, 1750 N. Scottsdale Road, on the southeast corner of Scottsdale Road and McKellips.

There is also now an active Phoenix Skeptics in the Pub meetup group, which meets at 7 p.m. on the first Wednesday of each month at D'Arcy McGee's Pub at the Tempe Marketplace, 2000 E. Rio Salado Parkway.

UPDATE (March 18, 2010): Phoenix Skeptics in the Pub now meets at Four Peaks Brewery--see the meetup group link.

UPDATE (September 17, 2014): The Phoenix Area Skeptics Society has been active since 2012.

The Arizona Skeptic online: vol. 6, 1992-1993

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:24:00 +0000

Continuing the postings of The Arizona Skeptic; you can find volume 1 (1987-1988) here, volume 2 (1988-1989) here, volume 3 (1989-1990) is here, volume 4 (1990-1991) is here, and volume 5 (1991-1992) is here. Volume 6 was edited by Jim Lippard and has been available online since original publication as ASCII text.

An index to all issues by title, author, and subject may be found here. The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 6, no. 1, July/August 1992 (text version):

The Arizona Skeptic online: vol. 5, 1991-1992

Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:19:00 +0000

Continuing the postings of The Arizona Skeptic; you can find volume 1 (1987-1988) here, volume 2 (1988-1989) here, volume 3 (1989-1990) is here, and volume 4 (1990-1991) is here. Volume 5 was edited by Jim Lippard and has been available online since original publication as ASCII text.

An index to all issues by title, author, and subject may be found here.

The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 5, no. 1, July/August 1991 (text version):

"Rosenthal Lecture" by Jim Lippard
"Book Review: Philosophical Essays in Pragmatic Naturalism by Paul Kurtz" reviewed by Bill Green
"Book Review: Pitfalls in Human Research: Ten Pivotal Points by Theodore X. Barber" reviewed by Jim Lippard
"Book Review: They Call It Hypnosis by Robert A. Baker" reviewed by Jim Lippard
Editor's Column
CORRECTION: To "Dissension in the Ranks of the Institute for Creation Research"
Upcoming Meetings
The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 5, no. 2, September/October 1991 (text version):
"Dianetics: From Out of the Blue?" by Jeff Jacobsen
"Book Review: Bryant's Law and Other Broadsides by John Bryant" reviewed by Jim Lippard
"Hypnosis and Free Will" by Jim Lippard
Next Issue
Upcoming Meetings: October speaker Don Lacheman of Sun Magic, November speaker Louis Rhodes of the Arizona Civil Liberties Union
Articles of Note
The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 5, no. 3, November/December 1991 (text version):
"Postscript to 'Some Failures of Organized Skepticism'" by Jim Lippard
"Book Review: The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie" reviewed by Hans Sebald, Ph.D.
"Book Review: The Unfathomed Mind by William R. Corliss" reviewed by Jim Lippard
"Book Review: Labyrinths of Reason by William Poundstone" reviewed by Mark Adkins
Letters (from Mark Adkins, Beth Fischi)
"Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road? An Episode of Human Folly" by Mark Adkins
Articles of Note
"October Meeting: 'Magical Moments'" by Ron Harvey: speaker Don Lacheman
Next Issue
Upcoming Meetings: December: 1992 predictions, January: Rene Pfalzgraf on neuro-linguistic programming
The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 5, no. 4, January/February 1992 (text version):
"Predictions for 1992!" compiled by Mike Stackpole
"Comments on Lippard's Review of They Call It Hypnosis" by Robert A. Baker
"Book Review: Alcoholics Anonymous: Cult or Cure? by Chaz Bufe" reviewed by Terry Sandbek, Ph.D.
Next Issue
Upcoming Meetings
The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 5, no. 5, March/April 1992 (text version):
"About 'The Vitality of Mythical Numbers' and 'Truth Almost Extinct in Tales of Imperiled Species'" by Jim Lippard
"The Vitality of Mythical Numbers" by Max Singer
"Truth Almost Extinct in Tales of Imperiled Species" by Julian Simon
"Book Review: Space-Time Transients and Unusual Events by Michael A. Persinger and Gyslaine F. Lafrenière" reviewed by Jim Lippard
Next Issue
Upcoming Meetings
Request for Submissions
Articles of Note
The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 5, no. 6, May/June 1992 (text version):
"An Observation of the Famous Marfa Lights" by James Long
"The Marfa Lights" by Hal Finney
Letters (from John Bryant)
Editorial Note Regarding the "Mars Effect"
"Book Review: The Mind Game by Norman Spinrad" reviewed by Jim Lippard
Upcoming Meetings
Articles of Note
Volume 6 continued for just short of another year under my editorship, with five issues published for 1992-1993.

P.Z. Myers on the Creation Museum

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 22:51:00 +0000

P.Z. Myers has written a review of his trip to the Creation “Museum” with nearly three hundred atheists from the Secular Student Alliance, and it’s probably the best summary of what’s wrong with the Creation Museum I’ve read to date. He points out that it’s not like a real museum, promoting exploration and discussion, it’s more like a theme park ride.

Mark (2009-08-11):

But with your reputation of trying to be fair in reporting on the creation/evolution debate, do you actually believe the Creation Museum preaches racism (as PZ viciously claims)? The museum teaches the very opposite, and its exhibits mirror our teachings found on our site of www.onehumanrace.com -- Mark Looy, Creation Museum

The Arizona Skeptic online: vol. 4, 1990-1991

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:48:00 +0000

Continuing the postings of The Arizona Skeptic; you can find volume 1 (1987-1988) here, volume 2 (1988-1989) here, volume 3 (1989-1990) is here. Volume 4 was edited by Mike Stackpole.

An index to all issues by title, author, and subject may be found here.

The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 4, no. 1, July 1990:

"Self-Deception and the Paranormal" by Michael A. Stackpole
"The Curious Case of the Cross of Chaos" by Michael A. Stackpole
"Book Review: But Is It Science? edited by Michael Ruse" reviewed by Jim Lippard (duplicate)
Editorial Prattle
"July Meeting" by Ron Harvey: speaker James McGaha on astronomy
"The Return of Scapegoats" by Michael A. Stackpole
The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 4, no. 2, December 1990/January 1991:
1991 Predictions of the Phoenix Skeptics
"Note of Importance" by Michael A. Stackpole (re the Plimer/Price controversy)
"Ralph Epperson: Clueless Creationist" by Jim Lippard
Meeting Announcements: January: G. Harry Stine on the neurophone
Editorial Prattle
"December Meeting" by Ron Harvey: speaker Jim Speiser on UFOs
That was it for volume 4--publication got back on a regular schedule again with volume 5, when I took over as editor.

The Amazing Meeting 7: ethics of deception panel, Bauer, skepticism and media panel, Plait

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:19:00 +0000

This is part five of my summary of TAM7, now up to Saturday, July 10. Part 1 is here, part 2 is here, part 3 is here, part 4 is here, and my coverage of the Science-based Medicine conference begins here.

Ethics of Deception Panel
D.J. Grothe moderated a panel discussion on the role of magic in skepticism and the ethics of deception, featuring Penn Jillette, Teller, Ray Hyman, and Jamy Ian Swiss. D.J. began by asking whether magic teaches critical thinking, to which Jamy Ian Swiss responded yes, and pointed to Danny Hillis hiring a magic tutor for his kids so that they could learn how methods of deception work. Everybody else on the panel disagreed, beginning with Ray Hyman, who observed that there are kooky magicians. Swiss agreed that there are magicians who are gullible and that learning magic doesn’t make you a skeptic, but said that it was useful to him. This brief exchange then occurred:
D.J.: Teller, did you have a comment?
Teller: No.
D.J. Just as we rehearsed.
As it turned out, Teller did have a comment–he said that while some magicians think that doing the trick and saying “this is not real” is just as good as explaining it, it isn’t–and “you should explain it.” Ray Hyman seconded the point, saying, “exposing tricks that can be done in multiple ways gives people a false sense of ability to detect fakery.” Faraday’s explanation of spiritualist table-tipping caused Alfred Russell Wallace to become convinced of the existence of spirits when a medium used a different method on him. Hyman said this is what is known as being “half-smart,” which is the card cheat’s term for a guy who knows something about card cheating. The card cheat then asks him what he knows, and then adapts his methods to not use those and not get caught. (Penn Jillette’s recent book, How to Cheat Your Friends at Poker, discusses this very subject.)

The topic then turned to mentalism, about which Ray Hyman said, you can teach the methods of cold reading in one day. Mentalists will complain about it, but not magicians. About the Psychic Entertainers Assocation, Jamy Ian Swiss said “they are neither psychic nor entertaining.” Hyman said that psychic entertainers are now mostly people competing with psychotherapists. Penn said that cold reading should be exposed, as it’s being used to deceive people.

D.J. asked about the “poor man’s psychotherapist defense” of such “psychic entertainment”–isn’t it similar to Rogerian psychotherapy (named after Carl Rogers)? Ray Hyman pointed out that they can cause harm in many circumstances, such as their inability to recognize suicidal symptoms. Penn went further and said, “lying always does harm and is mmoral, it has no justification”–but then offered “exceptions for loved ones and medical situations.” Hyman pointed out the distinction between lying by commission and lying by omission, and both he and Penn agreed that “lying by omission is also a lie” (quoting Penn). D.J. observed that that’s a very uncompromising position on lying. But Penn then said, “how can you love someone without lying to them,” and suggested that kindness and politeness requires lying of the sort that he made exceptions for in his previous statement.

D.J. then brought up mentalists who are also skeptics and who don’t make psychic claims, such as Derren Brown and Banachek (who was at the conference, but unfortunately not part of this panel–I think his viewpoint would have been a very worthwhile addition). D.J. pointed out that Brown claims a “deep understanding of human psychology,” while Banachek will say that he is drawing inferences based on posture or facial expression. He asked the question, “Are they equally unethical?"

Teller said that he has argued with Brown, and Brown is moving to a more honest position–his latest book says that he’s doing tricks, and says things like “I have special ways of dealing with information,” which is true. He said that in Penn & Teller shows, they give no hint of the supernatural, so “we get the credit.” Penn said that there are two places in their current show “where I say I’m doing one thing and am actually doing another. I wrestle with the ethical implications. If you admit you’re lying, it’s more like an actor playing a role. But there are two places in the show where I pretend to be speaking earnestly but am not."

Ray Hyman said that Jerry Andrus was the most honest guy in the world, but he said that a magician on the stage has a license to lie. It’s theater. (In my notes, I wrote–“But does ‘it’s TV’ suffice?”–a topic that came up shortly.)

Jamy Ian Swiss says that he is working to develop some mentalist techniques which present things that are convincing looking, but which obviously cannot be happening. He suggests that the effect will be more impressive if he can give the audience confidence that he cannot do what he then appears to do.

Ray Hyman said that a distinction between magic and mentalism is that mentalism is boring, and can only be dragged on (to show length) if people think that it’s real. “If you believe the stuff is real, what’s the appeal of mentalism?” Teller seconded that point–“if you pretend it’s possible, it’s just nature."

D.J. brought up the example of Mark Salem, who “claims a well-developed understanding of the human mind,” and asked, “why do we give skeptical mentalists a pass?” Jamy Ian Swiss then criticized Salem. Ray Hyman said that when he performed, he would say that he has no special powers, and “whatever I can do, you can do. There’s nothing abnormal or paranormal about it.” Teller said, “The correct answer to how it’s done is–it’s a trick.” Penn said that if people come up to him after a show and really want to know how it’s done, he’ll tell them. But he gave the example of a very famous magic trick (he didn’t say which one) that fooled everyone who saw it, is protected by a patent, that you can look up. There’s a multi-page description of how it’s done, but few people bother to read past the first few pages. He said, “[Jim] Steinmeyer says magicians are guarding an empty safe. If we explained the bullet catch trick, it would not be interesting. The tricks we expose are the ones where the secret is interesting and clever. In the bullet catch we’re hiding messy ugliness. … Valentino, the masked magician, couldn’t reveal the real good-looking tricks because they don’t have the ‘aha!’ cleverness.” Teller observed that people have accurately described how the bullet catch is done online, but it still looks amazing. Penn pointed out that there are also inaccurate descriptions of the bullet catch on the Internet, so he’d hate to see somebody else try to do it. Teller suggested that Adam Savage put them to the test on Mythbusters.

D.J. said that “believers will always be with us–are disclaimers necessary?” (He observed that he was reformulating a quote from Jesus that “the poor will always be with us.”) Ray Hyman suggested that disclaimers create an “invited inference problem,” taking away any reason to challenge or question, and thereby promoting belief. Penn commented that “There was no Jesus, so the quote is wrong."

Finally, D.J. turned to the question of using magicians in scientific investigations, as James Randi has long recommended, to which Penn said, “it depends upon the magician.” Ray Hyman said that “scientists do not do tests,” and that “magicians can hurt the process.” He pointed out that Milbourne Christopher was fooled by Uri Geller, and made up a bogus explanation for metal bending in terms of chemicals on his hands that became a parody scientific explanation like “swamp gas” for UFOs. Randi then came up and said that “magicians for parapsychology tests need to have a deep and broad knowledge of magic, not just know how to do a few tricks. Half-smart is not smart at all. Be all-smart or forget it.” He went on to make his common point that Ph.D.s can easily be fooled even though they’re not dumb. Randi also said that there is a place for “white lies,” giving an example that will appear in his biography, being written by Tim Steinberg. He sent a letter to his grandfather shortly before his death at the age of 94, in which he said “I believe you will be with your wife at death,” in order to give comfort in a situation where the lie did no harm. He said that he’s glad to see Derren Brown coming clean, and said that “Uri Geller is trying to come clean, but he’s fucked–he lied to governments and research institutions. … He now says he wants to be known as a ‘mystifier.’” He suggested that the media should ask Geller, “yes or no, have you ever used psychic powers that do not involve trickery,” but when they do, he’ll hang up the phone and refuse to answer the question.

In the Q&A, the first question was about Criss Angel, David Blaine, and “street magic,” and in particular the way that the TV audience doesn’t see the same thing that someone there would see. Jamy Ian Swiss said that David Blaine made some early irresponsible claims. Teller said that when you watch TV, “it’s the proscenium,” which seems to me an erroneous comparison that could be used to justify all sorts of misrepresentation in the name of entertainment. Jamy Ian Swiss said that TV specials on magic have a credibility issue because of the possibility of editing and camera tricks, but that street magic was a good idea. Teller said it’s an aesthetic issue rather than a moral issue, and that he sees editing to produce effects OK–that the rules aren’t the same for TV. Penn said he didn’t think David Blaine would entertain, and observed that “reality TV is fake. Lots of people know it, but some think everything on TV is real."

Another questioner said she appreciated Penn’s comment on global warming as pseudoscience (which I didn’t note in my notes and don’t recall what he said), to which Penn responded, “Don’t listen to me, I’m the least qualified to talk about” the subject, and said “we won’t do a Bullshit! show on global warming.” He said “If there is global warming, and there probably is, we don’t know if we caused it. But if we caused it, and we probably did, we don’t know if we can stop it. But if we can stop it, and we probably can, we don’t know if socialism is required."

(Mark Edward, a skeptic who works as a mentalist who was also at TAM7, was disappointed with this panel and expresses his opinion in a comment at skepticblog.org.)

At this point I stepped out for a moment, while Robert Lancaster was given the Skeptical Citizen Award, and returned as a documentary film on Jerry Andrus was being shown. It told a bit about Jerry’s life and his house, the “Castle of Chaos,” filled with his inventions, including puzzles, optical illusions, magical effects, and mechanical and electronic devices of his creation.

Stephen Bauer on Jerry Andrus
Stephen Bauer, an attorney and member of Oregonians for Rationality, has attended every TAM, but this was his first time as a presenter. He gave the story of how he found skepticism–his mother was a big fan of woo including a believer in the psychic powers of Uri Geller, and to combat his skepticism she gave him a copy of The Magic of Uri Geller without reading it. As this was the original title of James Randi’s debunking of Geller (now known as The Truth About Uri Geller), he found it very persuasive, though said his mother didn’t care much for it when she then looked at it a bit deeper when he told her he thought the book was completely correct.

Bauer wrote to James Randi asking for an explanation of how ouija boards work, and he suggested that Bauer talk to Ray Hyman at the University of Oregon about the ideomotor effect. He then joined Oregonians for Rationality and began attending the summer Skeptic’s Toolbox workshops at the University of Oregon, where Jerry Andrus came up and introduced himself.

He then told some stories about Jerry Andrus. At Halloween, Andrus would never give candy, only a trick. Sometimes he would answer the door as a floating disembodied head. One year he would open the door, then lean over beyond the point at which he should have fallen, and then straighten back up, then shut the door.

Andrus was a magician, a skeptic, and an inventor. He had been visited by film crews from three continents. He never married, had no kids. He lived in the same house for 80 years. He performed every six months at the Magic Castle.

His house, an 1891 Victorian home, was known as the “Castle of Chaos” and was filled with things that he had collected, designed, and built, though not a single piece of traditional furniture. He was an artist, photographer, poet, musician, composer, and agnostic.

He called Bauer for an estate plan, which ended up being a simple will that left everything to his brother George, who is 93 years old.

The Castle of Chaos contained a full printing shop in the attic, which required metal bands to be put around the room to keep it from shaking apart from its operation. Andrus printed his own books. He also had his own photo studio, from which three pickup loads of photo chemicals had to be disposed.

After his death, a group of volunteers from Oregonians for Science and Reason worked regularly on his house to catalog its contents, dispose of unsalvageable items, and put items into storage. Bauer spent his sabbatical working 12 hours a day on Andrus’s house.

Just the recycled items included 32,000 pounds of scrap metal, 2 cords of scrap wood, 1,000 cubic feet of plastic, and fans, hair dryers, and “air moving devices."

The house had a ground-level crawlspace with four entrances, three of which featured a set of amusement park railroad tracks leading under the house, on which Jerry could lie down on a device of his own construction and push himself under the house, where he stored various items. Among those items included gigantic magnets, which he could use to make the planchette on a ouija board in his house spell out things.

He had a Hammond organ, heavily customized with his own additions, connected by a spaghetti tangle of wires.

And the house contained much that they couldn’t figure out, like the wiring. A black sock hanging in the bathroom was pulled down, setting off a security system–which they didn’t know existed. An electronic rat trap in one room turned out to be a device for launching tennis balls and spoons during simulated seances. He had a slide projector that he made from a motorcycle engine.

They found that he had all of the letters he received when he was a soldier in WWII, which will now be donated to a military museum. They collected 120 boxes of materials now being kept in a storage unit, which include 3 dozen boxes of letters, notes, and writings, 20 boxes of mixed media, and 4 volumes (2000 pages) of his daily journal of “Scribulations."

Stephen Bauer finished up with some thanks to the late John Lar, who died in 2008, for getting the Castle Chaos project started, and noted that Lar’s wife had cared for Jerry in his final days. He told a little bit about Jerry’s 93-year-old brother George, a musician with a “house of wonders” of his own, who has been making videos of soap bubbles featuring his own music (the linked video also features Jerry). He ended with a quote from Tycho Brahe, who left all of his work to Kepler with the comment, “Let me not seem to have lived in vain, let me not seem to have lived in vain."

Hal Bidlack then said, “A man should live his life so that when it comes time for him to die, he has nothing left to do but die. It seems like Mr. Andrus did that."

(I remember Jerry Andrus as a quiet and soft-spoken guy who was a regular fixture at all of the Skeptics Society conferences at Caltech. He would usually be found next to his table of his optical illusions, some of which will now always be present at every TAM, which he would be happy to help demonstrate to anyone who stopped by.)

Skepticism and the Media Panel
This was an unmoderated Q&A panel featuring Penn and Teller, Adam Savage, Bill Prady, and Jennifer Ouellette. A few of the questions and answers I noted (I missed most of them as I was trying to ask a question myself, which I previously tried to ask of the ethics of deception panel).

Q. Why can’t the Daily Show or Colbert take down Jenny McCarthy?

A. Penn: That’s not the sort of thing they do.

Q. What was the biggest media failure of skepticism recently?

A. Adam Savage: The NPR ombudsman taking the position that calling waterboarding “torture” is taking sides, and defending it on the basis of having to be balanced.

A. Penn: The truth isn’t in the middle.

Q. Dave from Phoenix: Any opinion on TBN or Benny Hinn?

A. Jennifer Ouellette: I grew up in a fundamentalist household, went to faith healing meetings, etc. It’s fantasy. My parents still beleive they can speak in tongues.

Q. The subtext here is on getting facts right and of leaders being of exemplary character. How can we promote character, service to the public, telling the truth, and owning the consequences of your actions?

A. Adam Savage: It’s unattainable. There’s a percentage of assholes everywhere.

A. Penn: Most people are good; there are 6 billion good people. Disagreement doesn’t make them assholes, but I still call them assholes on my show.

Q. What about historical accuracy? The History Channel creating bogus doubt?

A. (Savage? Prady?) So what have you done about it? .. Hal took your mike away…

A. Savage: We’re one of the few shows that goes back and corrects our mistakes. Wouldn’t it be great if the History Channel came out and said all of their Nostradamus documentaries of the last 20 years were wrong? (Laughter from the audience.) Only skeptics and history teachers laugh at that. Many film crews don’t care about truth. Mythbusters visited hurricane researchers who said they’re always misrepresented.

A. Prady: We said on an episode [of “The Big Bang Theory”] that a Van Dyke is a goatee without a mustache. It’s wrong, we will correct it.

Q. The ridicule of pseudoscience–what is appropriate, heavy ridicule, no ridicule?

A. Penn: I’m not in favor of heavy ridicule. We do it towards ourselves and allies as well as believers.

A. Jennifer Ouellette: Humor can be a powerful convincing mechanism. If it’s mean spirited, though, that’s different.

A. Penn: The joke of our show is that we’re calling bullshit. The message is pro-science and respect each other, and Pollyanna-ish hippie shit. I love crazy people. I’m in the category of the wack job. When I went on “Politically Incorrect,” a show that always has one nut, I looked around and I didn’t see the nut. I straddle both sides–if a gun were held to my head and asked what are you, a skeptic or a nut, I’m the nut. .

A. Prady: “Big Bang Theory” was originally about computer programmers, but it was too hard to photograph [due to reflections from screens]. The message of the show is that everybody thinks other people have life figured out–and nobody does.

A. Teller: On the Orgasm episode of Bullshit!, we talk about a guy who has a crazy orgasm machine for a hot tub, and it turns out it’s Penn. (Voiceover for Teller: “And then there’s this asshole…”) (The “Jill-Jet,” U.S. patent #5,920,923.)

Q. Richard Saunders: Does anyone on “The Big Bang Theory” do origami?

A. Prady: Sheldon knows origami but just doesn’t do it on the show. You only see days something interesting happens. (“Oooh!” from audience.) Sorry, that was cheap.

…

A. Penn: Bullshit! in Sweden is called skitsnack–“shitcock."

…

A. Savage: There are partnerships involved here. There is huge strength in push-pull. We drive each other nuts, but the product is better.

A. Penn: We hope to get famous enough that only one of us has to show up.

Q. (To P&T:) Did you know George Carlin, and why don’t we address comedy more often?

A. Penn: Carlin was a hero of mine. I spoke to him on the phone quite a bit. I don’t think comedians, magicians, or skeptics matter–it’s individuals. There are wackjobs in comedy. We shouldn’t celebrate a form, just individuals.

A. Savage: I find it interesting that all practitioners say that their field is the only pure one. I knew a package design professor who said that package design is the only pure art form. Hal Bidlack: That was not thinking outside the box. (Big cheer from audience.)

Q. Can you offer words to young skeptics held down by the beliefs of their parents?

A. Ouellette: Voracious reading. I couldn’t watch “Welcome Back, Kotter.” My parents would burn non-Christian books. I left home at 17 for college.

A. Penn: You shouldn’t manipulate, just say what is true. Don’t talk to adolescents differently, just talk to a general audience. Don’t try to “reach” adolescents.

Q. What do you think of fake skeptics on shows like “Ghost Hunters”?

A. Penn: House, Bones, Num3ers (pronounced “numb-three-ers”), etc. All have atheists. Atheists and skeptics have it good on major shows right now. We’re not martyrs. Hitchens said we have no saints or martyrs. There are minorities being fucked over in this country, and we’re not it. (Though atheists are more mistrusted than other groups.)

Q. What’s the role of skepticism in broadcasting?

A. Prady: Make them central as characters, and stay on the air, and don’t have a social message, just have fun.

A. Savage: We didn’t set out to inspire scientists–if we set out to do that, we’d be pompous, pretentious, and fail. We’ve done our show for 7 years and want to do 5 more.

Q. (For Teller, about why he has a bottle of water in front of him despite the Bullshit! show on bottled water.)

A. Teller: I filled the bottle using the tap in the men’s room.

…

A. Ouellette: To reach minds, reach for hearts, from your heart.

My question was something like, “The movie ‘Expelled’ received a lot of criticism for the deceptive way in which it obtained interviews from its subjects. Theology professor Paul Maier has made similar charges about his appearance in the Bullshit! episode on The Bible. I was glad to hear on the ethics in deception panel that you agree that lying by omission is wrong. Can you comment?” It turns out I misremembered Maier’s criticism, which was about his views being completely mangled by the editing, not being deceived about what show he was on, though his comments make it seem like he was surprised about the nature of the show. I would have thought the title would be a hint.

Penn responded that he didn’t know who Maier was, and didn’t quite get the point of my question. I met up with him in the hallway between sessions, and pointed out that Maier was an actual guest on the show, not just some blogger writing about it, and he laughed at the misunderstanding. He said that the contracts for everyone who appears on the show state that the show is Penn & Teller’s Bullshit!, but that just because he was given that information in the contract and signed it doesn’t mean that he read it and knew it. (Bullshit! writer Michael Goudeau, standing next to Penn, concurred that the contracts name the show.) I offered to point him to Maier’s critique, but he said that he had no interest in reading it and Maier can say whatever he likes. I don’t find that entirely satisfactory given the strong stance against lying that Penn took during the ethics of deception panel.

I also discussed this on Friday evening with Michael Shermer, who was previously criticized by a commenter at this blog for his role in that same episode of Bullshit! on the Bible. Shermer pointed out that he had no idea of what Maier said and wasn’t responding specifically to his remarks, but just answering questions asked by the interviewer. He also observed that Penn & Teller don’t write the show, or do much more for any given show than show up to record their scenes and voice overs, though of course they bear some responsibility given that it has their names on it.

Phil Plait on Doomsday 2012
The final talk of the day was Phil Plait on “Doomsday 2012,” the idea that the world will be coming to an end on December 12, 2012 based on the end of the Mayan calendar and an alleged Mayan prophecy of the end of the world, a popular topic for questions to NASA.

He began by saying that the Mayans were good astronomers and had a good calendar system, and had the largest centralized civilization of their time, but they didn’t predict their own civilization being absorbed into others. The claim of an alleged prophecy of destruction is false–it doesn’t exist–it’s just that their calendar system ends and rolls over.

Back in 2003 at TAM1, Plait spoke about Planet X and Nibiru, and warned that this idea would come back, and he was correct.

He spent the rest of the talk looking at what could possibly cause the destruction of the earth in 2012, and what’s the evidence. First, perhaps a “Sun of Doom”? Looking at solar flares and sunspots–would that activity peak in 2012? Sunspots will probably peak in 2013, solar flare activity in 2013 or 2014.

An asteroid or comet impact? None known to be on a collision path.

Next, perhaps a “Galaxy of Doom” or “Milky Way of Doom”? The Milky Way galaxy is 100 billion to 200 billion stars in a flattened disc, which appears to us as a strip, since we’re in it. He talked about the Galactic equator, and that the sun is close to it. As an aside, he remarked that 75% of the American public doesn’t know both that the earth rotates once per day and revolves around the sun once per year, let alone that the earth is at a tilt with the northern axis pointed at Polaris, which is the reason for the seasons. (Note: This stat seems somewhat dubious, since a 1999 Gallup poll found that 79% of Americans correctly answered that the earth revolves around the sun. Would that really drop all the way to 25% just by asking for frequency of revolution and rotation? And if so, how much of that is merely confusion between the terms “revolution” and “rotation”?)

He talked about the precession of the equinoxes, caused by the gravity of the sun and moon, which goes through one circle every 24,000 years, and the map position of the sun at the winter solstice crosses the Galactic equator. But that happened in 1998. So some have said that we are “in that era” of the crossing, which takes about 18 years; we’re near the end of that era.

What about the idea that there’s a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy that will do something? Plait said that, oddly, he hasn’t seen this claim made–oddly because it’s wrong. The sun is closest to the galactic center on December 19, 2010, too late by a week. And a black hole 260 quadrillion km away would have a gravitational force 1.5 trillionth of the sun. The gravity from Mars and the moon is significantly greater.

In short, Plait concluded, these claims are all “cosmic colons, full of astronomical crap."

JREF Update/Wrapup
The day ended with a JREF update, first from Jeff Wagg, noting that this was the first TAM being broadcast via streaming video, with a total of over 18,500 visitors, 850 at a time the last he looked.

JREF has done cruises to Alaska, Mexico, the Galapagos, and the Bermuda Triangle, and he took a poll of interest for another cruise next March, for which there was “mild interest."

He talked of SkeptiCamp, and the possibility of one occurring at the same time as TAM London, somewhere in the northeastern United States, possibly Boston, and asked those interested to contact him via email.

The JREF’s Swift newsletter subscription readership is growing–there are twice as many today as there were in January of this year. There’s a possibility of doing some kind of live video broadcast on a weekly basis.

He gave thanks to the JREF forum volunteers, and made another advertisement for the JREF scholarships, “if you’re going to school, we will give you money."

Phil Plait said he was blown away by Dr. Joe Albietz’s presentation on vaccination at SkeptiCamp Colorado, and gave an update on the vaccination drive–up to $8,500.

A. Kovacs, JREF director of operations, gave thanks to various people including one of the poker game participants who donated all of his winnings to the vaccination drive, and another donor who gave $1,000 but wanted to remain anonymous.

Matt Fiore was recognized as the most generous skeptic to the drive, and was given tickets to Lance Burton courtesy of Michael Goudeau.

And that wrapped up the regular conference programming for Saturday, July 11. Next up, a summary of the skeptical paper sessions for Sunday, and the Million Dollar Challenge that finished up TAM7.

Investigating Atheism

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:00:00 +0000

The faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge and University of Oxford have put together a website on “Investigating Atheism." Although it’s ironic that a bunch of theologians have done this, in my brief perusal of the site I haven’t found anything objectionable–it does a good job of putting current atheist arguments and personalities in historical context.

(Via the Secular Outpost.)

UPDATE: Well, they do have an article from well-known net kook John A. Davison. That’s a bit of an odd choice.

The Amazing Meeting 7: SGU, Shermer, Savage

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 01:13:00 +0000

This is part four of my summary of TAM7, now up to Saturday, July 10. Part 1 is here, part 2 is here, part 3 is here, and my coverage of the Science-based Medicine conference begins here.

Skeptics Guide to the Universe
Both Friday and Saturday morning began with live recording sessions for the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast, for which I didn’t bother to take notes, since it was being recorded (it’s Skeptics Guide podcast episode #208 and may be found on the website archive or via the iTunes store). The Saturday morning event began with a satirical ghost hunter video by Jay Novella, “The G Hunters” (part one, part two). But the real surprise came during the listener Q&A session, when Sid Rodrigues asked a question “maybe for Rebecca,” which turned out to be “Will you marry me?” A seemingly impromptu, but carefully planned wedding followed immediately, though there wasn’t enough cake for everyone, nor a champagne toast. All present did receive after-the-fact invitations as a nice memento, and there was a first dance for those who wanted to participate.

Michael Shermer
Michael Shermer prefaced his talk with an overview of the Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine that bore some resemblance to the introduction of his TED Talk of 2006. His talk, titled “Rise Above–Towards a Type I Civilization,” argued that we should work to rise above our tribal instincts, our evolutionary heritage, and the left-right political spectrum. He began by noting that most of our decisions are judgments made on uncertainties (a reference to the classic book Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, by Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky), made emotionally with intuitive leaps which are then followed by rationalization to provide reasons to justify what we’ve already decided to do. He observed that when the amygdala is damaged, this leads not only to loss of emotional capacity, but an inability to make decisions. We don’t fall into categories of good and evil, but good and evil run through each person, he said, referencing Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago. An individual’s expanding circles of concern are based on genetic relationships and kin selection, he said, and reciprocal altruism operates within kin/kind/community. We’re good to members of our in-group, but skeptical and cautious about other groups.

He spoke briefly about the left-right political spectrum, arguing instead for a three-dimensional Nolan chart that is used by libertarians with a misleading questionnaire as a recruiting tool. While I agree with Shermer that the left-right spectrum has serious weaknesses, I don’t think the Nolan chart is much of an improvement, especially when the coordinates on the chart are determined by a limited set of questions that are worded in a way that glosses over details. Better, I think, is to recognize that the space of political positions really encompasses far more dimensions. Shermer asked the audience how many considered themselves to be left of center, right, or libertarians, and the answers were about 1-2 people right of center, 15-20% libertarian, and the rest self-described liberal. He put up a couple of slides containing exaggerated stereotypical descriptions of how conservatives view liberals and vice versa, which produced cheers to both. He put up the political map of red and blue states based on the last presidential election results, and pointed out that the map is misleading, because if you look at it on a more granular level the country is really a mass of purple. (Though he didn’t mention or address the thesis of Bill Bishop’s The Big Sort.) He noted that his speaking out about his libertarianism has raised more ire than his views on religion (theism), and stated that it’s fine to disagree, but that political topics should be open to discussion. This was probably the most controversial talk of the conference, and it, along with Shermer’s recent interview on the Point of Inquiry podcast, have led to some to argue that skepticism should be apolitical. Shermer said that he’s been told that he should be apolitical, “like Carl Sagan,” to which Shermer (correctly) responded that Sagan was not apolitical, as he argued for a number of liberal causes, including nuclear disarmament (a cause for which he was twice arrested during protests).

He then turned to some more interesting research, Jonathan Haidt’s work on how people make moral judgments. Haidt has hypothesized that we make moral judgments based on five scales, which Shermer compared to “a five-channel moral equalizer”:
care: Protection from harm.
fairness: Justice, equality.
loyalty: Family, group, nation.
authority: Respect for law, tradition, and traditional institutions.
purity: Rules about sexual conduct, recognition of sacredness.
Liberals tend to emphasize the first two items, which place a focus on individual rights, while conservatives use those two and the remaining three about equally, and the last three focus on group cohesiveness. These tendencies seem to hold up across cultures.

Shermer apparently argued that all five of these scales are important, saying that “since 9/11, things have changed,” and noting that group loyalty is now getting some emphasis from left-atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Shermer argued that religious extremists are dangerous, and are assisted by religious moderates. I think this is actually a badly mistaken inference to draw. Sure, there are extremists who are out to harm the U.S., but terrorism is a strategy of the militarily weak against the strong, and the right way to combat it is not by doing things like launching an invasion and occupying a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (Iraq), engaging in torture and abuse, and causing religious moderates to join with the extremists, but rather by a divide-and-conquer strategy that isolates the extremists from the moderates and maintains the moral high ground. (Skeptic and physicist Taner Edis, from Turkey, has criticized Sam Harris for his misunderstanding of Islam, as has Chris Hedges who, despite his sometimes annoying attitude, made some good points on the subject in his Point of Inquiry interview.)

To support his point, Shermer showed a clip from the film “A Few Good Men” in which Jack Nicholson defends his position of ordering a “Code Red” to engage in self-enforcement to punish a slacker in the military ranks as an ugly and unpleasant necessity.

Shermer then turned to the Kardashev scale referenced in his title, which classifies civilizations into Type 0 (energy produced from dead plants and animals), Type I (planetary civilizations controlling the energy of an entire planet), Type II (stellar civilizations controlling the energy of an entire sun), and Type III (a civilization controlling all of the energy in an entire galaxy). Shermer gave an ordering from Type 0 to Type II, with tribal communities at 0.3, liberal democracies at 0.8, and then described Type I civilizations as including a global wireless (why wireless?) communication system (the Internet), a global language (English, most likely), a global culture (why not diverse cultures?), and global free trade, which breaks down tribal barriers. He didn’t really provide an argument for the details of the how and why, apart from that short defense of global free trade and a little more he said later, pointing to the work of Fredric Bastiat (Bastiat’s axiom: where goods cross frontiers, armies will not), which he augmented with the “Starbucks theory of war” (two nations with Starbucks won’t fight each other) and the “Google Theory of Peace” (where information and knowledge cross frontiers, armies will not).

He then cited the work of Rudy Rummel on democracy and war, stating that between 1860 and 2005 there have been 371 wars, of which 205 were between non-democratic nations, 166 were between democracies and non-democracies, and 0 were between democracies. He said that some have challenged the details of the classifications, but that in general, democracies seem to be less likely to engage in war as a means of resolving disputes.

He concluded by saying that rising above tribal instincts is hard, and quoted Katherine Hepburn’s line from “The African Queen”: “Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we must rise above."

I didn’t get a chance to ask my question in the Q&A, but I went up to Shermer afterward and suggested that the tribal in-group seems to be a biological/mathematical limitation of our memories and processing capabilities with respect to the number of combinations of relationships we can track. Anthropologist Robin Dunbar’s work on this topic has led to what is called the “Dunbar number” or a “Dunbar circle,” which is the number of people you can keep track of and that make up your in-group, and it’s about 150. Studies of Facebook users show that even those with thousands of friends still engage in most of their interactions with a group of 150 or fewer. So my question was, in light of that limitation, how can we rise above tribal membership? Shermer’s answer was the same one I would have given, which is that although we may still be limited to that number of relationships, today they don’t have to be limited by geography, and so the way to “rise above” is to have lots of these small groups. Shermer suggested that we need to avoid any such groups having a political monopoly, but the real concern is how those small groups build coalitions which obtain and exercise political power, and what they try to do with it. I’m not sure there’s any getting around the problem of having political institutions which govern vastly larger numbers of people.

My own opinion on whether “skepticism” should be apolitical and avoid religious topics is that skeptical organizations should avoid taking positions on those topics, except where there are clear empirically testable hypotheses. (For example, it should be perfectly legitimate for a skeptical organization to publish an examination of the social and psychological factors that cause people to give credence to crackpots like Orly Taitz and Philip Berg, and their respective bogus Kenyan and Canadian Obama birth certificates–as well as to examine the facts around topics like the “birther” controversy.) Individual skeptics, however, should feel free to argue for whatever positions they hold, while being cognizant of what is within the realm of the empirical and what is more philosophical. I don’t think Shermer’s talk should have been ruled inappropriate for TAM, though I would have liked to have seen a bit more science and argument in the talk, and I wouldn’t want to see a whole bunch of talks that all touched on politics or religion, especially if they all came from a single viewpoint.

(UPDATE: I recently came across something I wrote relevant to this point about ten years ago on Usenet, which I still agree with today:

“The skeptic’s position should be, on any issue where there isn’t conclusive evidence one way or another, either agnosticism or tentative acceptance of the view that seems to be best supported–but with tolerance for those who accept other views which are also inconclusively supported by the evidence. In other words, there is no and should be no official skeptic’s position.

Further, there shouldn’t be an official skeptic’s position on subjects which are matters of political ideology, religious faith, or metaphysical views on which empirical science is silent.”)

Adam Savage
Adam Savage of Mythbusters gave a talk not directly related to skepticism, but to which everyone could relate–a talk about personal failure. He said that he is often asked how he attained his success, and he said that he didn’t follow a straight path and that he had a lot of failures along the way. He began by referring to Aaron Sorkin’s “Sports Night,” which he called the best 26 hours of television. In an episode of the second season, a billionaire who’s going to buy the show says, “Dana. I’m what the world considers to be a phenomenally successful man. And I’ve failed much more than I’ve succeeded. And each time I fail, I get my people together, and I say, “Where are we going?” And it starts to get better. And that’s what you should do."

Savage said that he wanted to present the details of how spectacular and painful some of his failures have been. He said that he’s been fired from a production assistant job, he’s been divorced, and he’s yelled at his kids. All of our lives are two steps forward, one step back. He got a job at Industrial Light and Magic, working with his heroes, a job he’d wanted since he was 11. In the SFX industry, everybody is freelance, working on jobs for a time, and always looking for the next. But at ILM, there is no selling required. He said your resume is just three words–just four words–Industrial Light and Magic. And he would also take extra outside jobs.

His friend Ben called him with a job that he couldn’t take because of the short turn-around time. A department store wanted a window display within five days, that depicted a ballpark fence. What they wanted was baseballs automatically being pitched over the fence on a continuous basis.

Savage bid his day rate, $300-$500/day, plus a market-rate rush fee. It was a really fat paycheck for five days work. He got pitching machines and a ballfeeder, built it, and watched it work 70 times in a row, and then fail. He figured this was a solvable problem. He stayed up all night Friday and Saturday morning trying to get it to work–it was originally supposed to be ready by Saturday, and needed on Monday (?)–and brought it to the store to assemble. It turned out that the size of the display area was different from what he was told, and in the new set up it was down to 30-40 balls in a row before failure, so would fail every 3 hours. He observed that there’s a reason the displays in airports with balls moving around on tracks use fixed rails, rather than tubes like he was using–rails lead to balls moving in a predictable amount of time, while the air resistance in a tube makes the timing unpredictable. So he added an air blower to force the balls down the tubes.

The next problem was that when one pitching machine pitches, it takes more power, which causes the other two machines to slow down, increasing the failure rate. He had relatives coming into town at 6 p.m. on Saturday and it still wasn’t working. He came to the conclusion that no amount of effort is going to make it work, and told his employer that in 30 minutes he would present three alternatives and have whichever one they chose implemented by 8 a.m. the next morning. He came up with a new solution using a monofilament chain connected to the balls, simulating the motion of a pitched ball–no pitching machines. He stayed up all night and visited Home Depot repeatedly, and finally got it working with 10 baseballs.

The National Head of Display came to look at the display, and said, “it looks great, but I don’t like the balls–get rid of them."

Savage’s second story of failure was from earlier in his career, when he “pretended to attend NYU for a year” and then worked with his film student friends on their films. He worked on a friend’s film that was filmed at the Alexis Theater, and the film ended up winning the NYU Film Festival’s best art direction prize. So he thought about becoming an art director, and put his name out. He was asked to work on a friend Gabby’s film, with an $850 budget. He needed to build a set of a room with a glass door with an ATM in it, which he figured he could do with wood frames and canvas for the walls, a shell for a computer as the ATM, and a plexiglass door.

He never asked for help.

He worked Wednesday through Saturday morning, without sleep for 60 hours, and wasn’t close. The screen on the ATM cracked–he figured, it’s supposed to be an urban environment, it will be fine. He didn’t pre-prep the canvas, so it all become horribly wrinkled. He put down linoleum on the carpet of the home where the set was being built for the floor. At some point, a member of the crew asked him, “Do you even know what you’re doing?” He responded with what he thought was a clever line from Raiders of the Lost Ark, “I don’t know, I’m making this up as I go along.” The response from the crew member: “Go home.” So he did.

The following Monday, he went to the set to pick up his toolbox, and it wasn’t there. There was a note that said “We have your toolbox. Call me. Gabby.” He called her, and she said, “What did you do to me? You screwed me. You pissed away the money. If you could do anything to destroy our friendship, this is it. I want you to account for every penny.” He cried and called his father, who told him, “All you can do is move forward.” He went and met with Gabby, and accounted for every penny that he had spent. She then said, “The crew is next door, and they want to talk to you."

He went to the room next door, and found a dark room with a chair in the middle, with a spotlight focused on it. He sat in it, and the director read from a pad of paper all of the things that Adam had said he would do, but didn’t. This litany of offenses was periodically interrupted by a member of the crew adding something, like the fact that the linoleum he put down ruined the carpet in the apartment. There was also one point during the work where Savage was across town having sex instead of working on the set, and somehow the crew knew about that, too, and brought it up.

Finally, they asked him what he had to say for himself. He simply agreed–“You’re absolutely right. I screwed up. I’m sorry.” He added four meta-levels of sorry, and said that he knows it doesn’t mean or help anything. At that point, the director said, after a long pause–“look, we’re not trying to bring you down or anything."

Savage then quoted, from memory, from Ian McEwan’s Enduring Love, which begins with four people in a public park running towards a balloon accident. In the opening, he writes something like “running towards a catastrophe, a kind of furnace in which are characters would be buckled into new shapes."

He said that he doesn’t trust working with people who don’t know or understand failure–failure builds character. And whatever you think now (about anything?), you’re probably wrong.

He ended first by reading from Rilke’s Letters to a Young Poet, which went something like this: “We find out moments of sadness terrifying because we are standing in a place we cannot stand. It’s important to be lonely and attentive when one is sad, because that is when you learn.” And then by saying that his favorite fictional character is Raymond Chandler’s Philip Marlowe, because Chandler so clearly describes his flaws and foibles. He said that if the world were full of people like Marlowe, the world would be a safer place, but not boring.

There followed a Q&A, most of the questions were about Mythbusters, except for one question which Savage answered about Rilke’s hatred of Rodin (and writing “what is fame but a collection of misunderstandings about a name?”) and another which he answered by describing his “boyhood dream” to win an Ig Nobel Prize for writing a taxonomy of nonsense words for large and small numbers.

(Savage gave a similar talk at Defcon 17, available online.)

(Click on the link to continue to a summary of the rest of the Saturday sessions at TAM7–a panel on the ethics of deception, the Skeptical Citizen Award, a Jerry Andrus video, Stephen Bauer’s talk on Jerry Andrus and his estate, a panel on skepticism and the media, Phil Plait on Doomsday 2012, and a JREF update.)

The Arizona Skeptic online: vol. 3, 1990

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:30:00 +0000

Continuing the postings of The Arizona Skeptic; you can find volume 1 (1987-1988) here and volume 2 (1988-1989) here. Volume 3 was edited by Mike Stackpole.

An index to all issues by title, author, and subject may be found here.

The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 3, no. 1, January 1990:

Predictions 1990
"Some Failures of Organized Skepticism" by Jim Lippard
Editorial Blathering
Our February Meeting: speaker Hans Sebald on witchcraft
The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 3, no. 2, February/March 1990:
"The Secret of the Challenger Secret Mission" by Mike Stackpole
Meeting Announcement: Dr. Robert Dietz on "The Sacred and Profane History of the World"
"Dissension in the Ranks of the Institute for Creation Research" by Jim Lippard
"HGH 3X and The New England Journal of Medicine" by Mark Adkins
"Book Review: But Is It Science? edited by Michael Ruse" reviewed by Jim Lippard
"What is Occam's Razor" by Michael A. Stackpole
Editorial Blathering
"Who Are We?" by Michael A. Stackpole
The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 3, no. 3, April 1990:
"Ethical Skepticism" by Michael A. Stackpole (a visit to Peter Popoff)
Editorial Blathering
Meeting Announcement: speaker Michael A. Stackpole on Satanism
And that was it for volume 3--volume 4 picked up in July 1990 for another two issues edited by Mike Stackpole.

The Arizona Skeptic online: vol. 2, 1988-1989

Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:45:00 +0000

Continuing the postings of The Arizona Skeptic; you can find volume 1 (1987-1988) here.

An index to all issues by title, author, and subject may be found here.

The Arizona Skeptic vol. 2, no. 1, July/August 1988:

"Lippard Disgraced!" by Ron Harvey

"A Visit to the 'Psychic Showcase'" by Jim Lippard

"Color it Absurd" by Ken Morse

"Handwriting Analysis" by Jim Lippard

"Recognizing Destructive and Manipulative Groups" by Al Seckel

Upcoming Meetings

"Ghost Busters or Lease Breakers" by Ken Morse

"June PS Meeting" by Judy Sawyer: speakers Craig Nichols and Lee Earle of Manifestations

"July PS Meeting" by Judy Sawyer: speaker Anita O'Riordan of the Arizona Attorney General's Elderly Abuse Project

Correction (of omission to "Psychic Detectives" article in previous issue)

Editor's Ramblings

The Arizona Skeptic vol. 2, no. 2, September/October 1988:

"Hype-nosis" by Jim Lippard (title typoed in published copy)

"Recipe for Successful Local Group" by Kent Harker

"Book Review: Nostradamus and His Prophecies by Edgar Leoni" reviewed by Jim Lippard

Upcoming Meetings

August PS Meeting: speaker Michael Preston on hypnosis

"September meeting" by Mike Stackpole: speaker Gary Mechler on astrology

"October meeting" by Judy Sawyer: speaker Janet Lee Mitchell on out-of-body experiences

Editor's Ramblings

The Arizona Skeptic vol. 2, no. 3, November/December 1988:

Predictions for 1989 and Beyond

"Psychological Factors Conducive to Paranormal Belief" by Jim Lippard

"Book Review: The Art of Deception by Nicholas Capaldi" reviewed by Ted Karren

"Book Review: Hypnosis, Imagination, and Human Potentialities by Theodore X. Barber, Nicholas P. Spanos, and John F. Chaves" reviewed by Jim Lippard

Upcoming Meetings

November PS Meeting: skeptics' predictions

"December PS Meeting" by Judy Sawyer: speaker David Alexander on faith healers

"TUSKS Lecture" by Ken Morse: speaker Conrad Goeringer on "Bimbos for Satan"

Editor's Ramblings

The Arizona Skeptic vol. 2, no. 4, January/February 1989:

"Let's Be Serious: Defensive Skepticism" by Mike Stackpole

"Behaviorism and Consciousness" by Jim Lippard (on January speaker, Erv Theobold)

"In Response" by Erv Theobold, Ph.D.

"Book Review: Mindspell by Kay Nolte Smith" reviewed by Judy Sawyer

"Book Review: Science and Earth History by A. N. Strahler" reviewed by Roger Mann

"Book Review: Eyewitness Testimony by Elizabeth Loftus" reviewed by Jim Lippard

"Book Review: ESP and Psychokinesis: A Philosophical Examination by Stephen E. Braude" reviewed by Jim Lippard

Upcoming Meetings

January PS Meeting

Editor's Ramblings

This volume had only four issues, and marks the end of Ron Harvey's editorship. The next volume picks up in January 1990 with Mike Stackpole as editor.

The Arizona Skeptic online: vol. 1, 1987-1988

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:01:00 +0000

I’ve begun putting old issues of The Arizona Skeptic online as PDFs, starting with the old Phoenix Skeptics News, edited by Ron Harvey. Volume 2, 1988-1989, is here.

An index to all issues by title, author, and subject may be found here. Phoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 1, July/August 1987:

Welcome!
July Meeting
Resource Library
"Cold Reading" by Jim Lippard
Local Radio Talk Show Features Psychics
Modem Users Take Note
"Foes Turn Up Heat: Fire walking is not so hot, skeptics of seminars say" by Simon Fisher, Tribune
Postscript by Jim Lippard
Book Reviews
Local Conference on Health Fraud
Upcoming Phoenix Skeptics Meetings
Phoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 2, September/October 1987:
August Meeting: Hans Sebald on witchcraft
September Meeting: Charles Cazeau on prophecies of Nostradamus
Surveyor Needed
Randi on Faith Healers (interviewed by Jim Lippard and Mike Norton)
"Health Fraud isn't 'snake oil' anymore" by Phyllis Gillespie, Arizona Republic
"Charlatans can be spotted if you know common clues" (Arizona Republic)
"Proper Criticism" by Ray Hyman
Upcoming Meetings
Phoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 3, November/December 1987:
October Meeting: Halloween party at Hans Sebald's
November Meeting: James Randi psychic surgery video, Randy Jones on psychic surgery
Papers ignore disclaimer request on astrology columns
Flyers needed
Psychic fair
"Focus on You" by Jim Lippard
"Channeling: Believe It or Not" by Hans Sebald, Ph.D.
"Book Review: The Faith Healers by James Randi" reviewed by Jim Lippard
"On the distinction between nonbelief and disbelief" by Hans Sebald, Ph.D.
"Book Review: The Psychology of Transcendence by Andrew Neher" reviewed by Jim Lippard
Editor's Ramblings
Upcoming Meetings
Phoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 4, January/February 1988:
December Meeting: Jim Speiser and Marge Christenson of MUFON
January Meeting: Robert Dietz of ASU on creationism
Philip Klass Lecture
Skeptics Reorganized
Skeptics subcommittees formed
"Peter Popoff Came to Town" by Jim Lippard
"Towards a more effective organization" by Bob Guzley
"Update on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin" by Jim Lippard
New Phone Number
Editor's Ramblings
Upcoming Meetings
Phoenix Skeptics News vol. 1, no. 5, March/April 1988:
Important Announcement!
February Meeting: Jeff Jacobsen on Scientology
Philip Klass Lecture
March Meeting: Mike Stackpole on claimed dangers of D&D
The Organization Explained!
"Frank Baranowski: Promoter of the Paranormal" by Jim Lippard
"Book Review: The New Inquisition by Robert Anton Wilson" reviewed by Jim Lippard
"Robert Anton Wilson and the H.E.A.D. Revolution" by Zak Woodruff
Editor's Ramblings
Upcoming Meetings
Phoenix Skeptics News, vol. 1, no. 6, May/June 1988:
April Meeting: James Lowell on Mexican cancer clinics
May Meeting: Jim Lippard on psychic detectives
Press coverage
"Turin Shroud Update" by Jim Lippard
"Dr. Stranges Lives Up to His Name" by Mike Stackpole
"Near-Death Experiences and TV" by Jim Lippard
"An Artistic 'Phenom'" by Ted Karren
"Psychic Detectives" by Jim Lippard
Editor's Ramblings
"TUSKS Tips" by Ken Morse
Upcoming Meetings
The last issue of this volume was the first one also distributed to the Tucson Skeptical Society (TUSKS), and prompted a change of name to The Arizona Skeptic beginning with volume 2. This was also about the time I moved to Tucson to attend graduate school at the University of Arizona (August 1988).

ArizonaCOR video: A Life, a World, a Future

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:23:00 +0000

The Arizona Coalition of Reason’s video, “A Life, a World, a Future,” has been released on the ArizonaCOR website. This was a project done by and with the participation of members of several of ArizonaCOR’s member organizations.

New Markey/Eshoo net neutrality bill

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:53:00 +0000

Ed Markey (D-MA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) last week introduced HR 3458, The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (PDF). This bill is much better than past bills in that it doesn’t contain any prohibition on classes of service or preferential treatment of packets based on protocol or application, as opposed to based on source, destination, or owner. It still, however, gives the FCC new powers to regulate the Internet and puts the onus of developing specific regulations on the FCC. And it looks like the language will give the FCC the power to regulate Apple’s iTunes store with respect to iPhone Internet-related applications, as well as to force the opening up of wireless walled gardens. The bill leaves open to the FCC the ability to treat “private transmission capacity services” as exempt from the requirements of the bill, so long as they don’t impact Internet capacity for the end user. It also provides disclosure requirements for ISPs to report on any methods they use for network and capacity management that may impact Internet traffic.

The Amazing Meeting 7: Swiss/Randi, Ouellette, anti-anti-vax panel, Nickell

Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:49:00 +0000

This is part three of my summary of TAM7, still on Friday, July 10. Part 1 is here, part 2 is here, and my coverage of the Science-based Medicine conference begins here.

Jamy Ian Swiss and James Randi
After lunch on Friday was a conversation between Jamy Ian Swiss and James Randi about Randi’s early career, beginning with an old BBC live broadcast of Randi making a radio disappear, and an escape he did in Quebec as the “Amazing Randall.” They discussed Randi’s early appearances on Johnny Carson’s “Tonight Show,” and how Carson, himself a magician, would visit Randi in his dressing room when he appeared on the show, leading show staff to wonder who this guy was, since Carson never visited other guests. Other old footage included an underwater survival stunt on “You Asked for It,” in which Randi stayed underwater for an hour and 50 minutes, breaking Houdini’s record. Randi was embedded horizontally in a block of ice on Boston Common for the Dick Cavett show, somewhat reminiscent of the more recent stunt by David Blaine. Footage was also shown of Randi’s water can escape when he was a closing act after David Copperfield and Shibata, which Randi commented was made more difficult for him by the fact that Copperfield and Shibata were standing on the catwalk above him cracking jokes while he was supposedly drowning in the milk can (but was actually already on top of it trying to look out-of-breath and using a sponge to make his head wet again before the big reveal).

Then was shown a lot of amusing footage from Alice Cooper’s “Billion Dollar Babies” tour, for whch Randi played a mad dentist and created various illusions for the stage, culminating with Alice Cooper’s head being chopped off by a realistic-looking guillotine. Randi told various stories of the tour and how he came to be involved with it, saying that it paid very well and he knew he was going to get alone well when he visited the offices of Cooper’s Alive Enterprise and found it was full of potted plants, all of which were dead. A DVD of the film made during that tour was recently released on DVD, which includes the original version of the film rejected by the studies, which included a bunch of comedy sketches, a few of which feature Randi.

When the tour came to Phoenix, Cooper asked Randi to sit in the audience with his mother, who wasn’t aware of the nature of his show. Randi kept reassuring her–the wife of a Mormon minister–that Alice Cooper is just a character being played by her son (Vincent Furnier). Randi said that he saw Mrs. Furnier again a couple of years ago at Alice Cooper’s 60th birthday party, and she remembered him and thanked him for the reassurance he provided during that show.

Footage was then shown of two version of Randi’s upside-down strait jacket escape, one in Niagara Falls in January. He said it was so cold that he beard became completely frozen and he was unable to speak when he had freed himself and was brought down, until hot water was poured over his beard. He said it took two years to get permission to do that stunt, and they had the whole area blocked off so that only the film crew was present. But while he was hanging upside-down, he saw a Chinese family standing there watching him–they had gone sneaking through the woods to get there and watch the performance up close.

The second version of the escape was for the Japanese show “Supermen” and was performed while hanging upside-down from a helicopter flying around Tokyo. Randi, who does not like heights, said he kept telling himself, “I’m doing it for the money."

Jennifer Ouellette on the Science and Entertainment Exchange
Jennifer Ouellette, executive director of the National Academy of Science’s new Science and Entertainment Exchange project and author of the book The Physics of the Buffyverse, spoke about the project. She began with a short film clip from the TV show “Numb3rs” that illustrated a scientific point about geographic profiling by reference to the physics of water drops from a sprinkler head, which she used as an example of the productivity of having scientists and entertainment producers working cooperatively.

She observed that science and Hollywood have had a love/hate relationship. Hollywood sees scientists as nitpickers who don’t understand entertainment, which she depicted with a reference to an episode of “The Big Bang Theory” which pointed out that the ending of the film “Superman” was unbelievable not because of the time travel but because if Superman caught Lois Lane while she was falling at 32 feet/second/second she would be cut into three pieces by the arms of the Man of Steel. (This reminded me of Larry Niven’s classic analysis of why Superman can’t have sex with a human woman, let alone produce a hybrid offspring, “Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex.") Scientists, on the other hand, see Hollywood as promulgators of misinformation, a point she illustrated with reference to an anti-vaccination episode of “Eli Stone” and the fact that DNA results on “CSI” and “Bones” are always returned within hours (also illustrating the nitpicking point).

The Science and Entertainment Exchange provides producers of film, television, comic books, video games, novels, etc. with a free way to obtain accurate scientific information early on in a project, and has already worked with major productions including “Bones,” “Tron II” (now “Tron Legacy”), and several that she was contractually forbidden to mention.

She told the story of how she met the showrunner for “Bones,” and when she told him she was a scientist, “he instantly cringed, flinched, and apologized.” She subsequently worked with him on the “Death by Physics” episode of the show.

She pointed out that this is a great time for science and skepticism, with the popularity of current programs like Numb3rs, Bones, Lie to Me, The Mentalist, House, The Big Bang Theory, and, “a fringe case,” Fringe (one of the writers of the show is Glen Whitman of the Agoraphilia blog; and for those interested in the glyph code on that show, here’s the solution).

Ouellette argued for the importance of this project by pointing out that a factoid about breast cancer which appeared in a soap opera was found to triple the knowledge of that factoid in its viewing audience (based on testing viewers before and after watching the episode), and that these new shows do a good job of humanizing scientists. When debunking messages come from sympathetic characters, that softens them and makes them more persuasive. She suggested that The Mentalist saying that there are no real psychics, or Lie to Me debunking the polygraph, has huge potential impact.

She closed by saying that the success of these popular programs suggests that critical thinking and science placed in an entertaining context do sell, and asking those with a science background who want to be consultants for her project to contact her–and CSI needs new ideas on how to kill people.

In the Q&A, the first questioner said that they don’t like when scientists are depicted not acting like scientists–misusing words like “proof” and “theory,” and misrepresenting the process of science. Another asked whether she could say anything about science on “Lost”; she said that scientists consulted and commented on the DVD extras about the temporal anomalies and “chronology projection conjecture,” and that it’s the best-selling TV show on DVD. One questioner asked whether there is any way to do something like this for the news media, as well as for entertainment; she answered that people in the news media need to be paid better (I presume she was referring to print reporters rather than talking heads on television), and those outlets are in their death throes. Another questioner asked why skeptics have to be depicted as dumb in shows with supernatural or paranormal phenomena, rather than showing them change their minds when presented with overwhelming evidence of these things.

Anti-anti-vaccination Panel
Steven Novella, David Gorski, Joe Albietz, Harriet Hall, Michael Goudeau, and Derek Bartholomaus made up the panel to criticize the anti-vaccination movement. Novella began by recounting the Andrew Wakefield case, a study published in Lancet allegedly connecting measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccination with harmful effects in children, which subsequently turned out to be a thoroughly bogus study (“if I can use that word,” he said, referring to the Simon Singh lawsuit). But that study caused a decline in MMR vaccination in the UK, and a corresponding leap in news cases of measles, mumps, and rubella. When Novella blogged about this, journalist David Kirby contacted him and argued that thimerosol (sodium ethylmercurithiosalicylate), was the issue. Novella read Kirby’s book arguing that thimerosol causes autism, Evidence of Harm, and did 3-4 months of research. (Novella’s Skeptical Inquirer article on the subject is here; a reply to Kirby on Novella’s blog is here.) He said Kirby’s book was a terrible piece of journalism but a good collection of data sources to start with. By 2005 there was strong evidence of no link between thimerosol and autism. Novella’s panel intro is now on YouTube here; Dr. Joe Albietz’s talk is on YouTube here.

Back in 2002, thimerosol had already been removed from routine vaccine schedules, and Kirby said that autism rates would subsequently plummet to pre-1990 levels. Novella said no, If I’m right it will continue to increase until it hits some ceiling–and the autism rates have continued to rise for the last four years. Kirby moved the goalposts for his prediction out to 2007 and then to 2008, but there is no more room to move them now, said Novella–thimerosol is demonstrably not the cause of autism.

Novella said that the antivax movement has grown as evidence has accumulated against them, spearheaded by promotion by Jenny McCarthy and Generation Rescue.

David Gorski talked about how “I’m not antivaccine” is the biggest lie of the antivaxers. They will say things like (quoting Jenny McCarthy), “I’m not anti-vaccine, I’m pro-safe vaccine. I’m anti-toxin.” Examples of people making such statements include Jenny McCarthy, Dr. Jay Gordon, a frequent visitor to Gorski’s blog, and J.B. Handley, the founder of Generation Rescue.

He quoted a statement from Jenny McCarthy saying that mercury, the “second worst neurotoxin in history” is injected into children, but noted that she’s not so anti-toxin as to avoid injecting the worst neurotoxin, botox, into her face. He also noted that despite claiming not to be anti-vaccine, she has also said, “If I had another child, I wouldn’t vaccinate at all. Never, not ever."

Claimed toxins in vaccines include aluminum, ether, and mercury. Generation Rescue claimed in 2005 that autism is a misdiagnosis of mercury poisoning, then they’ve shifted to being caused by heavy metals, to being caused by toxins, to being caused by too many vaccines, too soon–but it’s always about the vaccines.

Gorski suggested the following questions for those who say they are not anti-vaccine, yet are still challenging vaccines in this way:
You say you want safer vaccines. By what measure?
What toxins would you remove? What’s the evidence for toxicity?
What evidence would it take to persuade you that vaccinations are safe with respect to the risk of the disease (i.e., using the vaccines saves significantly more lives than not using the vaccines)?
Dr. Joe Albietz then spoke on how every major medical breakthrough and development to save lives pales in comparison to vaccination. This was a powerful talk that I’d like to see turned into a viral vaccination video for YouTube.

Smallpox vaccine has saved over 300 million lives. In 1967, a global eradication campaign was begun, at an estimated cost of $10M-$15M/year over 31 countries. After ten years–in 1979–the disease was officially eradicated at an expense of about $23M/year.

Dr. Albietz presented a list of vaccine-preventable diseases, and noted the number of incidents per year before and after the vaccines. For just the top ten diseases, over 1.1 million lives per year have been saved from disease by vaccination.

He noted that polio and measles are scheduled for eradication. In 2008, the number of cases was 1,652, which amounts to over 5 million cases of paralysis prevented. Measles used to be the second leading cause of infectious disease death, killing 1 million children per year. The goal is to reduce measles cases by 90% by 2010, which will probably be missed.

The anti-vax movement not only affects the lives of children who are not vaccinated, the reduction of the rate of vaccination reduces the herd immunity of the population, making it more likely that even those who are vaccinated will get the disease.

Dr. Harriett Hall spoke on “Two False Alarms,” which gave much more detail about Andrew Wakefield and Neil Halsey. She began by talking about Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper on MMR vaccines, which used no controls and had an honest conclusion (“we did not prove a link”), but Wakefield called a press conference saying that the MMR vaccine should be stopped and made into separate vaccines–without disclosing that he had just filed a patent for such single vaccines. This resulted in measles again becoming endemic in the UK, Wakefield’s study was retracted after problems were found in it, and Wakefield was exposed as unethical. He had been hired by a lawyer to find a link between vaccination and some harm in order to sue drug companies, and was paid 500,000 pounds for the purpose. His study was performed on the children of plaintiffs in the legal case, there was no ethics committee approval, and he didn’t disclose his conflicts of interest.

Neal Halsey raised warnings about thimerosol, which contains ethyl mercury. We knew that methyl mercury can cause problems, but not ethyl mrcury. Experiments on adults with amounts 20,000 times higher than in thimerosol in vaccines have caused no symptoms of mercury poisoning. Halsey didn’t raise autism as a concern, just mercury poisoning, but two mothers of autistic children who learned of his claims decided, incorrectly, that the symptoms of mercury poisoning were the same as the symptoms of autism. Today 2/3 of the U.S. population incorrectly think that mercury causes autism.

Michael Goudeau, juggler in Lance Burton’s Las Vegas show and writer for Penn & Teller’s Bullshit!, briefly spoke about his experience as a parent of an autistic child, and pointed out in his closing statement that nobody can hold up a healthy kid and say “Look, my kid got vaccinated and didn’t get autism.” But maybe, he suggested, the parents of those whose children get measles, mumps, or rubella as a result of the spread of the disease from unvaccinated children can effectively raise that issue. He said that Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy are assholes, and you shouldn’t base your opinions on the science of celebrities (or jugglers).

Derek Bartholomaus spoke about how he decided to try to find the “Jenny McCarthy body count”–the number of preventable deaths and illnesses caused by non-vaccination–as a result of hearing Steven Novella make references to such a body count on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast. He announced his website, jennymccarthybodycount.com, on Twitter and Facebook three months ago, and it has received tremendous traffic as a result of links from the Pharyngula, Bad Astronomy, and Respectful Insolence blogs.

In the Q&A, Hal Bidlack said “my wife died of cancer, and I’m still angry at her surgical oncologist. I understand these people–does calling them stupid help?” Dr. Novella said that Jenny McCarthy needs to be called out on her misinformation, but the rank and file are victims and we have nothing but sympathy for them–our interpretation of the evidence is diametrically opposed. Dr. Gorski said that it’s human nature to want to blame someone. A child born with a disability is painful, but they shouldn’t be allowed to use that as a shield against criticism–but they do it because it’s effective.

Another questioner asked whether Oprah can be made aware that there is a Jenny McCarthy body count to try to put a stop to McCarthy’s TV show. Dr. Gorski suggested that giving McCarthy her own show might have been “a woo too far” provoking blowback in the form of criticism of Oprah such as appeared in Newsweek.

One questioner whose sister is a pediatrician in L.A. said she sees the most resistance to vaccination from high-income people in Beverly Hills. Dr. Albietz said you’re 23 times more likely to get whooping cough if not vaccinated, and that he sees nonreligious vaccine refusal as the top reason for children not being vaccinated, but others are still not being vaccinated due to poverty and lack of access, which was the reason for TAM7’s vaccination drive.

Another questioner asked if anyone had heard of an increase of cases of polio in India due to anti-vaccination superstition. Dr. Novella said that there were rumors of polio vaccine being tainted with AIDS in Nigeria, which resulted in an outbreak of polio due to lack of vaccination. Harriet Hall said that there were antivaxers back at the beginning of the smallpox eradication effort, but it was nothing like the current scale of opposition.

Someone asked whether we’re just speaking in an echo chamber, or is someone working to craft a media message. Dr. Albietz pointed out the Rethinking Autism videos, and observed that we should bring the fight to every front that the anti-vaccination movement uses.

Anti-vaccination is being pushed by chiropractors and practitioners of alternative medicine, observed another questioner, and it won’t stop until we stop them. How can we do that? Dr. Hall said that she reported a homeopath to the Department of Homeland Security, since he claimed to be making homeopathic smallpox vaccine, which requires access to smallpox. Dr. Gorski said that we’re also combatting the view that natural is better, that getting a disease naturally is a better outcome than vaccinating and not getting the disease. Dr. Albietz pointed out that you cannot strengthen your immune system any better than by vaccinating, and that the keyelements of vaccines are natural ingredients. Dr. Hall observed that delaying the vaccine schedule is based on the misguided idea that it will lessen negative impact to immune systems, when in fact vaccinations promote immune response.

In closing, Dr. Gorski said that most antivax parents are probably persuadable, but he fears that the return of vaccine-preventable diseases will be what it takes to persuade them. Dr. Novella said that if anything is going to help mitigate the problem, it is probably going to come from the people in the room.

Joe Nickell on Bigfoot and Aliens
Joe Nickell gave a visual travelogue of photos of Bigfoot-related signs and places in the Pacific northwest, which included all sorts of Bigfoot-related oddities. The Bigfoot Highway, the Bigfoot Museum at Willow Creek, Bigfoot Rafting, Bigfoot Ave., Little Foot Ct., Bigfoot Breakfast, Bigfoot Motel, Bigfoot Crossing signs, Bigfoot Burger, Bigfoot Books (with big selection of books on bigfoot, as expected). He showed murals of Bigfoot, Bigfoot chainsaw sculptures, and Bigfoot statues. A lot of it was tongue-in-cheek, but some was serious and some included religious elements–he observed that some think that Bigfoot is supernatural.

He covered aliens and UFOs in a similar manner, starting with photos of Roswell, the Mac Brazel ranch house, and the famous photo of Jesse Marcel and the pieces of foil, sticks, tape, and rubber. He did an experiment with boxkite-like devices (corner reflectors) on a train attached to a weather balloon, that was shot down to see what the wreckage looked like. He also discussed Alien Autopsy “fakelore” and showed a timeline of alien evolution. Hypnagogic experiences that used to be reported as ghosts or demons are now commonly reported as aliens.

In both the cases of aliens and Bigfoot, he sees them as mythical creatures, and remarked that Bigfoot seems to be used as something like an “eco-messiah.” Aliens have also been used in the employ of environmental causes.

In the Q&A, the first question was why there seems to be a rise in alien abduction claims, rather than UFO sightings, and whether this might be related to the rise of camera phones. (If I can reconstruct the reasoning, I think the issue is that there are more people out there with cameras at all times, yet fewer UFO sightings, while if there were really alien spacecraft, you’d expect more successful photographs. But if it’s more of a psychological or mythical phenomenon, then perhaps it transforms to fit the evidence.) Nickell responded by observing that alien stories have evolved and continue to change. In my notes I commented that there seems to be a shift in the UFO community from “alien spacecraft” to “another reality” as an explanation of UFOs, and even some creationists have gotten in on the latter sort of view with the claim that UFOs are demonic influences. That view was expressed by Norman Geisler’s testimony in the McLean v. Arkansas creationism case back in 1981, and has more recently been propounded by Gary Bates of the Australia-based Creation Ministries International.

That concluded the regular conference programming for Friday, July 10.

Saturday continued with a very special Skeptics Guide to the Universe recording session, Michael Shermer, and Adam Savage, summarized in part four.

The Voyage That Shook the World

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:17:00 +0000

I finally had a chance today to watch the Creation Ministries International-funded film, “The Voyage That Shook the World.” It’s a 52-minute, professionally produced docu-drama. The cinematography is excellent, and there are high-quality graphics and effects. There’s not a whole lot of acting to judge–most of it appears for visual effect during narration or interview voice-overs–but I saw nothing to criticize in that regard.

The documentary content itself starts off reasonably, with the only initial hint that this might not be a mainstream production being the emphasis put on Darwin “making up stories” as a child. The first experts to appear are professional historians. Apart from H.M.S. Beagle having the wrong number of masts (two instead of three), I didn’t notice any obvious mistakes in the history, though I’m no expert.

Where it first veers into creationist territory is when the narration starts talking about Charles Lyell’s influence on Darwin, with regard to uniformitarianism and “deep time,” and it makes an odd assertion that the great age of the earth was a settled question in Darwin’s time, unlike today. That’s an odd assertion since the age of the earth is overwhelmingly confirmed by science today, and there is no scientific debate about the earth being about 4.5 billion years old. (Particularly odd was that this remark came from historian Peter Bowler, I believe, which makes me wonder about the original context of his remark.)

Several creationists and intelligent design advocates appear, though they are not identified as such. A CMI web page about the film does show who’s who, but this is perhaps the most deceptive aspect of the film–using on-screen credential identification that puts recognized experts with well-established reputations on a par with relative unknowns without established reputations. For example, creationist Rob Carter is identified on-screen by where he earned his Ph.D. and as “marine biologist and geneticist,” but he has no academic appointment, a scant publication record, and works for CMI. Stuart Burgess is identified as “Design & Nature, Bristol University” but he’s a mechanical engineering professor at Bristol University. (UPDATE: Note that Burgess’ title is, in fact, Professor of Design and Nature.) Emil Silvestru is identified by his Ph.D. and as a “geologist and speleologist,” but he works full-time for CMI. Cornelius Hunter of the Discovery Institute is identified by his Ph.D. and as “molecular biophysicist and author” when he is an adjunct professor of biophysics at Biola University. That institution was originally known as the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, founded in 1908 by Lyman Stewart of Standard Oil, the guy who funded the publication and distribution of The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, from which fundamentalism gets its name. I consider this to be a deceptive equation of expertise, for which the film deserves criticism. (I gave the same criticism to “The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark,” which used the same technique to equate creationists with little or no reputation with recognized experts.)

Creationist Emil Silvestru argues for a young earth and for the creation of geological features by catastrophic flood, though I noticed he mentioned “a flood” and not “the flood” at first, and while he mentioned the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington as having been cut rapidly by catastrophic forces (true), he did not make the common grossly mistaken creationist assertion that this is how the Grand Canyon was formed. Silvestru also makes a polystrate tree fossil argument for rapid deposition (which may well be the case in the particular instance, but is not generally the explanation for polystrate tree fossils).

The creationism starts out fairly subtly in the film, with the remarks about the age of the earth, and at one points sets up a novel opposition between two views:

Anthony Watts abuses DMCA to suppress criticism

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:31:00 +0000

Anthony Watts, a radio meteorologist who has collected evidence of badly sited weather stations to argue that climate change data is incorrect, was the subject of Peter Sinclair’s latest Climate Change Crock of the Week video. Rather than attempt to refute the criticism (which would be difficult–both “good” and “bad” weather stations show the same long-term temperature trends), Watts resorted to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to get Sinclair’s video taken offline. Watts doesn’t hold copyright on television footage he appears in on Glenn Beck’s show, which has been used in fair use excerpts, anyway.

But the video is back, and you can see it for yourself here.

(Via Pharyngula.)

UPDATE: As Rich Trott points out, Watts has replied here. He says that the basis of his copyright complaint is that the video shows the cover of and photographs and graphs from his book, but doesn’t say why he thinks the video exceeds fair use. He says that the NCDC’s response to his data (a) used out-of-date data and (b) used a process guaranteed to have two similar graphs, by taking a weighted average of the good and bad station reports even in the line reported as just the good stations.

This is not exactly correct–there is a correction for urban heating that does use nearby station data, but even if you do not perform the urban heating adjustment step, you STILL get two graphs with essentially the same trend. (This was indirectly linked to in my previous post on this subject, through my link to the Daily Doubt blog of frequent commenter Hume’s Ghost.)

UPDATE (August 10, 2009): Climate Progress points out the inanity of Watts’ defense of his DMCA abuse, observing that he’s suggesting copyright infringement on the basis of a few graphs and images shown from his book, which is given away for free in PDF form on the Internet. So not only was Sinclair well within fair use based on the amount and substantiality of material used, there’s no chance that Sinclair’s video could possibly have had any adverse effect on the commercial market for Watts’ book, since there isn’t one.

The Amazing Meeting 7: Steele, Plait, Lancaster

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:56:00 +0000

This is part two of my summary of TAM7, still on Friday, July 10. Part 1 is here, and my coverage of the Science-based Medicine conference begins here.

Sorry for the delay in posting this–it was a combination of other distractions and hoping that Dr. Steele would reply to the email I sent him asking for some details on his slides, without any such luck. Unfortunately, I was manning the SkeptiCamp booth at the back of the room during his talk, which both impaired my ability to take notes and made it impossible for me to read much of anything on his slides. If any readers have better notes or memory, I would be happy to make revisions to correct mistakes or add further detail. (I had wanted to point out a semi-ironic comment that Dr. Steele made before he began, but I couldn’t remember exactly what he said and failed to note it.) [UPDATE (March 21, 2010): Now that Randi has officially come out, and I’ve remembered approximately what was said, I’ll note it here–Steele began by saying something about being preceded by “two straight men” (apparently meant in both senses), who were Phil Plait and James Randi.]

Dr. Fintan Steele
Dr. Fintan Steele, a gay (and legally married in Massachusetts) ex-Benedictine monk with a theology degree to accompany his Ph.D. in genetics, spoke on the subject “Personalized Medicine or Personalized Mysticism?”, a talk which bore some resemblance to his paper in Future Medicine, “Personalized Medicine: Something Old, Something New” (PDF). He said that he’s moved from the monastery and theology to science, and that he (we?) wants to keep them separate, suggesting something along the lines of Stephen Jay Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) view, which argues that science and religion are separate domains which do not overlap. It’s a view that hardly any advocates of either science or religion hold, and it’s hard to see why they should. When religions make empirical claims, that’s surely the domain of science, and it’s also surely the case that philosophical arguments should be informed by relevant scientific data. The argument in the other direction is, I think, a bit more difficult to make, at least until religion develops methods that are reliable, reproducible, and objectively demonstrable–but at that point it would be science.

He began with a familiar quote from Hippocrates that also appeared in Dr. Val Jones’ presentation at the Science-based Medicine conference, “Science begets knowledge, opinion begets ignorance.” To which he commented, “but not always.” He then gave a Webster’s definition of personalized medicine, and said he will argue that this is a mystical rather than a scientific definition.

Dr. Steele proceeded to go through a brief history of medicine, arguing (like in his paper cited above) that personalization of medicine is nothing new, but has been with us since Hippocrates, who used thought that medical treatment was a matter of putting the four humours into proper balance, idiosynkrasia (idio = personal, synkrasia = mixing or blend, or, in the context of the humours, temperament). Galen went on to do “tests” of patients to determine proper treatments, and Paracelsus introduced environmental factors and the concept of proper dosage.

He then briefly talked about the science of DNA and what is being learned as the cost of sequencing becomes cheaper and the volume of data increases. He said that there is “tons of sequence variability” and we’re learning about ways that DNA can be “turned on and off.” At his current place of employment, the Broad Institute, he said that they have a very large amount of genetic information on servers. He talked about the genome and made reference to a Bligh study (?) and to genome-wide association (GWA) studies. These studies involve genotyping lots of individuals and looking at where they differ. For example, he noted that you might compare the genomes of 10,000 people with Type 2 diabetes to 10,000 people without it, and then look at the differences in order to find areas that are associated with the disease.

The catch of these studies is that the genome information collected is incomplete, relying upon samples of specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within a haplotype block, which Dr. Steele characterized with the analogy of using a single house in the block to stand as a representative sample for the block–the method of finding a difference can tell you that there’s a fire in the block, but you still have to go house by house to find the blaze.

He noted that this technique has been successfully used to find genetic correlates to a variety of diseases and conditions, including Crohn’s disease, breast cancer susceptibility, coronary disease, prostate cancer, macular degeneration, and schizophrenia. The research has started to fragment diseases into finer-grained categories. We’ve gone from blood diseases to leukemia vs. lymphoma, to 38 leukemia subtypes and 50+ lymphoma subtypes.

He seemed to be approving so far, but indicated that there is then a line that people cross and draw wrong conclusions. He identified a number of the genetic testing companies, such as Navigenics and 23andme, as culprits. These companies, he said, will tell you something like “Because you have a particular variant x, your risk of disease y goes up by z%. So go eat more vegetables.” But, he said, “It’s a lie. Reasoning and expectations have gone astray."

He then turned to theology to draw an analogy that I’m afraid completely escaped me. He asked us to conduct a reasoning experiment about constructing an ordered list of things you can find in Las Vegas by moral acceptability, from premarital sex to rape, including bestiality, incest, masturbation, and contraception. Constructing such a list relies upon some kind of underlying principle based on beliefs. He then offered the Roman Catholic Church’s ordering, based on the out of print Handbook of Moral Theology (by Anton Koch, volume 2 is online), which gives an ordering of sexual sins based on gravity, and puts masturbation as the very worst, homosexuality less bad, incest less bad still, etc. Why? Because “Sex is primarily for procreation. That’s a scientific statement,” he said.

I have a couple of problems with his argument so far. First of all, I think his “scientific statement” plays on an equivocation on purpose vs. function. The reason sex exists–its function–is for procreation, but that doesn’t make it our primary purpose in having sex. Second, even given that fact, the proposed RCC ordering doesn’t follow. Homosexual behavior is no more likely to produce offspring than masturbation, and thus should be equally bad–if that’s the only relevant factor, then each act should be ranked based on the probability that offspring will be produced. By the same token, premarital heterosexual sex should be on the good side of the spectrum. Third, probability of procreation is clearly not the only relevant factor in making such an ordering, even if we limit ourselves only to other “scientific statements” such as “people tend to seek pleasure and avoid pain” and “consensual relations are less likely to produce physical or psychological harm than involuntary relations."

He then asked the question where do we get the principles based on beliefs that we use to construct such orderings? He answered that we get them from two places, 1. rational observable scientific thought, and 2. metaphysics. He then said something about science resting on metaphysical claims where I missed the details. I’m not sure if he was asserting that all science rests on certain metaphysical claims (which I think is quite plausible–we tend to assume that there is an objective external world which can be measured, that we’re not brains in a vat or solipsistic dreamers), or that the science of the companies he’s complaining about are making unwarranted metaphysical claims. I think the latter was more likely his point.

Dr. Steele then asked, “What explains the popularity of these genomics startups? [The view that] DNA is the fundamental part of your being. That’s a load of shit.” Here again, I think he’s made a somewhat ambiguous statement, depending on how one caches out “fundamental”–clearly, our DNA is a very important determining factor in who we are.

He objected that these companies are engaged in hype and overselling, and so is the NIH, in order to allow for continued funding. But, he said, it’s based on “a mystical interpretation of genes. Biology is hugely complex and we’re just beginning to understand it."

He then offered a diagram with two triangles listing some bullet points or statements, and drew a dividing line between science and mysticism. I was unable to see his diagram or where he drew the line, and I cannot tell from my notes or memory of hearing his talk what he used as his criterion for drawing the line.

Dr. Steele then went on to say that he’s not trying to dismiss the genomics studies, but what’s more important than the genotypes is what we are learning about pathways of interaction. For example, in the case of diseases that affect vision, what becomes important are things like the photo-tranduction pathway, which is implicated not only in vitreoretinopathy, but a certain type of colon cancer and other diseases. He suggested that medicine will become more about pathways than about individual organs. But this won’t be personalized at the level of an individual, but rather on the categories of pathways.

The genomics/personalized medicine language is popular, he suggested, because it’s narcissistic. And it costs a lot, so people infer that it must be worth something.

He also said that “it doesn’t take a wacko to shovel nonsense”–the press regularly gets it wrong. For example, he said that “there is no gene for kidney disease.” He suggested that journalists challenge the scientists promoting personalized medicine to explain how they think it will produce the results they claim.

In the Q&A session, he gave a specific example of an acquaintance, a D.C. lobbyist, who purchased his Navigenics portfolio, which told him he had a low risk of heart disease and glaucoma–but he already had glaucoma. In answer to a question about gene patents, he said that the Broad Institute, which is an offshoot of the Whitehead Institute, doesn’t do patents, and that he thinks the problem that gene patents are causing for chip-based assaying of genes is ultimately going to cause them to be thrown out. In response to a question about the ability to tailor drugs specifically based on genetic information, he agreed that yes, this can occur “for certain very rare things,” but that “DNA is just a recipe, environmental changes have huge impact. Few diseases are related to just a small number of genes. … Genes that encode [such things as] drug transport molecules … will be useful for … drug dosages."

(Orac commented a bit on Dr. Steele’s presentation in his post-TAM summary. A video excerpt of Steele’s talk may be found here.)

Phil Plait
Phil Plait spoke briefly about the vaccination drive, gave more thanks to the JREF staff, and had Paul Anagnostopoulos talk about the JREF scholarships. Paul noted that 41 people were attending TAM7 as a result of scholarships, donations for which were at an all-time high despite the economy. He also noted that JREF is offering $10,000 in academic scholarships this year, and encouraged students to apply. (The deadline is rapidly approaching–they must be received by August 1.) Those scholarships are due to a grant from a generous family in Florida.

He then gave up the rest of his time to Robert Lancaster of the Stop Sylvia Browne website.

Robert Lancaster
Robert Lancaster came up to the front of the stage in a wheelchair after being introduced by his friend J.C. He explained that he suffered a stroke last August, and has spent the last 11 months in the hospital and in rehabilitation, and so many of his planned newer sites (Stop John Edward, Stop Benny Hinn, and Stop Peter Popoff) are still in development. He noted that last year he had jokingly referred to Stop Phil Plait at TAM6, and someone registered the domain while he was still speaking.

He said that he planned to talk about strokes and skepticism, and wanted to talk to other skeptics who have had strokes, of whom he talked to only one, Derek Colanduno of the Skepticality podcast, who has made a full recovery. He warned that he suffers from emotional lability, a condition of excessive emotional reactions and mood changes, and that this would explain if he suddenly became a blubbering idiot.

After telling a few stories of his rehabilitation, he gave thanks for the generosity of members of the JREF Forums who have helped him out. He told the story of his first discovering James Randi by seeing him on Johnny Carson’s Tonight Show in the 1970s, and “opening a can of skeptical whoopass” on Peter Popoff in 1983. Randi, Lancaster said, had showed him that skepticism can be a form of public service, and that’s what he’s tried to emulate with his websites.

He first contacted Randi, via email, in 2001 after seeing John Edward on television. He figured Randi was the right guy to deal with Edward, and came across the randi.org website and sent an email, figuring some staff member might read it and give it to Randi. To his surprise, he got a personal response from Randi–which he characterized as “use the search engine, putz.” (I’m hoping that weren’t Randi’s actual words, but Lancaster’s feelings about the answer, which was that there were already multiple articles exposing Edward on the JREF website.)

Lancaster then returned to the story of his stroke recovery, and how after his previous wife left him, he found Susan via match.com, and they exchanged photos, email, and phone calls. After they had met in person, he asked her why she hadn’t commented on his initial photos–she said they were “scary” because she thought he “was a biker.” She concluded that no, “he was a teddy bear.” They married five years to the day after their first date, on June 1, 2007. Without her, he said, I would be dead right now, and that without her, his life would not be worth living. He asked her to come on stage with him.

He then told the story of how he came to have his stroke. He said that 15 years ago, he had a bad headache that he should have gone to see a doctor for, but he went to bed, and woke up with the same headache. He went to his doctor’s office, but the doctor was out, and the first assistant to take his blood pressure said, “That can’t be right,” and went to get another. Two more assistants took his blood pressure, were confused, and called the doctor to report. The doctor told him to either drive himself immediately to the emergency room or to let them call an ambulance for him, because his blood pressure was 300/180.

I had been a little queasy and light-headed listening to the references to strokes, for a variety of reasons that include a bit of hypochondria, drinking a cup of coffee, having little for breakfast, and having a bit of a hangover. Having a persistent sinus infection that I’m still fighting today wasn’t helpful, and the pain in the left side of my neck (which I now know was lymphadenopathy from that infection) served as creative material for my hypochondria. I ended up having to leave the room and have a seat in the hallway to turn my thoughts to more pleasant subjects.

I waited until I heard applause from inside, and returned to the SkeptiCamp table sans camera, to find that Lancaster was actually still continuing on about various subjects. At some point I believe his wife assisted in cutting it short (he had gone some ways into lunch time), and I ended up still being a bit shaky through lunch.

I ended up losing my camera for the rest of the day, and getting it back from the registration desk the next day (thanks to both whoever turned it in and the gentleman who told me via Twitter that it had been turned in).

(Part three of my TAM7 summary, on Jamy Ian Swiss and James Randi, Jennifer Ouellette, the anti-anti-vax panel, and Joe Nickell, is here.)

O'Reilly on Amsterdam

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:21:00 +0000

Via Pharyngula, a video rebuttal to a recent Bill O’Reilly show claim that Amsterdam’s drug policies are a failure that has led it to be a “cesspool of corruption, crime, everything is out of control, it’s anarchy,” according to guest Monica Crowley, Ph.D. (In a bit of irony, her doctorate is in “international relations.” She’s a Fox News foreign affairs and policy analyst who was a personal foreign policy assistant to Richard Nixon from 1990-1994–I didn’t realize former presidents needed personal foreign policy assistants.)

Various cities in the Netherlands have placed additional restrictions on coffee shops that sell marijuana, such as not permitting them to operate within 200m of a school. The Wikipedia entry on drug policy in the Netherlands documents this, along with the details of their decriminalization (not legalization) policies.

Bad spammer neighborhoods

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:45:00 +0000

I’ve been collecting data about IPs that have been attempting to spam my mail server for the past few months, and today I decided to take a look at what neighborhoods of /24 networks are the most heavily populated with spamming IPs.

Here’s the list of the top ten “worst neighborhoods” trying to send me spam, mostly with dictionary attacks against my domain. These are all blocked by the CBL, so none of this spam actually gets through, but it ties up my bandwidth.

I’ve put an asterisk (*) next to the ranges that are probably actually smaller than /24s based on the distribution of IPs.

Does anybody have a tool that already exists to identify likely bad ranges to block based on the distribution of known bad IPs? All I did here was count IPs within a /24, but it would be nicer to identify the likely ranges of badness at both a more fine-grained and broader level.

Note that these bad neighborhoods may be neighborhoods of poorly secured machines, or they may be neighborhoods of malicious machines. Either way, the providers are not doing a good job of cracking down on malicious activity from their networks.

1. 64.32.26.0/24 (25 IPs)
45 46 51 52 54 66 68 73 81 90 100 102 104 111 113 126 155 157 163 168 194 199 204 236 242
AS 46844 | 64.32.26.0 | ST-BGP - SHARKTECH INTERNET SERVICES
Upstream provider: AS 7922 | 64.32.26.0 | COMCAST-7922 - Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.

*2. 89.232.105.0/24 (24 IPs)
21 24 29 32 48 57 59 63 64 68 76 89 93 94 97 101 103 107 114 117 126 129 137 139
AS 28840 | 89.232.105.0 | TATTELECOM-AS Tattelecom.ru/Tattelecom Autonomous System
Upstream provider: AS 6854 | 89.232.105.0 | SYNTERRA-AS SYNTERRA Joint Stock Company 64.32.26.0

3. 208.84.243.0/24 (20 IPs)
13 30 63 68 78 92 99 123 148 150 175 176 179 185 196 199 216 219 226 250
AS 40260 | 208.84.243.0 | TERRA-NETWORKS-MIAMI - Terra Networks Operations Inc.
Upstream provider: AS 22364 | 208.84.243.0 | AS-22364 - Telefonica USA, Inc.

*4. 83.149.3.0/24 (17 IPs)
5 6 12 14 16 18 21 22 25 28 30 40 42 47 48 51 63
AS 31213 | 83.149.3.0 | MF-NWGSM-AS OJSC MegaFon Network
Upstream providers: AS 12389 | 83.149.3.0 | ROSTELECOM-AS JSC Rostelecom
AS 20485 | 83.149.3.0 | TRANSTELECOM JSC Company TransTeleCom

*5. 76.164.227.0/24 (16 IPs)
138 155 159 174 182 186 194 199 202 206 210 218 222 230 238 246
AS 36114 | 76.164.227.0 | RDTECH-ASN - R & D Technologies, LLC
Upstream providers: AS 6473 | 76.164.227.0 | WCIXN4 - WCIX.Net, Inc.
AS 35937 | 76.164.227.0 | MARQUISNET - MarquisNet LLC

6. 76.164.232.0/24 (15 IPs)
13 21 24 33 36 38 40 43 48 57 198 206 218 232 234
AS 36114 | 76.164.232.0 | RDTECH-ASN - R & D Technologies, LLC
Upstream providers: AS 6473 | 76.164.227.0 | WCIXN4 - WCIX.Net, Inc.
AS 35937 | 76.164.227.0 | MARQUISNET - MarquisNet LLC

7. 77.120.128.0/24 (15 IPs)
20 37 50 85 93 104 107 112 159 162 187 232 239 248 252
AS 43011 | 77.120.128.0 | DATASVIT-AS ISP Datasvit AS Number
Upstream provider: AS 25229 | 77.120.128.0 | VOLIA-AS Volia Autonomous System

*8. 78.138.170.0/24 (12 IPs)
66 68 77 78 160 166 178 189 190 193 202 211
AS 28840 | 78.138.170.0 | TATTELECOM-AS Tattelecom.ru/Tattelecom Autonomous System
Upstream provider: AS 6854 | 89.232.105.0 | SYNTERRA-AS SYNTERRA Joint Stock Company 64.32.26.0

9. 77.232.143.0/24 (12 IPs)
33 37 40 63 69 104 175 182 190 215 218 251
AS 42145 | 77.232.143.0 | BSTV-AS OOO Bryansk Svyaz-TV
Upstream provider: AS 20485 | 77.232.143.0 | TRANSTELECOM JSC Company TransTeleCom

*10. 95.154.113.0/24 (12 IPs)
140 178 181 185 193 195 197 206 218 246 248 254
AS 44724 | 95.154.113.0 | OCTOPUSNET-AS Octopusnet LTD
Upstream provider: AS 34470 | 95.154.113.0 | PTKOM-AS PortTelekom Autonomous system

Creationist Darwin docu-drama and allegations of misrepresentation

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:56:00 +0000

Three historians interviewed for the Creation Ministries International docu-drama, “The Voyage That Shook the World," published a response maintaining that their views were not accurately represented by the film. Peter Bowler, Janet Browne, and Sandra Herbert wrote a note to that effect in the July 2009 issue of the Newsletter of the History of Science Society, which was also publicized by the National Center for Science Education’s website (and see John Lynch’s commentary at a simple prop).

CMI has now published a response to the historians on their website, noting that “The historians’ description of the film, while not totally accurate at all points, is not unreasonable and in some respects complimentary.” It also uses the historians’ statement that had they known the nature of the film, they might not have participated, as evidence that they were justified in concealing that information from them.

CMI takes issue, however, with the two specific allegations by Bowler and Herbert that their words in the interviews were taken out of context and misrepresented in what appears in the film. To rebut them, CMI’s website publishes more extensive quotations from these two historians and compares them to how they were edited and placed in the context of the film.

Although I haven’t yet had an opportunity to view the screener copy of the film in my possession, the CMI rebuttal appears to be sound with respect to those two specific allegations. The CMI web page concludes by noting that each of the participants was given their raw footage, as well as a copy of the film, and ends by saying, “We are hopeful that it will turn out to have been a case of not having checked the raw footage sent to them, instead relying on memory. We would be delighted to publish news of a retraction of either or both of these two claims in this space, should that occur."

So we can add up the lessons here:

1. Do due diligence about the production company and find out who’s behind it before agreeing to appear in a documentary.
2. Make sure your release gives you some way to defend yourself if misrepresented, e.g., make sure you get the raw footage.
3. If you [think you] are misrepresented and go public with it, consult the raw footage to make sure your charges of misrepresentation are themselves accurate.

How Twitter got compromised

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:23:00 +0000

TechCrunch has published “The Anatomy of the Twitter Attack," a detailed account of how “Hacker Croll” used people’s password-selection habits, use of multiple online applications, publicly available online information about people, and flawed “I forgot my password” mechanisms to gain access first to individuals’ personal webmail accounts and then to Twitter’s internal systems.

It’s a good idea to use randomly generated passwords, stored in a password safe, so that they’re different with every service you use. It’s also a good idea to split personal and corporate accounts. Lately I’ve taken to using randomly generated information for my “I forgot my password” answers, as well, and keeping that in my password safe just like another password.

The “secret questions” for password recovery are a vulnerability when so much personal information is being shared on the Internet. That’s how Sarah Palin’s email account was compromised last year, as well.

Lying to defend the claim that morality requires the Bible

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:13:00 +0000

Florida’s Community Issues Council, a Christian group that believes that the separation of church and state as advocated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison is a “lie we have been told,” has taken to defending its position with billboards containing a fabricated quote from George Washington:
The billboards showcase quotes from early American leaders like John Adams, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin. Most of the quotes portray a national need for Christian governance.

The Amazing Meeting 7: intro, Bidlack/Plait/Randi, Prady

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:17:00 +0000

The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)’s eighth “The Amazing Meeting,” TAM7, took place July 9-12, 2009 at the South Point Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas. (The eighth is number 7 because there was a smaller TAM5.5 event in Fort Lauderdale in January 2008 as the annual event transitioned from occurring in January to occurring in the summer.)

This post begins my summary of The Amazing Meeting 7, which I plan to complete and post in parts over the next week or so, similar to the summary I wrote up of last year’s TAM6. Other summaries of TAM7 may be found here:
By Michael at Young, Hip and Conservative: a skeptical blog.
In six semi-liveblogged parts at The Atheist Experience blog: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6
At the Anxiolysis blog: Preamble, Day 1, Day 2, Final day
By Geeky Atheist.
By Action Skeptics, with some interesting criticisms: Thursday and Friday, Saturday and Sunday
At the TAMazing blog (many posts)
D.J. Grothe’s wrap-up of TAM7 at CFI’s blog
antiheroine at the Central Ohioans for Rational Inquiry blog
Brownian at JREF’s Swift blog
Photos of TAM7 may be found here:
Dean Baird’s photos.
Michael’s TAM7 photos at Picasa.
Flickr photos tagged “tam7."
This was the first TAM at this location south of the strip, and I was a bit worried about the convenience factor, since there wasn’t the diversity of restaurants within walking distance that you get with a hotel on the strip. That concern proved unfounded, as there was a good variety of food available within the hotel, ranging from deli sandwiches to a steakhouse, and I never left the hotel during the conference. Those who did visit the strip were able to catch a bus across the street for a few dollars, if they didn’t just bum a ride from somebody with a car. I did hear a few complaints about the food–that the buffet wasn’t great, nor was one of the mid-range restaurants, neither of which I visited. There was also some displeasure on the part of vegetarians about the lack of meat-free options for the first day’s lunch. I was somewhat disappointed that the morning’s continental breakfasts were served in the main conference hall rather than in a separate dining room with round tables more conducive to conversation like last year, but the lunches were served in that manner and I did get to meet a few people that way each day. Overall, I thought the location was excellent and it has already been booked again for next year’s TAM8, which will take place from July 8-11, 2010.

This year, rather than attend any of the pre-conference workshops, I attended the excellent Science-Based Medicine conference which was held in conjunction with TAM7. TAM has tended to avoid having a particular theme or focus, and it was nice to have a day that was concentrated in a particular field, and which drew an audience largely of people with expertise in that field. I think this has been one of the strengths of some of the Skeptics Society conferences that have focused on particular subjects, such as its 1996 conference on evolutionary psychology, its 2005 conference on “Mind, Brain, and Consciousness” (which was quite critical of evolutionary psychology), and its 2007 meeting on the “Environmental Wars.” At the same time, the diversity of TAM and its audience is also valuable, so having a second conference as an optional complement to TAM strikes me as a good way of getting the best of both worlds.

This year was the first TAM with over 1,000 attendees, of whom 30% were women, the highest percentage of female attendees to date. When the question was asked, “how many are here for the first time?”, it appeared to be about half the audience members who raised their hands. The first TAM had about 140 attendees, and last year’s TAM6 had just over 900. There seemed to be a pretty good geographic diversity, with large contingents from Canada, the UK, and Australia like last year. It would be nice if attendees could voluntarily allow some information about themselves to be published in an attendee directory, such as name, JREF Forum handle, and home location.

There was a good-sized contingent from Arizona this year, including several participants from SkeptiCamp Phoenix, Phoenix Skeptics in the Pub, the Skeptics of Tucson, and Flagstaff’s Northern Arizona Skeptics. The conference kicked off with its usual Thursday evening meet-and-greet with hors d’oeuvres and a cash bar, during which I managed to chat with people from all of those groups, some for the first time. We’ll be holding another SkeptiCamp Phoenix next year, and I expect we’ll be able to double our participation.

Friday, July 10
The conference formally began on Friday morning with opening remarks from emcee Hal Bidlack. Hal noted the growth in participation at TAM, talked about a ghost tour at the Stanley Hotel (where “The Shining” was NOT filmed), and noted that Uri Geller had appeared on NBC News as a commentator on Michael Jackson’s death.

Hal kicked things off by quoting Plutarch (“The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled”) and noted that skeptics are a family: “Welcome to the Randi family reunion.” He remarked on the power of the individual to make change, and singled out for particular note Reed Esau for his part in the origination and expansion of SkeptiCamp, and Robert Lancaster for his stopsylviabrowne.com website.

He noted that there is an audience tradition of “pretending not to like my jokes” and that Randi once accused him of using “homeopathic humor."

And he offered a “cautionary note” that “we aren’t cookie cutter, we do have areas of disagreement.” By coming together in a group there are “dangers to individualism.” This is an inclusive, “large-tent organization,” and the topic of religion in particular has been “a source of tension” in previous conferences. Skepticism, he said, is about examining testable claims, and he noted that he, among others, is not an atheist. While I encountered many atheists at the conference, there was little, if anything, in the way of explicitly atheistic material presented (though I don’t remember any last year, either, except for some Objectivist material that was handed out to attendees, which was disappointingly both overtly anti-religious and political, though it was not a subject of discussion in any presentation that I noticed).

Phil Plait then offered his first opening remarks as president of JREF, stating that the organization has “reached critical mass” and “become the mainstream skeptics movement of the people.” He said that people come to TAM for three reasons–to hear speakers, to see Randi, and to participate in the skeptical community. We don’t necessarily agree on all of our positions, but we agree on how we reach conclusions. Like Hal Bidlack, Plait also called out both Reed Esau and Robert Lancaster for their contributions.

Dr. Plait spoke a bit about the Randi $1 million challenge, saying that it had started to become an albatross because of the amount of effort required to deal with potential claimants. It was “hard to determine what the claim is” from many people, let alone how to properly test it and come to an agreement on protocol. So it had been announced that the challenge would be discontinued in order to put the funds to better use and save the effort. But it has also been a useful tool, and he was happy to announce that it will be continued after all, in some form, the details of which are still to be worked out.

James Randi then came up on stage in a red and white striped shirt that he identified as his “happy shirt.” He was pleased at the steady growth of TAM. In a more somber note, he commented on “my subdued appearance” and explained why he was unable to shake hands with anyone at TAM this year. He was the recipient of an “unwelcome visitor” (cancer), for which he’s had surgery and will be undergoing chemotherapy. He explained that this is why he hasn’t made many videos of late.

Randi gave special thanks to Sean McCabe, his personal assistant for the last year, who is now going back home and back to school, and to Brandon K. Thorpe, who will be his new assistant. He went through a long list of people that he thanked, including the JREF staff and volunteers, and various speakers and entertainers whose participation makes TAM a success. He ended by noting that the first TAM to be held outside of the United States, TAM London, to be held on October 3 and 4, was oversubscribed in less than an hour.

Keynote: Bill Prady, creator and executive producer of “The Big Bang Theory”
Bill Prady started by saying that the “keynote sets the tone” for a conference, and that if so, this conference will be “disorganized and ill-prepared.” He said he looked at the JREF website’s description of his talk for clues as to what he should talk about, and saw that he stated that he “makes sure each episode is full of science” and that in a recent talk at Comic-Con, he had the audience laughing so hard they were rolling in the aisles. After reading that description, he said, “all I can do is disappoint you horribly.” With that, he showed a few short clips from “The Big Bang Theory” which he thought would be “of interest to this group,” which included a debunking of astrology based on Bertram Forer’s work, a reference to intelligent design, some magic tricks, and more references to astrology. The clips were fairly amusing, but my wife and I made an attempt to watch this show after hearing recommendations from friends, but gave up without completing two shows due to the painful laugh track. (A recent Twitter remark from Australian skeptic Richard Saunders suggests a similar experience.)

After the clips, Prady described his own background–that he earned pocket money doing magic shows from about age 12 to 16, and had an International Brotherhood of Magicians pin that he wanted to bring but was unable to find. He said that he read both Linking Ring and Genii, and frequently saw Randi on the covers, and was honored to sit next to him at the conference. He said he was a college dropout, then worked as a computer programmer before getting into television.

He observed that the chicken or egg problem was resolved by evolution–the egg came first–but then posed his own chicken-egg problem: “Do people who think like us become computer programmers, or does computer programming make people think like us?” He stated that there are two qualities common to such people: 1. critical thinking, and 2. lack of judgment about each other. As an example, he gave a friend named Ken, who would not go anywhere he hadn’t been before without being shown by someone else, even if it was yards away from somewhere else he had already been. He could do hex-decimal conversions in his head, but when told it’s customary to tip between 15% and 20% based on quality of service, he couldn’t calculate tips on his own because he didn’t know how to measure that. When his friends suggested he just always tip 17.5%, he refused, because then he would be overtipping half the time and undertipping half the time. (And I can’t resist noting that this response makes an unwarranted assumption about the distribution of service quality received by an individual diner.)

Prady offered a few remarks about the characters and his show. The character Leonard is based on him. There was a story line about Penny offering herself to him in a distraught moment, with Leonard blowing it because he insisted on making a true statement about an analysis of their situation, which Prady stated was based on a true story. He said he’s proud of all the characters on the show, and wanted to depict “other views as complex, not stupid or paper tigers.” E.g., Penny’s belief in astrology and Sheldon’s mother’s religious faith. He said that “people’s belief systems are the things that get them through the day. … they’re not saying ‘oh, please help me abandon the thing that gets me through my illness, my unemployment, my kid who doesn’t understand me.’ This is the thing that gets them to the night so they can go to sleep so they can get up and do it again. People’s beliefs are not a contest. You don’t win. You don’t win at the end of the day."

His original plan was to have the show about computer programmers, but apparently having the characters in front of computers raised too many difficulties for filming, due to reflections from monitors as well as the difficulty of depicting what they were doing.

He wanted to read some angry letters of complaint received by the show, but was unable to locate any. There was a folder marked “disturbing letters,” but these were mostly letters from inmates in love with actress Kaley Cuoco. He called CBS, but they had not received a single angry letter. He took that as offering a bit of assurance for skeptics, that an audience of 12 million people per week could watch a show that begins with the history of the universe in 20 seconds to a Barenaked Ladies song and promotes science and critical thinking without being upset by it.

Prady concluded by saying that when Phil Plait and Adam Savage asked him to speak, he knew his title should be “We Can Continue Telling Women in Bars That Astrology Isn’t Real, But We Won’t Get To Have Sex.” He suggested (presumably addressing only the straight men and lesbian and bisexual women in the audience) that while you’re here in Las Vegas and you meet a woman who is very complimentary and interested in you, be skeptical. He also suggested (to the same audience) that if you’re enjoying a conversation with a woman who says “I’m a Sagittarius,” try performing a study with two different responses. 1. Give a detailed explanation of the time twins study from England as a refutation of astrology, or 2. Say “wow, you have the most incredible eyes,” and see which response is more likely to lead to a positive outcome. (These remarks have led to some criticism of Prady for obvious reasons; Prady responds here. The topic is discussed further on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast #211, interview with Skepchick Carrie Iwan (starting at 43:30). Gender and skepticism was also the topic of discussion of the August 7th episode of Skeptically Speaking. The Podblack Cat blog discussed women, science, and skepticism earlier this year.)

In the subsequent Q&A session, Prady said that the science content of the show comes from technical advisors. He said “lots of people think the show mocks people like us–but if you were in the writer’s room you’d say it’s an idealized picture of who they’d like to be.” He recounted how when the character Ross on the show “Friends” went to a paleontology convention (he was supposedly a paleontologist), there was nothing in the dialogue that went beyond 6th grade science. He didn’t want his show to be like that. They use David Saltzburg, a UCLA astrophysicist, as a consultant. They asked him, “What’s new in physics,” to which his answer was “not much in the last 40 years,” which they wrote into the script. Saltzburg said “oh, string theorists will get mad at me.” He then said something disparaging about string theory (I missed it in my notes), and they put that into the script, too.

In response to a questioner who asked why women are depicted as stereotypically ditzy and scientists as maladjusted, Prady defended his portrayal. He said that Penny is not portrayed as ditzy but as a “pragmatic intelligence–the best character on the show at getting through life and getting things done.” He said there will be more female scientists on the show in the future.

The final question was a comment from someone in the audience who has a son that is like the characters on the show. On the show, Sheldon uses a board to fold clothes. The questioner’s son looked online to find such a board to use himself, and dubbed the board “Sheldon."

(There’s a transcription of Prady’s talk here. Randi’s opening remarks are transcribed here. Part two of my summary of TAM7, on Dr. Fintan Steele, Phil Plait, and Robert Lancaster, is here.)

Arizona's homeopathic medical board

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:21:00 +0000

Dr. Kimball Atwood’s presentation at the Science-based Medicine conference included some observations about the overwhelming evidence against homeopathy being a valid or even remotely plausible treatment for anything. During one of the Q&A sessions at that conference, someone made an observation that Arizona is a terrible state for all kinds of quackery, and even has a State Board of Homeopathic Medical Examiners.

The homeopathy board was created in 1982 by a law written and lobbied for by Dr. Harvey Bigelson, a homeopath who was indicted in 1992 by a federal grand jury on 63 counts of Medicare fraud, 44 counts of mail fraud, and eight counts of obstruction of justice. He plea-bargained his way down to three counts and five years of probation, and lost both his medical and homeopathic licenses, making him one of only two homeopaths to lose their licenses by action of the board. He subsequently opened a cancer clinic in Mexico to continue his quackery.

There was an opportunity for Arizona to dispose of its Homeopathy Board in 2006, when the law that created it would have expired under its sunset provisions, but our legislature foolishly renewed it despite overwhelming evidence that it not only gives an unmerited credence to nonsense, but doesn’t even do anything to keep criminals from practicing homeopathy. An October 9, 2005 story in the Arizona Republic pointed out several cases of convicted felons from other states permitted to obtain homeopathic licenses and practice in Arizona. It also pointed out that complaints brought against homeopathy board members for malpractice and sexual harassment were simply dismissed:

Bowl-a-Rama Fundraiser this Thursday

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:20:00 +0000

There are just 11 days left to raise money for Bowl-a-Rama. We have one more fundraising event this Thursday, July 23rd at Rosita’s in Tempe or Mesa. Please come out, enjoy a great meal and support RESCUE. 15% of your purchase is donated back to RESCUE!!! Pictured is the flyer for the event (you’ll need it in order for us to receive the proceeds). I can email the flyer to you if you are interested, just ask me in the comments. All are welcome for lunch, dinner, dine in or take out. Jim & I will be at the Tempe location around 6:00pm, please stop by.

Index of Conference Summaries

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:44:00 +0000

This is a reverse-chronological list of conference and talk summaries I’ve written up, either at my blog or elsewhere. Most pertain to skepticism and critical thinking in some way (and I’d like to think that all involve the application of skepticism and critical thinking to the topics at hand), some are political, and some involve information security. I’ve got a few more of these in print form that are online in the issues of the Arizona Skeptic.

Bruce Wagman on “Many Species of Animal Law," April 7, 2010, Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Tempe, Arizona, Armstrong Hall 116.

Joel Garreau on Radical Evolution, November 18, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, Coor 5536, CSPO Plausibility Project.

Richard Carrier on “Christianity and Science (Ancient and Modern)," November 8, 2009, Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix, Home Town Buffet, Scottsdale.

Robert B. Laughlin on “The Crime of Reason," November 5, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law, Great Hall; 2009 Hogan & Hartson Jurimetrics Lecture in Honor of Lee Loevinger.

Roger Pielke Jr. on climate change adaptation, November 5, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, Decision Theater.

Roger Pielke Jr. on climate change mitigation, November 5, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, Coor 5536.

Robert Balling on climate change, October 30, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, Coor L1-74.

Personalized medicine research forum, October 23, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, The Biodesign Institute.

Atheist Alliance International convention, October 2-4, 2009, Burbank Marriott, Burbank, California. Speakers: P.Z. Myers, Ed Buckner, Lawrence Krauss, Carolyn Porco, Martin Pera, Jerry Coyne, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Gerardo Romero, Jonathan Kirsch, Eugenie Scott, Brian Parra.

Marco Iacoboni on imitation and sociality, August 27, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, psychology department colloquium, MU202.

Joel Garreau on the future of cities, August 26, 2009, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes colloquium, Coor L1-10.

The Amazing Meeting 7, July 9-12, 2009 at the South Point Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Part 1: Introduction, Hal Bidlack, Phil Plait, James Randi, Bill Prady keynote.
Part 2: Fintan Steele, Phil Plait, Robert Lancaster.
Part 3: Jamy Ian Swiss/James Randi, Jennifer Ouellette, anti-anti-vax panel (Steven Novella, David Gorski, Joe Albietz, Harriet Hall, Michael Goudeau, Derek Bartholomaus), Joe Nickell.
Part 4: Skeptics Guide to the Universe/Rodrigues-Watson wedding, Michael Shermer, Adam Savage.
Part 5: Panel on ethics of deception (D.J. Grothe, Penn Jillette, Teller, Ray Hyman, Jamy Ian Swiss), Stephen Bauer, panel on skepticism and the media (Penn Jillette, Teller, Adam Savage, Bill Prady, Jennifer Ouellette), Phil Plait.
Part 6: Sunday paper sessions, Million Dollar Challenge with Danish dowser Connie Sonne.

Science-Based Medicine Conference at The Amazing Meeting 7, July 9, 2009 at the South Point Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Part 1: Steven Novella on science-based medicine.
Part 2: David Gorski on cancer quackery.
Part 3: Harriet Hall on chiropractic.
Part 4: Kimball Atwood on evidence-based medicine and homeopathy.
Part 5: Mark Crislip on chronic Lyme disease.
Part 6: Val Jones on online health and social media, and Q&A panel.

American Humanist Association annual conference at Tempe Mission Palms Hotel, Tempe, Arizona, June 5-9, 2009.
Sorry, only covered my own talk from the pre-conference workshops and the ArizonaCOR press conference.

Jeff Benedict on the Kelo case and his book Little Pink House, Goldwater Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, April 15, 2009.

SkeptiCamp Phoenix, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, March 28, 2009. Speakers: Tony Barnhart, Abraham Heward, David Jackemeyer, Don Lacey, Jim Lippard, Shannon Rankin, John Lynch, Jack Ray, David Weston, Mike Stackpole, Charlie Cavanaugh Toft, Xarold Trejo.

Daniel Dennett’s 2009 Beyond Center Lecture, Galvin Playhouse, Arizona State University, February 18, 2009, on “Darwin’s ‘Strange Inversion of Reasoning.’"

Bill of Rights celebration event at the Wrigley Mansion, Phoenix, Arizona, December 14, 2008.

The Amazing Meeting 6, June 19-22, 2008 at the Flamingo Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Overview and photo link.
Part 1: Banachek memory workshop.
Part 2: Hal Bidlack, James Randi welcome, Ben Goldacre on homeopathy, Neil deGrasse Tyson keynote, Alec Jason on Peter Popoff and criminal forensics, Penn & Teller Q&A, George Hrab musical interlude, P.Z. Myers on bat wings, Richard Saunders on educational materials for kids, panel discussion on identifying as a skeptic (James Randi, P.Z. Myers, Michael Shermer, Margaret Downey, Phil Plait, Hal Bidlack, and a member of the NYC Skeptics whose name I didn’t catch).
Part 3: Michael Shermer on the Skeptologists and why people believe weird things, Sharon Begley on creationism and other weird beliefs, Derek and Swoopy on Skepticality and podcasting, Steven Novella on dualism and creationism, Jeff Wagg JREF update, Jim Underdown on the Independent Investigations Group and award to Randi, Randi on patching up relations with CSI (formerly CSICOP), Skeptologists pilot.
Part 4: Phil Plait on astronomy, Adam Savage on his Maltese falcon, Matthew Chapman on creationism and Science Debate 2008, Richard Wiseman on the “colour changing card trick” and mass spoonbending lesson, panel discussion on the limits of skepticism (Goldacre, Daniel Loxton, Radford, Savage, Novella, Hrab, Randi, Banachek, and Saunders), Sunday conference papers: John Janks on Marfa lights, Don Nyberg on pseudoscience, Steve Cuno on myths in marketing, Tracy King on viral video.
Part 5: Lee Graham on artificial creatures and real evolution, Christopher French on anomalistic psychology, Tim Farley on building skeptical tools online, Brian Dunning on The Skeptologists.

Gene Healey on his book The Cult of the Presidency, Goldwater Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, May 1, 2008.

Richard Dawkins 2008 Beyond Center Lecture, Grady Gammage Auditorium, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, March 6, 2008, on “The God Delusion."

New Mexico InfraGard Member Alliance “$-Gard” conference, February 22, 2008, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Speakers: Frank Abagnale on protecting yourself from fraud, Anthony Clark and Danny Quist on malware secrets, Alex Quintana on current trends in malware, Melissa McBee-Anderson on the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).

Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the Phoenician Resort, Goldwater Institute award banquet, Phoenix, Arizona, December 7, 2007.

Screening of “Mr. Conservative” documentary about Barry Goldwater, Goldwater Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, August 16, 2007. Features Barry Goldwater, George Will, Barry Goldwater, Jr., Sandra Day O’Connor, Ben Bradlee, Sally Quinn, Al Franken, Julian Bond, Hillary Clinton, and Jack Valenti.

Ron Paul launches Arizona campaign at private home in Paradise Valley, Arizona, March 30, 2007.
Followed up by Einzige’s “Ron Paul, Religious Kook," my “Spammers and criminals for Ron Paul," and “Ron Paul connected to white supremacists?"

Skeptics Society conference on “The Environmental Wars," Caltech, Pasadena, California, June 2006.
Intro and links to other summaries.
Jonathan Adler on federal environmental regulation.

Eugenie Scott on “Creationism and Evolution: Current Perspectives," Robert S. Dietz Memorial Lecture at Arizona State University, Physical Sciences building, February 3, 2006.

National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) Economic Crime Summit, November 8-9, 2005, downtown Phoenix, Arizona, and Freedom Summit, November 12-13, 2005, Grace Inn Ahwatukee.
Economic Crime Summit and Freedom Summit comparison/contrast/overview–prayer vs. atheism debate, Terry Goddard, Roger Vanderpool, John Vincent, Kevin Robinson, Charles Cohen, George H. Smith, Eric Lounsbery, David Friedman, Chris Heward, Karen Kwiatkowski, Jim Bovard.
Freedom Summit: Stuart Krone on technology and why we’re screwed.
Freedom Summit: Steven Greer on aliens and conspiracy.
Freedom Summit: Links to photos and other summaries.

CSICOP Conference on “The Psychology of Belief," Seattle, Washington, June 23-26, 1994.

CSICOP Conference on “Fairness, Fraud, and Feminism: Culture Confronts Science," Dallas, Texas, October 16-18, 1992.
Part 1: Panel on multicultural approaches to science (moderator Eugenie Scott, Diana Marinez, Joseph Dunbar, Bernard Ortiz de Montellano), unofficial session on faith healing with Ole Anthony.
Part 2: Intro remarks by Lee Nisbet, panel on gender issues in science and pseudoscience (moderator James Alcock, Carol Tavris, Susan Blackmore, Steven Goldberg), Richard Dawkins keynote on viruses of the mind.
Part 3: Fraud in science panel (moderator Ray Hyman, Elie Shneour, Paul Friedman, Walter Stewart), Sergei Kapitza and Evry Schatzman on international skepticism, panel on crashed saucer claims (Philip Klass, James McGaha).
Part 4: Robert Young on the Kecksburg meteor, Donald Schmitt on Roswell, awards banquet (Richard Dawkins, Henry Gordon, Andrew Skolnick), entertainment by Steve Shaw (now better known as Banachek), visit to Dealey Plaza.

CSICOP Workshop on UFOs, Ramada Inn Airport Hotel, Tucson, Arizona, November 16-17, 1990. James McGaha, Robert Sheaffer, Robert Baker, and Ronald Story, all on UFOs.

Deception in "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:47:00 +0000

Here’s a nice short YouTube video documenting several cases of deception in the documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle." And on the same subject, I’m rather fond of an exchange between Martin Durkin, the producer of that film, and geneticist Armand Leroi, journalist Ben Goldacre, and science writer Simon Singh, which prompted Durkin to respond, “you’re a big daft cock” after Leroi pointed out that the film had used completely erroneous data that was possibly even faked.

(Via the Deltoid blog.)

DHS still a mess, five years on

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:58:00 +0000

One of the main points of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2004 was to centralize oversight over a wide array of agencies with responsibility for the safety and security of the United States and its territories. The 9/11 Commission made 41 specific recommendations to Congress, and one of those was “create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security.” But that’s one that hasn’t been accomplished–DHS oversight by Congress is through 86 separate committees and subcommittees (see chart below, click on it for the full-sized image).

The Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Investigative Reporting have joined forces to investigate the effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts since its creation, and will be publishing a series of reports over the next several months which should prove quite interesting.

Science-based medicine conference posts yield new visitors

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:06:00 +0000

Looks like the chiropractic post has been referenced at a chiropractic forum, which is generating a fair amount of traffic:

http://www.chiroweb.com/cgi-bin/ubb/dcs_only/forumdisplay.cgi?action=displayprivate&number=4&topic=014324

And the chronic Lyme disease post has been referenced at a Lyme disease forum:

http://www.lymeneteurope.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2623&p=19265

It remains to be seen if this will produce any critical comments, though I noticed that an advocate for chiropractic, “nobs,” showed up in the comments at the Science-Based Medicine blog and made a mistaken inference about the conference content–that it was 25% about chiropractic–because he failed to realize that my conference summary had only covered the first four of the six speakers at the time.

Nothing yet from homeopaths that I’ve noticed.

Science-based medicine conference, part 6: online health and social media, and Q&A

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:36:00 +0000

This is the sixth and final part of my summary of the Science-Based Medicine conference at TAM7, which will be followed by a summary of TAM7 itself. Part one, Dr. Steven Novella’s introduction, is here. Part two, Dr. David Gorski on cancer quackery, is here. Part three, Dr. Harriet Hall on chiropractic, is here. Part four, Dr. Kimball Atwood on evidence-based medicine and homeopathy, is here. Part five, Dr. Mark Crislip on chronic Lyme disease, is here.

The sixth session speaker was Dr. Val Jones, CEO of BetterHealth, on “Online Health and Social Media: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.” In this last post of my SBM conference summary, I’ll cover her talk as well as the Q&A panel that concluded that day’s events.

Personal Story
Dr. Jones began her talk with her personal history–she was raised in Nova Scotia by hippie parents from New York City and grew up on a farm with cows. She said her parents were “moderately weird”–they would ascribe magical powers to yogurt, but they vaccinated their children. She called herself a “shruggie” with respect to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)–ambivalent about whether there could be anything to it.

She worked with the Ontario March of Dimes, became a doctor, did biophysics and vaccination research at the Mayo Clinic, and earned her M.D. in physical medicine at Columbia. She then worked at Medscape with George Lundberg, editor of JAMA, and created the Clinical Nutrition & Obesity journal there (at Medscape). She was then recruited by RevolutionHealth, an online provider of health information started by Steve Case of America Online. She described it as an “OnStar system for navigating the health care system.” She moved to Washington D.C. to take the job, and, as she put it, “entered the Twilight Zone."

Revolution Health
She served as an editorial director and medical reviewer with a staff of 100 doctors across the country, and “couldn’t believe the crap that came across [her] desk. Who are these people and why are they so into their colons?"

At one point, an article was submitted from a writer for Alternative Medicine magazine that claimed olive oil cures breast cancer. The study behind the story showed that breast cancer cells in a petri dish, exposed to a chemical found in olive oil, made some kind of genetic change–that was transformed into an alleged cure for breast cancer.

The company developed a health tracker tool, and developers kept adding trackers based on what they thought would be cool, such as a “hot flash tracker.” She asked, “Why?” The developers answered, “so they can tell the doctor if a hot flash occurred at 2 or at 3 o’clock!” There was no clinical review of the tracking tools.

Medicine Chest
Another product was developed called Medicine Chest, which allowed people to vote their medicines up or down for how much they like them. “It’s not going to be misinformation, it’s the wisdom of crowds,” the developers said. Not only could users vote on their medicines that were listed, they could add suggestions of their own in free-format text fields. The display of the results on the site didn’t distinguish FDA-approved treatments from what people entered in on their own.

The result was that the best treatment for headaches, back pain, strains, etc. was narcotics, followed by marijuana. The best treatment for diabetes (without distinguishing type 1 from type 2) was dog walking.

Dr. Jones compared this to the Citizens’ Briefing Book on Obama’s change.gov website, where the general public could vote on what they considered to be the most important issues, with the resulting winner being the legalization of marijuana.

Other recommended treatments from the Medicine Chest feature included yogurt for colon cancer, acupuncture for ovarian cysts, herbal treatments for hip fracture, and steroids for cellulitis (which she observed is “very bad and dangerous”). Other similar sites took things to a further extreme, such as Patientslikeme.com, which allowed patients to conduct and report their own clinical trials online. This led to promotion of fish oil to slow the progression of multiple sclerosis and ALS. And beer and dogs as a treatment for lack of motivation.

She cited a quote from Poincare: “Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science."

She searched the Internet for help understanding the craziness, and came across Orac’s Respectful Insolence blog, which she followed for several months. The last straw for her at Revolution Health was when it promoted chelation as a treatment for autism, which could kill a child, and she felt violated her Hippocratic Oath.

Dr. Jones listed a set of psychological factors which lead people to wrong conclusions, of the sort you might find in Kahnemann & Tversky’s Judgment Under Uncertainty. On the list was the Hawthorne Effect, which purportedly showed that any change made in a business environment temporarily improves productivity. This effect was named after a study of worker productivity based on data collected after changes in lighting and other conditions at the Hawthorne Works between 1924 and 1932, but subsequent studies have failed to replicate the effect. The original data was recently rediscovered and reanalyzed by Steven Levitt (author of Freakonomics) and John List, with the result that “we find that existing descriptions of supposedly remarkable data patterns prove to be entirely fictional. There are, however, hints of more subtle manifestations of a Hawthorne effect in the original data."

Miscellaneous Slides
She concluded her talk with a few slides with various observations, such as The Onion’s “NSF: Science Hard” article and a quote from Surgeon General Rich Carmona that the average American understands medicine at the 4th to 6th grade level. She pointed out that there’s a cottage industry of quack cancer treatment providers around the M.D. Anderson cancer center, taking advantage of cancer patients. She criticized the 1994 passage of DSHEA and its signing into law by Bill Clinton, which exempted dietary supplements from FDA approval requirements unless they’re found to be harmful. She quoted lots of examples of harm from whatstheharm.net. She recommended Memorial Sloan Kettering’s herbal guide, noting that “doesn’t work” is the conclusion for most descriptions, and recommended ClinicalTrials.gov for accurate information. And she closed with a quote from Hippocrates: “There are two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance."

Q&A
There was then a Q&A panel with all speakers. The first questioner came up to note that the CDC of Maine recently sent pediatricians copies of Paul Offit’s book, Autism’s False Prophets. He also noted that humor of the sort in the “That Mitchell and Webb Look” clip about the homeopathic emergency room was effective, and we need more things like that. Steven Novella responded that we need lots of different things, not any one thing, because AltMed has its marketing down pat.

Another questioner asked if there was a way for social media to work effectively in medicine, to which Dr. Jones responded that MedHealth “has lifeguards in the pool–physicians to moderate.” In a later comment, she pointed out that MedHealth has 200-300 doctors who answer questions for free, because the referrals they get as a result more than make up for the [opportunity cost].

Someone else said that the book Snake Oil Science needs to be turned into an easily usable website, and complained that Quackwatch is hard to use and too polemical. Dr. Novella agreed that SBM needs to provide more, better, and more usable information. It would be good to have a place where you can find overviews on topics, allow you to dig as deep into technical detail as you want, and provides a list of sentinel references. (This is essentially what the TalkOrigins Archive provides for the creation/evolution debate, in particular with Mark Isaak’s Index of Creationist Claims; the power of providing these kinds of broad and deep archives of reliable material was one of the key points of the talk I gave in June to the American Humanist Association.)

Another questioner asked whether there is anything we can do to get rid of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Dr. Novella said that it is becoming more widely known that NCCAM’s Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy, its largest and most expensive trial to date, is loaded with “quacks and criminals” (guilty of insurance fraud and worse) and “totally corrupt,” as has been reported by the Associated Press in several good stories. Bioethicist Art Caplan has pointed out that these are unethical experiments on human subjects that would (should?) never be tolerated by NIH. (NCCAM is part of NIH.) NCCAM has spent ~~$1.2 billion~~ $2.5 billion of taxpayer money to date, and produced zero new treatments.

Someone raised the question of what kinds of questions to ask your own doctors to make sure they’re giving good advice. Dr. Jones suggested asking, “Do you use UpToDate?”, which is a service that searches the world medical literature regularly and provides current data reviewed by 300 full-time reviewers. Dr. Gorski suggested asking whether a doctor follows the NCCN guidelines, which are evidence-based cancer treatment recommendations. Dr. Novella observed that just using Google, a “pull approach,” how most people look for medical information online, is highly unreliable because “bad sites are good at looking like good sites.” (I’d suggest that a more specialized search engine is a better way–Tim Farley suggested some ways of creating such capabilities at TAM6 last year.) Dr. Hall said that Stephen Barrett’s rule of thumb for distinguishing good from bad sites is that “if it’s selling something, it’s a bad site.” I’m not sure how effective that rule is, since even good sites are typically selling something.

Someone raised a problem for use of prior probability, noting that it could have made us miss out on the discovery of lithium as a treatment for bipolar disorder, since it was originally postulated on rather shaky grounds. He gave a second example as SSRIs, which are effective in treating depression, but the original MAOI hypothesis of their operation has been refuted. Dr. Novella responded by saying that first of all, no known mechanism should imply a neutral prior probability (i.e., 0.5). Second, in deciding what to research, it’s better to err on the side of the implausible–but not for treatment. He further suggested that lack of mechanism should not be equated with implausibility. Dr. Atwood seconded that there is a difference between lack of mechanism and contravention of a physical law, and made reference to the discussion that he and I had during the break. He gave aspirin as another example of a substance where the mechanism was discovered later than its effectiveness, and expressed doubt about the questioner’s story of the discovery of lithium’s usefulness.

David Whitlock raised the question of framing, asking why we don’t draw the distinction as science-based vs. faith-based medicine. Dr. Novella responded that this would cause more problems than it would solve, at least in the United States, because of the immunities granted to the free exercise of religion. A questioner wondered whether it might at least stop the government from paying for “faith-based” medicine under single payer. (I don’t think we’re likely to get single payer, and I note that we still have an Office of Faith-Based Programs, so I think this is not a good suggestion.) Dr. Gorski noted that very little CAM is actually religion-based.

A questioner asked how corrupt the Cochrane data is, to which Dr. Atwood replied that the contributions on CAM subjects are unreliable, but reviews of substances are good and Cochrane in general is good. Dr. Novella said that he uses Cochrane to get studies and results, but ignores their conclusions, and pays close attention to authorship. Dr. Hall said that when it comes to meta-analysis, if the result is negative, you should believe it, but if the result is positive, you should look further. Dr. Novella noted that the systematic reviews in Cochrane aren’t actually meta-analyses.

And that pretty much wrapped up the day for the Science-based Medicine conference.

If you’d like to continue on to my summary of The Amazing Meeting 7, it begins here.

UPDATE (July 19, 2009): I’ve been reminded that I neglected to mention one of the more interesting questioners, a massage therapist who stood up and said that he was probably the only “woo practitioner” in the room (though the doctors disagreed that massage therapy really counts as “woo”–and see Dr. Atwood’s talk, where he classified massage therapy as having high prior plausibility), who regularly attends CAM conferences. He complimented the speakers and the audience for having a level of displayed intelligence, sophistication, and scientific knowledge that is not seen at those CAM conferences.

Science-based medicine conference, part 5: chronic lyme disease

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:42:00 +0000

This is part five of my summary of the Science-Based Medicine conference at TAM7, which will be followed by a summary of TAM7 itself. Part one, Dr. Steven Novella’s introduction, is here. Part two, Dr. David Gorski on cancer quackery, is here. Part three, Dr. Harriet Hall on chiropractic, is here. Part four, Dr. Kimball Atwood on evidence-based medicine and homeopathy, is here.

The fifth session speaker was Dr. Mark Crislip, infectious disease specialist and host of the Quackcast podcast, on “Lyme from the IDSA to the ILADS to the ABA."

Like several of the other speakers, Dr. Crislip began with a disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, saying that he had “barely any” and “[hasn’t] spoken to a drug rep in 25 years."

He started his talk with a description of Lyme disease. It’s caused by a spirochete related to syphilis, that comes in three varieties, European, Asian, and North American. The latter is Borellia burgdorferi, a nasty little organism that lives in ticks, primarily deer ticks. It’s transmitted via a tick bite, requiring 36 hours of attachment for transmission, and has grown in prevalence in the northeastern United States with the growth of the deer population. In the northeastern U.S., most ticks have Lyme, while in the northwestern U.S., only 1.3% of ticks have Lyme, because those ticks feed on the blood of a fence-sitting lizard that contains something that kills the spirochetes. (Here, Dr. Crislip joked that despite the presence of numerous fence-sitting lizards in Washington, D.C., the effect doesn’t work there.)

North American Lyme disease goes through three stages:
skin rash, arthritis
spreads to whole body, causes meningitis
results in encephalomyelitis and neurological symptoms
There are drugs that work well to treat the disease at all three stages.

However, there are “also people who think they have Lyme but don’t,” or “post-Lyme disease."

Two Camps
Dr. Crislip identified two groups that have radically different views about Lyme disease:

1. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).
2. The International Lme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS)

The latter says that Lyme is common, hard to diagnose, and “requires infinite antibiotic treatment.” The former says nearly the opposite.

The New England Journal of Medicine published a critical appraisal of “chronic Lyme disease” which put the sufferers into four categories:

1. Symptoms of unknown cause, no evidence of B. bergdorferi.
2. Well-defined illness unrelated to B. Bergdorferi (e.g., ringworm).
3. No history of Lyme disease, but blood contains B. Bergdorferi antibodies.
4. Post-Lyme disease syndrome, chronic illness.

The study performed controlled trials of those in category four, and concluded that there is no evidence of B. Bergdorferi persisting beyond treatment, the name “chronic Lyme disease” is a misnomer, and there is no justification for continued antibiotic treatment of such persons.

Dr. Crislip then stated that the two camps present a false dichotomy, but that the truth is closer to the IDSA position. He asked, “is there asymptomatic Lyme?”, and answered “yes.” 7% of test subjects have asymptomatic seroconversion (show B. Bergdorferi antibodies) in vaccine trial placebo groups. He asked, “can [Lyme be] persistent due to antibiotic resistance?”, and answered that there is no good data of that.

He pointed out that Borellia can exist in three forms, the spirochete, a cyst, and an L-shaped form with no cell wall. The cysts appear when the organism is stressed, but isn’t found in humans (and is supported in fewer than 25 references in PubMed) and the L-shaped form can be made in the lab but doesn’t survive in humans.

Diagnostic Testing
Dr. Crislip said that the standard test for Lyme disease is a two-step process, an ELISA test confirmed with a Western Blot (the same process used for testing for HIV). With classic Lyme disease, this is a very reliable method. It can also be tested with PCR and with antigen assays, and “there is genotypic variation in Lyme that could potentially make the two-step test less sensitive."

There are also labs which perform their own unvalidated tests, such as a lab in Texas that he says “almost always yield[s] positive results.” These labs with unvalidated diagnostic tests have caused the CDC and FDA to issue warnings about non-valid Lyme tests.

Dr. Crislip posted a list of alleged symptoms of chronic Lyme disease, which was a very long list including “unexplained hair loss” and “feeling as if you are losing your mind,” along with another list of alleged symptoms of chronic candida, and noted that they were quite similar. Using such lists, virtually any symptom is an indicator of these alleged chronic conditions.

The ILADS guidelines go even further, and say such things as:
The labs are all unreliable, so treat for Lyme even if the test is negative.
The primary symptom is that the patient thinks they have the condition.
Physical findings are nonspecific and often normal.
If the Western blot result is ambiguous, treat it as positive (the opposite of what you do with HIV).
A comparison to tuberculosis and leprosy provides justification for long-term antibiotic treatment (even though those diseases are biologically dissimilar to Lyme).
In short, the ILADS guidelines provide a nonfalsifiable definition of Lyme disease.

The best trials in the NEJM treated Lyme disease patients with a month of cipro (and?) doxycycline. The “chronic Lyme disease” advocates say that the immune system is damaged with antibiotic use, and then Lyme disease increases as the immune response declines–based on no data.

If you don’t have the data, sue
The state of Connecticut passed a bill “giving doctors immunity for giving infinite supplies of antibiotics” to patients purportedly suffering from “chronic Lyme disease.” Since the IDSA guidelines are against long-term antibiotic use, the Connecticut Attorney General sued the IDSA. They couldn’t afford $250,000 in legal expenses, so they settled the case.

Dr. Crislip concluded by pointing out that the cause of this unsubstantiated syndrome will be promoted by a new film coming out, called “Under Our Skin,” which has the tag line “There’s no medicine for someone like you.” Crislip noted that of the two doctors in the film promoting this illness, one lost his license for diagnosing Lyme disease over the telephone.

(Part six of my conference summary, on online health and social media, and the final Q&A panel session, is here.)

Science-based medicine conference, part 4: evidence-based medicine and homeopathy

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:21:00 +0000

This is part four of my summary of the Science-Based Medicine conference at TAM7, which will be followed by a summary of TAM7 itself. Part one, Dr. Steven Novella’s introduction, is here. Part two, Dr. David Gorski on cancer quackery, is here. Part three, Dr. Harriet Hall on chiropractic, is here.

The next session was Dr. Kimball Atwood, an anesthesiologist who is also board-certified in internal medicine and associate editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. He spoke on “Why Evidence-Based Medicine is not yet Science-Based Medicine,” or “Do Clinical Studies of Highly Implausible Methods Help or Hinder?"

Dr. Atwood’s talk made some points right at the start similar to the critique of evidence-based medicine (EBM) given in Dr. Novella’s introduction–that EBM makes the mistake of devaluing what he called “pre-clinical knowledge.” Unlike Dr. Novella, however, he also stated that random controlled trials (RCTs) “cannot, by themselves, overturn well-established medical principles.” I’m not sure that his talk actually demonstrated that point–as stated, it sounds like “well-established ~~medical~~scientific principles” are part of a “hard core” of medical theory (in Imre Lakatos’ sense) that cannot be refuted even if found to be in conflict with empirical results, because they are shielded by the addition of auxiliary hypotheses to salvage it. I don’t think that was his intent, as surely even “well-established medical principles” should be eligible for revision in light of contrary empirical evidence. Instead, what I think he meant by “pre-clinical knowledge” and “well-established medical principles” is really more like a demand for consilience with the rest of scientific knowledge, adherence to logic and mathematical principles, and having a plausible mechanism (or at least not having a purported mechanism in conflict with other known facts). More on that in the “Q&A” section, below. [UPDATE (July 21, 2009): As Dr. Atwood notes in the comments, I incorrectly transcribed what his slide said. Also note his further discussion on what he means by a “plausible mechanism.]

He began his talk with an overview of EBM–EBM advocates, to quote EBM pioneer David Sackett, “use of the best available evience, especially from patient-centered clinical research.” It relies on randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. Dr. Atwood gave two examples of successes of EBM. First was the standard practice of giving heart attack patients anti-arrhythmia drugs post-myocardial infarction, which EBM trials showed causes excess deaths and was an incorrect practice. Second was the Women’s Health Initiative study on hormone replacement theory, which showed that risks exceed benefits for taking estrogen. (I’m no authority, but I am skeptical of this claim based on my understanding of the flaws in that study from conversations with the late Chris Heward, who is co-author on a paper in Fertility and Sterility that challenged the WHI study for methodological flaws which made it unable to detect cardioprotective effects.)

The four steps of “pull” EBM are:
formulate an answerable question
track down the best evidence
critically appraise the evidence
individualize, based on clinical expertise and patient concerns
Atwood stated that those in practice the longest perform the worst, by not keeping up to date with their fields.

Cochrane Collaboration
Atwood next turned to the Cochrane Collaboration, the organization that maintains a library of EBT results, classified by type of evidence and evaluated with reviews in the form of evidence statements and recommendations. He gave a few examples, such as a statement about the effect of physical activity on dementia: “[There is] insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of … physical activity programs in managing or improving … dementia.” And a seemingly equivalent statement about the use of homeopathy for the same purpose: “In view of the absence of evience, it is not possible to comment on the use of … homeopathy in treating dementia.” This, according to Dr. Atwood, is B.S. – Bogus Science. Why don’t they just say that homeopathy doesn’t work? Because there are no sound clinical trials in the database.

EBT categorizes evidence into three classes. Class I evidence involves randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Class II involves controlled trials without randomization (or several other forms of case-control studies). Class III involves one or more case studies of a treatment without a control group and is considered insufficient for a treatment to be called “evidence-based medicine.” Within each class there are further divisions, for example, Class I is broken down further, with systematic reviews of RCTs at the top (1a), followed by individual RCTs (1b), and so forth.

Atwood objected that this devalues pre-clinical knowledge by making “evidence” synonymous with clinical trials, and that therefore EBM “is not based on all of the evidence.” He provided a few more examples of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments from Cochrane, described with terms like “Not enough evidence to …,” “little evidence,” and, in the case of laetrile as a cancer treatment, “No studies found that met inclusion criteria.” There was, however, a 1982 New England Journal of Medicine clinical trial on 180 patients which yielded a negative result and the conclusion that the treatment is dangerous, but this constituted a case study at the lowest level of evidence in EBM.

Atwood quoted a statement from Edzard Ernst, co-author with Simon Singh on the chiropractic-critical book, Trick or Treatment, to the effect that “a priori plausibility has become less and less important” as a result of EBM (which Ernst advocates).

He then continued with more CAM treatments in Cochrane, such as craniosacral therapy, reflexology, Kirlian photography (“may be more reliable than chance”), and therapeutic touch (“remains controversial”).

Homeopathy
Atwood then described the case of homeopathy in order to make his central argument critical of EBM. Samuel Hahnemann invented homeopathy in 1796, on the basis of two principles. The first principle is “similia similibus curantur,” or “like cures like,” or the “law of similars.” This claims that if you find a substance that gives you symptoms similar to an illness, that’s the substance you use to cure that illness. Hahnemann read in William Cullen’s “A treatise of the materia medica” that cinchona bark could be used to treat malaria (now known to be true because of quinine in the bark). He gave himself a sample of that bark while healthy and observed that he developed symptoms that were similar to malaria. From this single example, he concluded that all medicines produce symptoms in healthy people similar to the symptoms of diseases they effectively treat.

The second principle of homeopathy is the “law of infinitesimals.” He reasoned that dosages sufficient to produce overt symptoms were too high, so the substances should be diluted in order to provide an effective treatment, and in fact the more diluted, the more powerful the cure. Homeopathic remedies of 24X (or 12C) are the equivalent of diluting 0.36mL of salt into a volume of water the size of the Atlantic Ocean. Hahnemann most commonly recommended an even greater dilution of 60X (30C). For all intents and purposes, homeopathic remedies of standard dilutions are indistinguishable from the water used to dilute them.

Atwood went on to note that homeopaths do not agree on prescriptions for various maladies.

On top of that, the outcome of all trials to date have been failures. This is a long list of powerful reasons for rejecting homeopathy, but the last one is the only one EBM considers relevant. There is clearly a very low degree of plausibility for homeopathy independently of such trials, and homeopathy is a clear case in point that “some hypotheses are too implausible to spend time on (or spend more time on)."

Prior Probabilities
Atwood offered the following set of broad categories of prior probability and types of treatments that fall into them:

Prior probability of about zero: homeopathy, neurocranial restructuring (putting balloons up your nose and inflating them).

Prior probability significantly lower than («) 1: metabolic therapies for cancer, detoxification, chiropractic for any purpose other than back pain Prior probability very low: acupuncture for pain most popular herbal claims (St. John’s wort, echinacea) Prior probability moderate to high: massage, relaxation techniques for anxiety reduction and chronic pain Prior probability depends on:
basic science
cogency of theory
previous studies
source
He then discussed Bayes’ Theorem, which says that the odds of a hypothesis being true given certain evidence is equal to the odds of the hypotheses (prior probability) multiplied by the Bayes factor, which is the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis divided by the probability of the evidence given the null hypothesis. If the prior probability is near zero, then much greater evidence is needed in the Bayes factor to result in a probability of the hypothesis being true. (Note that Atwood gave the theorem partly in terms of odds rather than probability for the purposes of his talk. Odds = probability / (1 - probability).)

When Bayes’ Theorem is taken into account, the p-value of a statistical result can become much less impressive. For example, with a p-value of .05, which means that a result would be expected to occur by chance 5 times in 100 with a Bayes factor of 2.7, if the prior probability is only 1%, that result only raises the posterior probability to 3%. If the prior probability is 20%, it raises it to only 40%. With a p-value of .01, a result expected to occur by chance only 1 time in 100, and a Bayes factor of 15, a prior probability of 1% is raised to 13%; a prior probability of 20% raised to 78%. Dr. Atwood provided a table with more detail that went up to p=.001 (result expected by chance 1 in 1000 times).

Dr. Atwood advocated that “prior probability ought to be formally considered in EBT,” and gave the further example of a “positive” trial for intercessory prayer in the critical care unit (CCU) with an 11% reduction in some harm with a p-value of .04, and noted that if the prior probability was 1%, this still produces less than 6% odds of a genuine effect. A few other similar examples were given involving acupuncture, homeopathy, and distant healing, the final example of which had Edzard Ernst as a study co-author and concluded that it “warrants further study,” but which he subsequently backed away from after “some positive trials [were] found to be fraudulent."

Finally, he noted that pre-trial knowledge is not sufficient, but is necessary for a treatment claim.

Q&A
I asked Dr. Atwood if, in his final statement, he was saying that you have to have a plausible mechanism for a treatment in order for a treatment to be justified (a positive requirement), or if he only wanted to impose a negative requirement that the proposed mechanism or method did not contradict known facts from other realms. His initial answer was that he thought those would be equivalent, but I observed that we can discover cause-effect relationships without having any knowledge of the underlying mechanism, such as Mendel’s discovery of genetics. At that point, he agreed that he just wanted to require the negative condition. Another audience member then suggested that this might be accomplished by creating a categorization scheme for levels of plausibility that in some way parallels the levels of evidence scheme.

Another questioner asked how to standardize assignment of prior probabilities and address bias, to which Dr. Atwood said that you could just pick neutral prior probabilities, since if you do enough studies the posterior probability of each study becomes the prior probability for the next.

EXTRA: As appropriate for a talk that touched on homeopathy, prior to Dr. Atwood’s presentation this excerpt from the fourth episode of season three of “That Mitchell and Webb Look” was shown to the audience:

(Part five of my conference summary, on chronic Lyme disease, is here. Part six, on online health and social media, and the closing Q&A panel, is here.)

Science-based medicine conference, part 3: chiropractic

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:03:00 +0000

This is part three of my summary of the Science-Based Medicine conference at TAM7, which will be followed by a summary of TAM7 itself. Part one, Dr. Steven Novella’s introduction, is here. Part two, Dr. David Gorski on cancer quackery, is here.

The next session was Dr. Harriet A. Hall, the “SkepDoc,” a retired family physician and former Air Force flight surgeon, on “A Scientific Critique of Chiropractic."

Chiropractic
Dr. Hall began her talk by observing that 10% of Americans see a chiropractor some time each year, and said that her talk would address the questions of when you should see a chiropractor, what they really do, is it based on science, and why isn’t it part of regular medicine.

Chiropractic, she said, is a pre-scientific system that was discovered on a single day (September 18, 1895) by D. D. Palmer, a grocer and magnetic healer. On that day, he performed a spinal manipulation on a deaf janitor and allegedly cured his hearing, and based on that single case, claimed that he had found the cause of all disease. Hall noted that in 1895, Pasteur had just died, X-rays had just been discovered, and the germ theory of disease was just catching on. For perspective, she noted that 1900 was the first year in which you would have a 50% chance of having a beneficial outcome from a visit to a doctor.

Chiropractic theory says that all disease is caused by subluxations, or dislocated joints, causing nerve impairment, thereby impacting the flow of “Innate,” a mystical force that flows through us. There are real subluxations, which are visible on X-rays, but chiropractic subluxations have never been demonstrated to exist. The chiropractic finding of “Boop”–bone out-of-place–can’t be documented on X-rays, and chiropractors have claimed that they are as small as 1/10,000,000 mm.

The current chiropractic definition of subluxation (as defined by the American Association of Chiropractic Colleges) has been adjusted to be more vague: “a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system and general health."

Palmer said that 95% of ill health and disease is caused by spinal subluxations, and 5% from misalignments of other bones. Hall suggested that if this were true, invertebrates wouldn’t get sick, though perhaps chiropractors would say that Palmer was only speaking of the causes in humans. She went on to point out that a ruptured disc is an example of a spinal injury which causes pain without subluxation, directly refuting Palmer’s claim.

The chiropractic theory of nerve impingement often uses a garden hose analogy, that a kink in the hose causes water to back up on one side of the kink. But this analogy is not correct, because nerve conduction speed is only affected at the point of compression, as seen in carpal tunnel syndrome. While such nerve dysfunctions do exist, they don’t work the way chiropractic says, and they are not the cause of most disease.

A further problem for chiropractic is that 12 cranial nerves and 5 sacral nerves are out of reach for chiropractic manipulation.

Hall showed a diagram about the flow of “Innate” which showed the doctor’s “Innate” influencing the patient’s “Innate,” but for which there was no described mechanism. There is, of course, no evidence that “Innate” exists, and it’s now rejected by many chiropractors.

The audible crack from chiropractic manipulation, Hall said, is just like knuckle cracking, and has no therapeutic effect except perhaps for its psychological impact. She noted that at least one chiropractor cracks her own wrists and doesn’t actually touch her patients!

Osteopathy and Chiropractic
Hall compared osteopathy to chiropractic with this chart:

Osteopathy Chiropractic
restoring blood flow
minimize spinal manipulation therapy (SMT)
adopted science
restoring nerve flow
maximize SMT
nope
Spinal manipulation therapy, said Hall, works as well as other treatments in treating back pain, and there is no evidence that it assists in treating anything other than back pain. A problem in testing SMT is that good placebo controls are impossible, because the patient can tell when SMT is occurring or not. Single blinding is impossible, let alone double blinding. There are also many variations of technique possible.

Tooth Fairy Science
Dr. Hall argued that chiropractic study is something like what she called “tooth fairy science.” You could perform tests of the tooth fairy, by putting lost teeth into baggies vs. facial tissue before putting it under the pillow, comparing the amount of money received for the first lost tooth to the last lost tooth, looking for correlations with parental income, and so forth, but none of this would tell you anything about an entity called the Tooth Fairy.

She gave an anecdote of a man suffering from back pain who made an appointment with a chiropractor for the following Monday. Over the weekend, his pain went away–if he had made his appointment for Friday, he would have attributed the pain going away to the chiropractic treatment and perhaps ended up as a believer and regular patient.

She compared this to the “blue dot cure,” a treatment by painting a blue dot on your nose (any nonsensical treatment suffices for the illustration). If the patient gets better, that’s evidence that it worked. If the patient stays the same, that’s evidence that the treatment kept him from getting worse. And if the patient gets worse, that’s evidence that the disease was too far advanced, and if only he had come sooner it would have been treatable. (Or, alternatively, it’s evidence that more treatment is required–say, upping the dosage of the remedy or painting a darker blue spot on the patient’s nose.)

What chiropractors do well, Hall said, is help with back pain and act as good psychologists. But they’ve gotten thumbs down the New England Journal of Medicine, Consumer Reports, The Medical Newsletter, Canadian neurologists, and many other sources, not just because of claims to be able to treat things that it can’t treat, but because of safety issues.

The Big Downside of Chiropractic
Chiropractic manipulation of the head and neck turns out to be dangerous. It can compress or tear vertebral arteries, resulting in strokes, perhaps as frequently as in one in a million manipulations, and perhaps 20% of basilar strokes are caused by spinal manipulations. Hall pointed out that mobilization is as effective as manipulation, yet is safe–so there’s no reason to use the riskier method.

The Canadian neurologists mentioned above have recommended that signs warning signs be posted in chiropractic offices and that neck manipulation of children be prohibited.

Insurance data on payouts for chiropractic malpractice show that about 9% of payouts in 2002 were for “CVA,” or cerebrovascular accident.

The numbers are likely under-reported, since there may be some time between a manipulation that causes damage and a stroke.

Chiropractors as Quack Magnets
A further problem with chiropractic is that practitioners are “quack magnets,” promoting all sorts of bogus diagnostic methods and treatments such as moire contour analysis, use of a “neuroscope” that measures temperature differences and pressure, biofeedback as a form of electrodermal testing, applied kinesiology (pseudoscientific muscle strength testing), unnecessary dietary supplements, homeopathy, and reflexology. Hall also mentioned B.J. Palmer’s (D.D. Palmer’s son) “Atlas Adjustment” technique, or “hole in one” technique, which suggests that manipulation of the Atlas vertebra is sufficient to cause the rest of the spine to fall into alignment.

Chiropractors also tend to overuse X-rays, such as taking full-spine X-rays which expose the reproductive organs and inevitably produce overexposed or underexposed areas. Proper X-raying focuses on smaller areas to get the right exposure.

Chiropractors offer bad advice, frequently discourage immunizations and other medical treatments, and they frequently miss diagnoses of real illnesses. In one test of chiropractors, patients were sent in to describe classic heart attack symptoms, but none of the chiropractors in the test recognized it or its significance, and none suggested that the patient visit an emergency room.

Types of Chiropractor
There are three major chiropractic groups. The International Chiropractors Association (ICA), or “straights,” who practice only chiropractic. The American Chiropractic Association (ACA), or “mixers,” who mix chiropractic with other diagnostic and treatment techniques. And the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine (NACM), who are attempting to reform chiropractic by disassociating it from Palmer’s pseudoscience and using only evidence-based scientific medicine.

Chiropractic Thinking and Hallmarks of Pseudoscience
Hall gave some examples of chiropractic thinking that is blatantly wrong or harmful:
If spine is straight, we can’t die.
Germs don’t cause disease, or we’d all be dead.
Muscle testing to find allergies. (In one case, a patient was tested for job-related stress with applied kinesiology, by pushing down on his arm while he thought of work.)
Spinal adjustments as the only treatment for meningitis, resulting in the child’s death–and it was the chiropractor’s own child.
A “no-touch” chiropractor (cracking own wrists, mentioned above).
And examples of how chiropractic exhibits the hallmarks of pseudoscience:
“If science disproved it, I’d still use it."
It doesn’t give up ineffective treatments.
It’s made no progress over the last century.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s true as long as it makes you feel better.
Dr. Hall concluded her talk by giving several three examples of concrete harm from chiropractic taken from Tim Farley’s “What’s the Harm” website, which lists 312 specific cases of chiropractic harm:

Kristi Bedenbaugh: Suffered a stroke and died.
Sandra Nette: Suffered multiple strokes and was left paralyzed with locked-in syndrome.
Laurie Jean Mathiason: Fell into a coma and died after receiving 186 neck manipulations in a six-month period.

Dr. Hall recommended the Quackwatch site and Chirobase.org as online resources on chiropractic, and the book Inside Chiropractic by chiropractor Samuel Homola and Quackwatch founder Stephen Barrett.

Q&A
In the Q&A session, Dr. Hall was asked whether chiropractors are required to follow a standard of care and whether informed consent is required. She said that informed consent is not required, it is voluntary, and the informed consent forms that she’s seen are very bad. She was also asked how many chiropractors meet the good and safe criteria, and she made a guess of under 10%.

(Part four of my conference summary, on evidence-based medicine and homeopathy, is here. Part five, on chronic Lyme disease, is here. Part six, on online health and social media, and the closing Q&A panel, is here.)

Science-based medicine conference, part 2: cancer quackery

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:50:00 +0000

This is part two of my summary of the Science-Based Medicine conference at TAM7, which will be followed by a summary of TAM7 itself. Part one is here.

David Gorski, surgical oncologist and associate professor of surgery at Wayne State University, perhaps better known as Orac of the Respectful Insolence blog, spoke next on “Case studies in cancer quackery: Testimonials, anecdotes, and pseudoscience.” He began with a disclaimer (he doesn’t speak for his employer) and some disclosures (he receives no pharma funding and isn’t paid to blog).

His talk was about misrepresentations by cancer quacks, who use exaggeration and misrepresentation and make false promises. To illustrate exaggeration, he showed a cartoon that described “three approved paths to the graveyard,” “cut” (surgery), “burn” (radiation), and “poison” (chemotherapy) (the exaggeration is in the title rather than the descriptions, which are he admitted were accurate). To illustrate the latter, he showed a series of book covers by Hulda Clark–“The Cure for All Advanced Cancers,” then “The Cure for All Cancers,” and then “The Cure for All Diseases.” She thinks that all cancers and diseases are caused by liver flukes, to be diagnosed with a “Syncrometer,” a device similar to a Scientology E-meter, a galvanometer that measures electrical resistance of the skin, and cured with the “Zapper,” a low voltage electrical device.

Some of the frequent claims of cancer quacks are that they are “wholistic” and treat the whole patient rather than a part or a symptom, that “we treat the real cause of cancer,” that their treatment is “natural,” and that “cancer is not the disease, it’s a manifestation of something else” such as psychological conflict. And, of course, the ever-popular generic “toxins.” They also claim that natural cures are being suppressed because Big Pharma can’t make a profit from them.

Testimonials
Gorski next turned to the role of testimonials in cancer quackery, which he said are being used for several reasons, the first N of which are “to sell a product.” Two other reasons are “to persuade others” and “to attack standard evidence."

He gave Gorski’s Laws of Testimonials:

1st Law: When a believer in Alternative-Based Medicine (ABM) uses a combination of both science-based medicine (SBM) and ABM and gets better, it’s always the ABM that gets the credit.

2nd Law: When a believer in ABM uses a combination of both SBM and ABM and dies or gets worse, it’s always SBM that gets the blame.

He next described two cases of testimonials, the first of which was an example of a “not cancer” testimonial. This was a testimony of a man who felt a lump on his chest which he claimed to be breast cancer, which was successfully treated by some quack remedy. But this was never diagnosed as cancer, and Gorski noted that from the description it actually sounded like a case of gynecomastia rather than cancer. His second case was that of Daniel Hauser, a 13-year-old boy with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, who went through one round of chemotherapy with good results, but then stopped taking it because he and his mother wanted to use an alternative treatment from “Chief Cloudpiler.” The judge ordered chemotherapy to be continued, and he and his mom took off, though ultimately returned and re-started chemotherapy. During the time chemotherapy stopped, the tumor grew to larger than it was originally, and when it was restarted, it again responded to treatment–but of course his mother gave credit to the alternative treatment.

The problems with testimonials are that there may not have been a diagnosis of cancer, there may have been a misunderstanding of the diagnosis (e.g., “I was sent home to die”), there may be important information withheld, the diagnosis may have been done by quack tests with no validity (e.g., the Syncrometer or live blood cell analysis), and there may be a selection bias. As an example of the latter, he noted that dead people don’t give testimonials.

Questions for Evaluating Testimonials
He provided a modified version of Dr. Moran’s questions to ask in order to evaluate testimonial evidence. These questions include:
Was cancer definitely present?
Did it go away?
Was the advocated treatment the only one used?
Was the alternative therapy a replacement for primary or for adjuvant therapy?
At this point, he distinguished primary, adjuvant, and neo-adjuvant therapies. The primary therapy for most cancer treatments is surgery, to remove as much of it as possible. Adjuvant therapy is designed to reduce the risk of recurrence, where radiation is used to reduce the risk of local recurrence (cancer in the same place, to make sure you get rid of it all) and chemotherapy is used to reduce the risk of a systemic recurrence (cancer that may have spread to other parts of the body). Neo-adjuvant therapy is designed to shrink a tumor prior to surgery, and may reduce complications and produce better results from surgery.

Suzanne Somers
To illustrate the importance of these questions and distinctions, he used the case of Suzanne Somers, who was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 54, probably at stage I. She had no positive lymph nodes and underwent a lumpectomy, radiation, and a lymph node biopsy, but refused chemotherapy with tamoxifen in favor of mistletoe extract and other supplements.

In her case, the answers to the questions were:
Was cancer present? Yes.
Did it go away? Yes–it was removed by surgery.
Was the alternative medicine the only or primary treatment? No.
He then examined her probable survival rates with and without chemotherapy, and noted that if the tumor was small, the benefit of chemotherapy for her 10-year survival rate could be as low as 1%. With a larger tumor, her 10-year survival rate improvement could still be as low as 4% (and would already be at 90% prior to chemo). But, Gorski noted, most women say that they would go with chemotherapy even for as little as a 1% increase in survival rate.

Surgery cures most cancers that can be cured, up to stage III, and the corresponding benefits of chemo and hormonal therapy increase with more advanced stages of cancer.

Gorski then observed that there may be cases where a person is diagnosed with cancer by a biopsy, declines further treatment, and has a good survival rate, where they fail to realize that the biopsy itself has been a surgical primary treatment that has excised all of the cancer–an excisional biopsy may be equivalent to a lumpectomy. He also noted that many people say to go ahead and take out the tumor but don’t touch my lymph nodes, and he agreed that lymphedema, which can be caused by surgical or radiation treatment of the lymph nodes, is “not a fun thing.” But the new standard of care is to use blue dye and a radiotracer procedure to find lymph nodes likely to be positive for cancer (“sentinel lymph nodes”), and treat accordingly.

Kim Tinkham
Kim Tinkham is a woman who saw The Secret, had stage III breast cancer, and declined all treatment. She now claims the cancer is gone, based on a quack blood test, even though the lump is still present, and has written a book about it. She is a follower of Mormon naturopath Robert O. Young, who claims that acid is the cause of all disease and alkalinization is the cure for everything. He says there is no such thing as a cancer cell, just a healthy cell spoiled by acid. Two years after her initial diagnosis, Tinkham is still alive.

Gorski pointed out that for a case like hers, expected survival for five years with treatment could be over 50%, but at ten years it goes way down. Data about untreated cancer comes from 250 cases of “large palpable tumors” from 1805-1933 at Middlesex Hospital in Connecticut. At 10 years, 3% were still alive, and at 15 years, 0.8% were still alive; the median survival rate was 2.87 years.

He noted that breast cancer biology is “highly variable in clinical behavior” and in some cases may be “indolent, slow-growing, and slow to metastasize."

The answers to the testimonial questions for Tinkham are:
Was cancer definitely present? Yes.
Did it go away? No.
Was the alternative treatment the only one? Yes.
Time will no doubt soon tell how (in)effective this alternative treatment has been, unfortunately.

Testimonials as Conversion Stories
Gorski suggested that these testimonies are really part of “cult medicine” and seem to follow a pattern like religious conversion stories. The specter of death comes like a “bolt out of the blue,” the person repents and says “I brought this upon myself,” they face temptation in the form of standard medical care, they search for enlightenment, and then they find enlightenment in the form of some alternate description of their ailment which they then want to evangelize.

Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert
Dr. Gorski concluded his talk with the story of Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert (warning, graphic images), who was born on November 14, 1964 and died on November 12, 2005, just two days short of her 41st birthday. She had a T4 lesion eating through the skin of her breast, a case of “classic delayed diagnosis.” She received neo-adjuvant chemotherapy treatment which shrank the tumor considerably, but then discovered Ryke Geerd Hamer, the inventor of German New Medicine, who argued that cancer is caused by psychological conflict rather than anything biological. She stopped her chemotherapy, and suffered a horrible relapse. As Gorski put it, she “died a horrible, horrible death” with her final days being subjected to the pain of a rotting-away body of skin and bones–a death far worse than chemotherapy. It was a vivid depiction of the alternative that cancer quacks can cause for their victims. Her husband has put up a website to try to dissuade others from being fooled by Hamer’s theories (see link above to her story).

Dr. Gorski has written a blog post at the Science-Based Medicine blog on alternative medicine testimonials that covers some of the above subjects in more detail.

(Part three of my conference summary, on chiropractic, is here. Part four, on evidence-based medicine and homeopathy, is here. Part five, on chronic Lyme disease, is here. Part six, on online health and social media, and the closing Q&A panel, is here.)

Science-based medicine conference, part 1

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:00:00 +0000

This year’s “The Amazing Meeting” (TAM7) was preceded by a Science-Based Medicine conference, organized by Steven Novella and the Science-Based Medicine blog; the speakers were all contributors to that blog. This summary is from my hand-written notes–I’ve tried to quote and summarize accurately, but keep in mind that some of the quotations and bulleted items may not be verbatim. The conference was videotaped and may become available via DVD or online video; keep an eye on the SBM blog for that. Steven Novella has posted a short summary of the SBM conference at the SBM blog.

I am in the process of posting a summary of TAM7 itself, which begins here. (I summarized 2008’s TAM6 here.)

Novella’s Introduction
The SBM conference began with Novella’s presentation, titled “Science-Based Medicine: Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Decision Making,” which distinguished science-based medicine (SBM) from the recently popular “evidence-based medicine” (EBM) and explained the motivation for promoting the SBM concept.

Novella, assistant professor of clinical neurology at Yale University School of Medicine, began with a slide titled “Foundations of Medicine” which described some historical varieties of medicine:
Superstition/philosophy-based medicine.
Scientific medicine.
Evidence-based medicine (EBM).
Eastern vs. Western medicine.
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
He made the point that modern scientific medicine, which arose in the western world, is relatively young, though attempts to put it on a more scientific footing go back much farther.

Next, he discussed “What is science,” first observing that “scientifically formulated” is a meaningless marketing label, then noting that there is a battle of memes about science between its defenders, who use it as a label connoting “objective truth, quality, and professionalism,” and its critics, who use it as a label connoting “arrogance, oppression, and elitism.” Marketers also use it “to imply product safety, effectiveness, and overall value."

He argued that we should adopt “common sense standards” which require that treatments “reasonably account for all available evidence,” use “valid and internally consistent logic,” have been rigorously and methodically investigated and judged with fair and unbiased criteria, and are conducted by practitioners who adhere to “standards of ethics and professionalism."

Evidence-Based Medicine
Next, he looked at evidence-based medicine, a term of art in use for the past couple of decades. EBM begins with the premise that “products and practices that work and are safe are better than those that don’t work or are unsafe,” an uncontroversial premise. It promotes scientific investigation as the measure of what works and is safe. But, according to Novella (and later, other speakers), EBM has “too much focus on evidence, and not enough on logic and prior probability, and good science must consider both.” He argued that EBM made sense at the time it was introduced, because practices were being used largely “because they made sense, not because of supporting evidence.” The introduction of EBM effectively “leveled the playing field, but also opened it up to implausible treatments,” with bad timing due to the rise of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

The standard reference for evidence in the EBM framework is the Cochrane Reviews. The data reported in the Cochrane Reviews includes not only tests of legitimate medical treatments, but of completely implausible research such as chiropractic treatment for migraine. The problem with the framework is that it assumes that everyone is “playing fair,” it does not account sufficiently for fraud or publication bias (such as the “file drawer effect”), it ignores prior probability, and it “doesn’t adequately consider the big picture of the entire literature.” According to Novella, with EBM it is typical to see the quality of studies decline over time, in order to continue to yield positive results for implausible treatments.

He then discussed “The Work of John Ioannidis,” who argues that “most published research findings are false.” The reasons are that
The majority of highly-cited initial medical research is later refuted.
There’s a bias towards publishing positive studies.
There’s a bias towards researchers publishing provocative research.
And a “low prior probability worsens the effect,” i.e., studies of treatments with low prior probability are more likely to be refuted.

Science-Based Medicine
By contrast with EBM, Novella identified the following features to distinguish Science-Based Medicine, SBM:
It affirms high-quality science as a basis for standard of care in medicine.
It acknowledges the consilience of science.
It considered scientific medical plausibility of an intervention when weighing evidence.
It considers the overall pattern in the literature.
In other words, SBM considers prior probability in a Bayesian sense as part of the evaluation, it looks at whether there is other scientific evidence that casts doubt on the plausibility of a suggested treatment (like violating the laws of physics or including unknown entities and mechanisms), in addition to merely looking at the specific results of controlled trials of the particular treatment. CAM, in particular, is loaded with claims that have extremely low and near-zero prior plausibility, as evidenced by the fact that $1.2 billion of U.S. taxpayer funding to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine since its founding in 1991 (originally as the Office of Alternative Medicine) has so far yielded zero effective treatments for anything.

He stated that finding anomalies argues for deeper research, and we can’t have two inconsistent views that both work. Here, I think he overstated his case, since we have had cases in science where there are mutually inconsistent theories that both work, though we also take the inconsistency as grounds that something is wrong and ultimately needs to be reconciled (e.g., light wave/particle duality, quantum field theory vs. general relativity). Even theories that are wrong at some level can still work for solving certain kinds of problems (e.g., Newtonian physics)–and I’d agree with Novella’s claim that scientific medicine is still in its infancy. A point Novella didn’t make that I would like to insert here is that when you have two inconsistent views that doesn’t mean that only one of them must be wrong–they could both be wrong.

Novella did go on to mention two cases where things that seemed initially implausible or lacking in mechanism have turned out to be correct, the postulation of dark energy in physics, and, more directly relevant to the topic at hand, the use of botulinum as a treatment for migraine. This treatment seemed to him completely implausible even though the evidence of trials suggested its effectiveness, and now a mechanism has been discovered and is understood. (My Google searching on this subject, however, yielded some recent evidence that it is not a good treatment for migraines and is no better than placebo, so this appears to me to still be somewhat controversial.)

Clinical Decision-Making
Novella ended his talk by talking about the process of clinical decision-making and pitfalls that arise as a result of human psychology and limitations. While clinical decision-making “individualizes the best available evidence to a specific patient” and “considers risk vs. benefit in both therapeutic and diagnostic intervention,” this evaluation needs to include not acting as an alternative. In some cases, screening for certain diseases causes more harm than not performing the screening test, because conducting the test will yield far more false positives than true positives. (This is an effect discussed in some detail in John Allen Poulos’ book, Innumeracy, and is a reason not to do things like mandatory HIV screening as a condition of a marriage license, drug testing of grade school students, and certain kinds of security screening for terrorists–if your baseline prevalence of what you’re testing for is very low, your false positive results will swamp your true positive results.)

He briefly discussed the claim that “surgery kills more people than car accidents,” noting that it doesn’t really compare against the outcomes that would occur without surgery–far more deaths.

He then recounted some examples of pitfalls in the clinical context, such as the human capacity for pattern recognition even when the pattern isn’t really there (pareidolia), the tendency to be “unduly influenced by quirky experience” or to “value experience over evidence,” “failure to consider alternatives,” “over-reliance on non-specific signs and symptoms,” and confirmation bias (e.g., the sorts of heuristics and biases discussed in Kahneman and Tversky’s classic Judgment Under Uncertainty). He then listed a few logical fallacies, pointed out the confounding factor of the placebo effect, and a couple of statistical effects–regression to the mean and the fact that most diseases are self-limiting.

Q&A
In the Q&A session, someone asked what Novella thought of legislation supporting evidence-based medicine, apparently referring to $1.1 billion in the stimulus package for evidence-based medicine research. Novella said that he thought conceptually it was a good idea but wasn’t familiar with the specifics of the legislation. Another question was whether, given the current state of health care and the desire for reform, SBM would be challenged or supported. Novella said that the delivery of healthcare is a separate issue from how we decide what to research or what treatments are appropriate, and that things will either get much better or much worse. If he had also added that things might also stay about the same in overall quality, I’d say he’s certainly correct; without it, merely probably correct.

(Part two of my conference summary, on cancer quackery, is here. Part three, on chiropractic, is here. Part four, on evidence-based medicine and homeopathy, is here. Part five, on chronic Lyme disease, is here. Part six, on online health and social media, and the closing Q&A panel, is here.)

NPR ombudsman on torture

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 23:51:00 +0000

About a week and a half ago, I heard NPR’s ombudsman, Alicia Shepherd, defending NPR’s policy on refusing to identify waterboarding as torture. Her argument was that NPR had a journalistic responsibility not to take sides on any issue, and that to identify waterboarding as torture was to take a side. She actually wrote that “I believe that it is not the role of journalists to take sides or to characterize things."

I think this is not only ridiculous, but an abdication of journalistic responsibility in favor of a bogus view of reporting “objectivity” by using only “he said, she said” descriptions, to an extreme.

Here’s what I posted to the NPR blog on July 2:
There is no reasonable debate about whether waterboarding is torture. Waterboarding has been legally determined to be criminal torture by U.S. courts in 1947, when Yukio Asano was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor for it (among other war crimes). Other Japanese war criminals, such as Kenji Dohihara, Seishiro Itagaki, Heitaro Kimura, Akira Muto, and Hideki Tojo, were tried by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East for engaging in torture during WWII, including waterboarding, and several were executed for it.

U.S. soldiers who undergo waterboarding as part of SERE training receive that training in order to understand what torture is.

It is bad journalism to defend “there are two sides to every issue” as a form of phony objectivity. Sometimes there are more than two sides of merit, and sometimes there is only one (and there is always some nut who will take issue with any well-established claim). In this case, there is no reasonable argument by which waterboarding is not torture. It makes no more sense to call it “what some people refer to as torture” than it does to insert similar qualifications on the front of every noun used in a sentence on NPR.
Another commenter replied to point out that waterboarding has been legally torture for longer than that in the U.S.

I was glad to hear Adam Savage of Mythbusters, at TAM7, answer the question “what has been the biggest media failure of skepticism lately” by saying that the biggest failure has been the NPR ombudsman’s statement that calling waterboarding torture is taking sides and they have to be “balanced.”

Prestons win in court

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:43:00 +0000

The judge has ruled in Preston v. Hallman, and again it goes in favor of the Prestons. As expected, he ruled that the city’s decision to revoke their permit was “arbitrary and capricious” since it did not meet any existing standard for denial.

The judge ruled that Tempe must re-issue their permit and allow their business to open. The city has 30 days to file an appeal.

I haven’t heard how the judge ruled on the other issue, which I predicted might go the city’s way, but it doesn’t matter for the overall outcome–it was enough for the Prestons to prevail on either of the two issues, and they won on the one that they had a very strong case for.

The Goldwater Institute has issued a press release about the victory, and the Arizona Republic has run a story on it.

(Previously.)

On my way to TAM 7

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:54:00 +0000

I’m in the Phoenix airport waiting for my early morning flight to Las Vegas for today’s conference on science-based medicine, followed by The Amazing Meeting 7, at the new South Point Casino and Hotel.

I hope to write up a summary like I did for last year’s TAM 6.

Ktisophilos (2009-07-10):

Science-based medicine? Is there any other kind?

Lippard (2009-07-11):

Yes--they distinguished science-based medicine from evidence-based medicine and from complementary and alternative medicine, for example.
The U.S. government has spent over $1.5 billion on research on complementary and alternative medicine, for example, since the founding of the NIH's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Number of new treatments produced as a result of that research: 0. It's recently come out that some of that research money is going to criminals–people with felony fraud convictions. I'll have much more on this when I write up my summary (probably next week).

United breaks guitars

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:52:00 +0000

From Sons of Maxwell:
In the spring of 2008, Sons of Maxwell were traveling to Nebraska for a one-week tour and my Taylor guitar was witnessed being thrown by United Airlines baggage handlers in Chicago. I discovered later that the $3500 guitar was severely damaged. They didnt deny the experience occurred but for nine months the various people I communicated with put the responsibility for dealing with the damage on everyone other than themselves and finally said they would do nothing to compensate me for my loss. So I promised the last person to finally say no to compensation (Ms. Irlweg) that I would write and produce three songs about my experience with United Airlines and make videos for each to be viewed online by anyone in the world. United: Song 1 is the first of those songs. United: Song 2 has been written and video production is underway. United: Song 3 is coming. I promise.

UPDATE (August 18, 2009): “United Breaks Guitars” song 2 and video are now on YouTube and below:

Arizona state senator Sylvia Allen thinks the earth is 6000 years old

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:03:00 +0000

Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen (R-Snowflake), arguing in favor of a bill to allow uranium mining north of the Grand Canyon, casually says that the earth is 6,000 years old, and therefore a little uranium mining isn’t going to hurt anything.

Snowflake, the home of the logging team that included claimed UFO abductee Travis Walton, also has a large Mormon population, and Mormons have power in the Arizona legislature far beyond their numbers.

The ignorant Senator Allen should step on over to the Talk.Origins Archive and read the Age of the Earth FAQ. (UPDATE: For a more readable introduction, how about Chris Turney’s Bones, Rocks and Stars: The Science of When Things Happened, or G. Brent Dalrymple’s The Age of the Earth.)

(Via the Bad Astronomy blog.)

Tempe tattoo parlor case

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:37:00 +0000

In late June 2007, Tom and Elizabeth Preston obtained a use permit from the City of Tempe to open a tattoo studio. The Prestons signed a five-year lease and invested $30,000 in the property, but then a local neighborhood group appealed to the city, arguing that this would have a negative impact on the neighborhood, lowering property values and increasing crime. (Other businesses in the same area include a liquor store, bail bondsman, lingerie shop, check cashing store, and an adult video store.)

Tempe Mayor Hallman and the City Council voted unanimously to override the zoning officials who had approved the permit on the basis that there was a “perception” that the business would contribute to neighborhood deterioriation.

The Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation has taken the case on behalf of the Prestons, with former Institute for Justice litigator Clint Bolick as the primary attorney for the plaintiffs.

In a previous hearing in May, the court ruled in favor of the Prestons and remanded the case back to the City Council for reconsideration. The city then asked for a new hearing on the grounds that it had found some new relevant case law, and that hearing occurred at 11 a.m. today before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbillig.

The judge first stated, that the city’s motion for reconsideration in today’s hearing was appropriate and that the hearing would take place, setting aside the plaintiff’s objections to that. He then focused most of the hearing on two issues. First, what was the appropriate level of burden of proof for the appeal to the city which revoked the permit? And second, did the city provide “credible evidence” that the Prestons’ business would lead to neighborhood deterioration?

Burden of Proof
The burden of proof argument centered around two parts of the City of Tempe’s Zoning and Development Code. These were Section 1-305 (D), which says:

Hearing Officer – Appeals. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Hearing Officer under this Code may file an appeal to the Board of Adjustment, or the Redevelopment Review Commission as applicable, within fourteen (14) calendar days after the Hearing Officer has rendered its decision, in accordance with Part 6, Chapter 8, Appeals. Appeals of the decisions of the Hearing Officer shall be heard de novo by the Board of Adjustment, or the Redevelopment Review Commission as applicable.
and Section 6-802(C), which says:
In the event that a decision made under this Code is appealed, the appeal does not invalidate the approval. The holder of the approval may proceed with a use or development at their own risk.
The plaintiffs argued that this second section means that the permit was granted and created a vested right for the Prestons to use the property, and that in the event of an appeal the burden of proof was on the city to demonstrate a reason to revoke, rather than a completely new (“de novo”) process that was as though they were applying for the permit for the first time. The city, by contrast, put emphasis on the first passage, arguing that the appeal hearing was “de novo” and had no burden of proof on the city. The city argued that the “at their own risk” phrase in the second section indicated that the permit was, in fact, conditional and did not give the Prestons any vested rights.

The plaintiffs were previously victorious on this issue on the grounds that the second section did entail a vested right for the plaintiffs. This time around, however, the city argued that case law from outside of Arizona demonstrated that there was no vested right. They agreed that the city made a botch of this case from a customer service perspective, in that the Prestons were not told that their permit was conditional and could be appealed, and they were in fact sent a letter by the city telling them to go ahead and start doing work on the property to meet other requirements of the city, such as the addition of windows.

The judge seemed amenable to the city’s argument, and questioned Clint Bolick over this thoroughly. He noted that the Arizona cases presented by the plaintiffs on this issue were not in the context of a pending appeal, though Bolick disagreed with the judge, pointing to a 1939 case from Iowa City, Iowa, Crow vs. Board of Adjustment. The city responded by noting that a 1981 Iowa Supreme Court case, Grandview Baptist Church v. Davenport, argued the opposite–that a church couldn’t apply a vested right during a pending appeal to keep a storage shed it had built.

The judge then pointed out that there were two arguments of equitable estoppel here–one is whether the city’s actions in granting the permit shifted the burden of proof to the city and in favor of the plaintiffs for the subsequent appeal, and second regarding the potential for damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. He set the second issue aside, and then asked to continue the hearing to the question of the city’s evidence of negative impact by the Prestons’ business, which would become relevant if he ruled in favor of the city on this first issue.

The Credible Evidence Issue
On this issue, the city got a thorough grilling by the judge. The relevant context here was the city’s use permit test criteria, part (c) of which supplies a ground for denying a use permit if a proposed use will cause:
Contribution to the deterioration of the neighborhood or to the downgrading of property values which is in conflict with the goals, objectives or policies for rehabilitation, redevelopment or conservation as set forth in the City’s adopted plans, or General plan.
The hearing officer for the initial permit application ruled that this was not the case, but the City Council and Mayor overturned the permit on these grounds based on complaints from neighbors.

The judge made it clear that the city had the burden of providing not just evidence, but credible evidence that this would be the case. He noted that in the city’s filings, it expressed concern that the tattoo studio is a “de facto adult business” which would contribute to a clustering of adult businesses (even though there is no clustering provision in statute) and thereby would cause a deleterious effect on the neighborhood.

The city’s attorneys then noted that Tempe does now have an anti-clustering ordinance, which the judge seemed to suggest was not good for the city’s case, but rather evidence that they didn’t have the necessary ordinances in place at the time of their decision. He asked, “why even discuss a clustering effect” at this hearing?

The city responded that it was an issue raised by the neighbors, to which the judge responded that the city should have responded as the hearing officer already did on that issue–sorry, we don’t have an ordinance on that, but we need another reason, such as contravention of the city’s general plan or some other plan. But the hearing officer approved the use permit, and noted that it was in furtherance of, not in detriment to, the city’s general plan.

The city’s attorneys noted that the city didn’t object to the business in general, and that Mayor Hallman had said that he hoped the Prestons would keep their business in Tempe.

At this point, the judge noted that the Prestons have had a successful tattoo business in Mesa for 15 years with no complaints, and asked, “So on what basis was this rejected?"

The city attorneys noted that nobody from the city has objected to tattoos, but it was complaints by third parties, neighbors of the business who “want some other type of business–a Starbuck’s, or a drugstore,” to stop the clustering. They made reference to a study from New York City (perhaps referenced by the complaining neighbors?) arguing that clusters of adult businesses contribute to neighborhood deterioriation and crime. They admitted that a tattoo parlor is not an adult business under city code, and again, that there was no anti-clustering ordinance at the time. (I find it interesting that both of the city’s examples of preferred types of businesses are in the business of drug distribution. The space, in fact, remains vacant to this day, demonstrating that the real choice is between the Preston’s business or no business at all.)

The judge then asked, “Where’s the credible evidence? A New York study that’s apples and oranges? A real estate person who steps up to the microphone [and offers objections]? If there’s no credible evidence, [then] this [decision] could be arbitrary and capricious. If we have an anti-clustering statute, the permit process should incorporate that.” He offered a few specific objections to the NYC study and its applicability here, and noted that in order to have substantive due process in the permitting procedure, the applicant needs to know up front that there are rules objecting to clustering. He stated that the city seemed, in effect, to have a secret unadopted city plan that requires third party intervention to enforce requirements that are not in the city’s plans or ordinances. And he noted that the city had already overruled the arguments of the third parties in its initial granting of the permit.

At this point, the judge asked Bolick if he had anything to add, and he asked permission to give another argument on the previous point, arguing that it was the city’s actions that caused the defendants to engage in detrimental reliance upon their representations. The judge told Bolick that “you’re still missing the first step in the analysis–that it’s a person who knows the law. It must be reasonable detrimental reliance.” This exchange suggests to me that the judge will rule in favor of the city on the prior point. Bolick responded that there is a factual aspect to the meaning of the statute, and that the Prestons would never have made the investment if not specifically told to go ahead and do so by the city and by a hearing officer.

Bolick then made a few remarks on the credible evidence issue. He pointed out that the City Council and the City Attorney said in deposition that the city’s standard must be satisfied, but the city also admitted that the business is in furtherance of the general plan. The judge said that the city is now focusing on a prior point, that the business is “detrimental to the public.” Bolick said this is a post hoc change of the city’s legal position and asked how a permit applicant would know. He stated that “there’s not only no credible evidence for the city’s position, there’s no evidence.” And he also noted that “there are constitutional dimensions to ‘arbitrary and capricious’–there has to be a standard."

Immunity for Damages
At this point, the judge said there were a couple other issues to discuss. If the city didn’t meet its standard and so has to issue the use permit, there’s an immunity for damages issue. The city has argued for immunity to damages on two grounds. First, absolute immunity on the grounds that its action was a legislative action, as per an opinion from the city attorney. Second, immunity on the grounds that the “at your own risk” clause was sufficient warning to the plaintiffs. The city added a third argument, noting that while they want the case to be decided based on the current record, they have other documents that are relevant to a decision about damages. Specifically, they argued that there are emails between Preston and his contractors which appear to make the contracts conditional upon the granting of a permit and so neither Preston nor the city should be liable for that. Bolick agreed that there should be a separate factual review on damages, but that plaintiffs should win damages if they either win on the burden of proof issue or if they win on the “arbitrary and capricious” issue and it’s an administrative act.

The judge observed that the City Council has a legislative function, a judicial function, and an administrative function, and that if this was an administrative function, this was not a matter of determining fundamental government policy. Bolick cited the Reynolds case (?) and another to the effect that issuing a building permit is an administrative act. The city attorneys objected that Reynolds didn’t involve a de novo appeal process, and that the city was going forward on the assumption that it was a legislative process, as argued in a position from the city attorney on which the City Council relied. The judge asked, “is it clearly not judicial?” The city said that perhaps it might be, if the judge ruled that there couldn’t be a de novo review in this case (i.e., if they lost on the burden of proof claim) and were thereby acting in an appellate capacity.

After a few more exchanges, the judge indicated that he would deliberate and be back shortly to issue a ruling from the bench. A few of us gathered outside the courtroom to talk, including Bolick, the plaintiffs, a few other supporters of the plaintiffs, and a reporter from the Arizona Republic. At around 1 p.m., the bailiff summoned us back into the courtroom, to inform us that we were all dismissed and the judge would be issuing a written ruling, which is apparently what he did at the May hearing as well.

My understanding is that the plaintiffs win the case if they win on either of the above two grounds, the burden of proof issue or the credible evidence/“arbitrary and capricious” issue, and the case will not go back to the City Council this time. Of course, it may be appealed by the losing side. My best guess is that the city will prevail on the first issue and the plaintiffs on the second.

CBS Channel 5 was also filming the hearing, but you heard the details here first.

I’ll update this post with information about the decision after it happens.

The Goldwater Institute’s website has more on the Preston case.

(The photo of the Maricopa County Court House in downtown Phoenix, above, is a Creative Commons licensed photo (attribution, noncommercial, no derivative works) from the flickr photostream of Steve Minor, user lumierefl. Click on the photo to get to that photo in his photostream.)

UPDATE (July 9, 2009): The Prestons won their case, again, on the grounds that the city’s decision to revoke their permit was “arbitrary and capricious." I haven’t heard how the judge ruled on the other issue. The city has 30 days to appeal the decision; otherwise they must issue the permit and allow the business to open.

Fundraising for Bowl-A-Rama

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:17:00 +0000

I have only one month to try to reach my fundraising goal for this year’s Bowl-A-Rama. I know times are tight, but if you can spare a few dollars please visit my page and make a donation.

(Photo is of the Lippard household’s latest adoptee from RESCUE, Buster.)

Republican states lead in divorce, teen pregnancy, and porn subscriptions

Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:57:00 +0000

Charles Blow has an op-ed piece in yesterday’s The New York Times commenting on the spate of recent Republican sex scandals which contains this infographic (an aptly named “blowchart”) ranking the states based on divorce rates, teen pregnancy rates, and subscriptions to online porn sites as a percentage of broadband subscribers.

Blow suggests that conservatives address this hypocrisy by becoming more concerned about what goes on in their own bedrooms than in everyone else’s. It also highlights the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only sex education.

(BTW, the data for the third column comes from the work of Ben Edelman (PDF), who I’ve cited here before for his excellent work on spyware and adware, and on the ineffectiveness of TRUSTe.)

UPDATE (June 30, 2009): There’s at least one error in this chart, in that Tennessee should be red, not blue, near the bottom of the broadband porn column.

Bad military botnet proposal still being pushed

Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:02:00 +0000

I just came across an April 2009 BBC story which shows that USAF Col. Williamson is still promoting his idea of building a U.S. military botnet to engage in offensive denial of service attacks against foreign targets on the Internet.

But I haven’t seen him respond to any of the criticisms of his bad idea, including in the online forum of the journal where he published it.

I think a more effective idea would be to adjust the computer crime statutes to provide immunity to prosecution (or at the very least an affirmative defense to criminal charges) for private responses to attacks that meet certain criteria, so that ISPs, security researchers, and competent individuals could engage in offensive actions against compromised machines to disable malicious software or take them off the network. Perhaps some kind of licensing or bonding would do the trick, and ISPs could put an exception into their acceptable use policies for entities that met the criteria.

That’s also my partial response to this more recent BBC story about “what rules apply in cyber-wars” which led me to find the Williamson article.

$40 million in federal housing stabilization money not working in Phoenix

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:20:00 +0000

In April 2009, the city of Phoenix received $40 million in federal stimulus money under the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. This program is designed to put a floor on house prices by providing zero-interest loans of up to $15,000 to home buyers to cover downpayments and closing costs on purchases of foreclosed homes.

The number of home buyers who have used this program to date: zero.

Several hundred people have applied for the program, but none has purchased a home yet.

The program requires that buyers have incomes between $55,350 and $104,400, depending on size of family, must complete eight hours of financial counseling in budgeting and home ownership, and must invest $1,000 of their own money. The NSP loan must be repaid in the event that the home is sold or refinanced.

(Via ABC15.com.)

John Wilkins on atheism and agnosticism

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:11:00 +0000

John Wilkins has written a blog post on definitions of atheism and agnosticism, in which he suggests that the definition of atheism has been shifting of late (and encroaching upon agnosticism’s territory). His discussion and that which follows in the comments is well worth reading.

Anonymous (2009-06-26):

Jim,
Why don't you weigh in? You, Wilkins, and Moran… just like the old days of USENET.

Mark Sanford wants me to join him...

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:38:00 +0000

Talk about great timing–a few minutes ago, I received an email from “Governor Sanford” with the subject “Join Me.” I thought perhaps it might be an invitation to travel to Buenos Aires. But no, it’s an appeal from the Goldwater Institute to join, signed by Mark Sanford, the Republican Governor of South Carolina who is in the news today for confessing that his recent week-long disappearance was to visit a woman in Argentina that he’s been having an affair with.

I suppose they can be sure the recipients are more likely to open such an email today, though I’m not sure how much Sanford’s name will result in people giving them money.

BTW, Fox News ran a caption on Sanford’s confession press conference identifying him as a Democrat, just like they did with Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida back in 2006.

Obama's record of kept and broken promises

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:30:00 +0000

Radley Balko summarizes PolitiFact’s report card on Obama’s promises, as:

31 promises kept, of which 20 expand government power and 6 of which make it smaller, more transparent, or more accountable, and 5 are neutral.

6 promises broken, 5 of which would have limited presidential power, provided tax breaks, or more transparency or accountability to federal government, and one of which was symbolic (recognizing the Armenian genocide).

No promises broken which expand government power.

Part 3 of SP Times series on Scientology

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:47:00 +0000

The third part of the St. Petersburg Times story on Scientology, “Ecclesiastical justice," is out, and it’s a bit of a disappointment. It’s a few more charges of abuse by the four high-ranking defectors that were already summarized in the first part, plus some accounts of the well-known Sea Org practice of “overboarding,” used with swimming pools when ships aren’t available. Surprisingly, the story doesn’t mention that the Olympic-sized swimming pool at the Scientology “Gold Base” compound in Hemet has a faux ship, the Star of California, built into the hill next to it.

Today’s stories also include some more detail about the departures from Scientology of the four senior-level defectors interviewed for the story, and some media and Internet reactions.

All in all, I think this new series of stories is not as damning as, say, Janet Reitman’s “Inside Scientology” that appeared in Rolling Stone in 2006, nor as any of the older classic exposures like the six-part Los Angeles Times series by Joel Sappell and Robert W. Welkos from 1990, Richard Behar’s “The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power” from Time magazine in 1991, or Richard Leiby’s work in the Clearwater Sun in the 1970s and 1980s and the Washington Post in the 1990s.

I hope someday we’ll see a more detailed exposure of Scientology’s battle with the IRS, and the role of the Church of Spiritual Technology/L. Ron Hubbard Library in the Scientology organizational structure, and why its trustees are lawyers who aren’t Scientologists, including a former Assistant Commissioner of the IRS.

UPDATE (August 2, 2009): Other Scientology defectors are now coming forward with their stories, some of which confirm the accounts of abuse given by Rinder, Rathbun, and De Vocht.

CMI makes Darwin docu-drama

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:40:00 +0000

Via John Lynch’s blog, I see that Creation Ministries International has made a docu-drama about Darwin titled “The Voyage That Shook the World,” featuring professional historians who are well-known experts on Darwin. And why did these historians participate in a creationist project?

It seems that CMI took a page from the producers of “Expelled” and set up a separate production company, and failed to disclose the nature of their production to the historians in question. That suggests to me unethical deception–lying by omission–though I’d like to know what exactly the historians were told and what releases they signed before they participated.

Updates to come if I find out.

UPDATE (June 27, 2009): CMI describes its process for the documentary, including the document sent to interviewees, on its website. No mention is made of CMI or a creationist slant to the film. The director says that “if anything, CMI’s influence was one of moderation, ensuring that all sides were fairly represented,” but if he is himself a creationist and set out to make the film from a creationist viewpoint, this isn’t much of a defense. Note that at least one participant questioned who was providing the funding, and was told only “private investors.” And one participant tried to return his fee in order to not appear in the film.

The proof will be in the pudding–it will be interesting to see what the film’s narration says and how they fit the interviews into it. There’s clearly no defense if it says things that are false or misleading.

Implicit in the CMI position is that creationism is a valid, reasonable, and evidence-supported viewpoint that deserves equal representation, but that’s not the case.

One thing that’s clear is that anyone being interviewed for a documentary in the age of Borat and Expelled should do some due diligence before signing a release.

UPDATE: John Lynch has responded further, as well, and I agree with everything he says. Their statement about atheists having “no compunction to be truthful at all” is false and offensive, and their analogy to an investigation of the Communist party is a bad analogy.

UPDATE: P.Z. Myers has weighed in. This may be the sort of online media coverage they’re hoping for–the film is showing at so few places that the biggest place in Arizona to see it is a church in Miami, AZ (population < 2,000).

UPDATE (June 29, 2009): The CMI web page contains this statement under the movie poster image: “The Voyage that Shook the World, CMI’s documentary, has atheists ranting and raging. Rather than critique the film, they falsely accuse CMI of deception.” This statement itself is dishonest–the accusations of deception are accurate, and the current complaints are not necessarily in lieu of critiquing the film, if it becomes feasible to view it.

UPDATE: John Lynch responds further to CMI, and notes that he has been incorrectly identified as an atheist (he’s an agnostic).

SP Times Scientology article on Lisa McPherson

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:34:00 +0000

Part two of the three-part series in the St. Petersburg Times on Scientology has been published, and it’s a detailed account of the death of Lisa McPherson. Some of the previously unpublished details include that David Miscavige was personally monitoring McPherson’s auditing over closed circuit television and deemed her “clear” in 1995, prior to her minor car accident and subsequent death after being held for 17 days in the Fort Harrison hotel and being subjected to the “introspection rundown.” This is according to Tom De Vocht and Don Jason, both former high-ranking Scientologists in Clearwater. The Church of Scientology denies that Miscavige was even present in Clearwater.

In December 1999, when a judge ruled that Miscavige could be added as a defendant in the McPherson wrongful death case, he allegedly became more abusive and irrational. The criminal case against the church fell apart when the medical examiner changed her ruling from undetermined cause of death to accidental death. Former Scientologist Marty Rathbun, one of the critics speaking out for this series, agrees with the church on this point that the medical examiner’s decision was based on the evidence rather than on blackmail or pressure from the church.

(Previously.)

(Photograph is of a Scientology Sea Org bus near the Fort Harrison Hotel, with a couple members of the Sea Org in uniform, on June 25, 2005. Sea Org members sign billion-year contracts.)

Creationist oil drilling

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:07:00 +0000

More on Zion Oil and Gas, a company tied to Hal Lindsey that picks sites to drill for oil based on misinterpretations of the Bible–and they’re looking in Israel. The Bronte Capital blog writes about the company as a counterexample to the claim that all oil exploration work uses mainstream old-earth geology, so now, to be accurate, you need to say that this is true of all successful oil exploration work. (I believe Uri Geller allegedly helped in some oil or mineral exploration in the past, so the former claim had already been falsified, though I think the latter still holds.)

Bronte Capital notes that since Zion can claim that it is making its decisions based on constitutionally protected religious belief, that may be a defense against accusations of stock fraud.

Zion’s stock trades on the American Exchange under stock symbol ZN. It has a market capitalization of $85.17 million, and closed last week at $8.00/share, near the bottom of its 52-week range ($5.07-$17.68). The company formed in 2000 and has offices in Texas and Israel.

The company’s stock is, unfortunately, not available for shorting.

Here’s a Zion promotional video:

(Previously.)

Former high-ranking Scientologists speak out in SP Times

Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:21:00 +0000

It turns out former head of Scientology’s Office of Special Affairs Mike Rinder, who left the Church of Scientology in 2007, has decided to speak out after all. And so has Marty Rathbun, who was Inspector General of the Religious Technology Center, the organization that acts as agent for all of Scientology’s intellectual property and was prominent in legal action against online critics.

The St. Petersburg Times is running a multi-part story on their allegations of corruption and abuse inside the Church of Scientology, confirming and expanding upon stories that have long been staples of online criticisms of the church:

Technology tidbits

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:35:00 +0000

From the Technology Quarterly report in the June 6-12, 2009 issue of The Economist, a few articles of interest:
Gasoline/compressed-air hybrid vehicles may prove more cost-effective than gas-electric hybrids.
Bigelow Aerospace wins challenge against export control regulations that would have required non-U.S. passengers on space flights to be treated as recipients of technology transfers, which would have required an onerous approval and monitoring process. (Not reported in the story is that Robert Bigelow is now funding MUFON to pay UFO researchers.)
Delay-tolerant network protocol (DTN), developed with assistance from Vint Cerf, has been tested to transfer data between NASA’s EPOXI probe and earth-based stations, which will lead to an interplanetary internet that includes the International Space Station.
The heart of the cockroach has been used as the model for a new type of low-cost artificial heart for humans.
Researchers are devising a laser-based defense mechanism to shoot down mosquitoes rather than missiles. Funded by the Gates Foundation, the prototype cost is only about $100. We’d like one.

A code of conduct for effective rational discussion

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:47:00 +0000

John Wilkins sets out “a code of conduct for effective rational discussion," a list of principles for debate and discussion that aims at approaching truth rather than winning a rhetorical battle, at the new location of his Evolving Thoughts blog.

The list of proposed principles is:
The Fallibility Principle
The Truth-Seeking Principle
The Clarity Principle
The Burden of Proof Principle
The Principle of Charity
The Relevance Principle
The Acceptability Principle
The Sufficiency Principle
The Rebuttal Principle
The Resolution Principle
The Suspension of Judgement Principle
The Reconsideration Principle
Fleck’s Addendum
Check out Evolving Thoughts for discussion of each of these principles.

Evolution, religion, schizophrenia, and the schizotypal personality

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:08:00 +0000

Stanford neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky giving a lecture on the evolution of schizophrenia, and how schizotypal personality and its associated “metamagical thinking” may be adaptive, and a source or driver for religious belief in a community.

(Via boingboing.)

Historical Comments

Brad (2009-06-09):

I love this type of discussion. There does seem to be a touch of post-hoc assumptions, but assumptions that have a large volume of rational support compared to any alternative I can think of.

ApostAZ podcast #16

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:45:00 +0000

The latest ApostAZ podcast is now out:
Episode 016 Atheism and Bleep-Free Thought in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! Special Guest August Berkshire. August Berkshire is vice-president of Atheist Alliance International (AAI), and past president of Minnesota Atheists.

He is also in the midst of a three-week tour through the midwest and southwest visiting various atheist groups along the way including our own Phoenix Atheist group. Intro: Roll with an Atheist by Charlie Checkm. Outro: Fallen on the Front Lines by Galt Aureus.

August is the owner of the “ATHEIST” license plate for Minnesota and is proud to be listed in the reference book Who’s Who in Hell.
———–
Origin of the “Seven Deadly Sins”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_deadly_sins

Goldwater Institute hires investigative journalist

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:48:00 +0000

As newspapers decline and die, it’s good to see other opportunities opening up to support investigative journalism. Along with wire services, which are beefing up their staffs and seeing growing profits as their content is syndicated to more and more places including websites and broadcast media, think tanks are also getting into the business. (There are also other nonprofits that support investigative journalism, such as the Center for Public Integrity.)

The Goldwater Institute has hired investigative reporter Mark Flatten from the Tribune to investigate and report on cases of government corruption, abuse, and waste. Flatten is an award-winning reporter who has covered state government for nearly 20 years in Arizona, including covering the impeachment of former Gov. Evan Mecham, the AzScam corruption scandal, and the alternative fuels fiasco.

Flatten is the only reporter who has ever been banned from the floor of the state legislature, which occurred at the order of former Arizona Speaker of the House Don Aldridge (R-Lake Havasu City) because of Flatten’s reporting on links between Aldridge and Max Dunlap, who was convicted for his part in the 1976 murder of Arizona Republic reporter Don Bolles. In 1976, Aldridge was a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and he accompanied Dunlap to the law office of Neal Roberts on June 2, the day a bomb went off under Bolles’ car, allegedly about a runway paving problem at the Mohave County Airport (as reported in the Kingman Daily Miner, June 28, 1976). On June 3, Roberts and Dunlap met at Durant’s Restaurant to discuss raising $25,000 for the defense of Bolles’ killer, John Harvey Adamson, who was at the time facing a minor criminal charge and had not yet been caught for the murder.

A May 10 NPR story describes the Goldwater Institute’s job ad for this position and raises concerns about political bias infecting any stories produced. While I think that’s a real concern, I think it’s often better to have stories come from an advertised bias rather than pretend objectivity. In any case, Flatten’s stories have gone after abuse regardless of party (Mecham was a Republican, the alternative fuels fiasco was caused by a Republican, and AzScam caught both Republicans and Democrats taking bribes).

I look forward to seeing what he will investigate and write about in this new role.

UPDATE (October 19, 2009): Flatten has published his first major investigative piece since being hired by the Goldwater Institute, and it’s an account of how a federal program designed to provide business opportunities to the disadvantaged is being used by political insiders for their own benefit, including County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. Wilcox obtained the Chili’s Too franchise in Terminal 4 at Sky Harbor Airport as an Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE), which requires that the owner participate in the day-to-day operation of the business, which she does not (though perhaps her co-owner does?). She also received a $450,000 loan from Host International which meant she didn’t have to bring any money to the table, a loan which violated city policy (the City of Phoenix owns and operates Sky Harbor).

Flatten’s “High Fliers” report may be found here.

David Paszkiewicz takes students to Creation Museum

Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:12:00 +0000

David Paszkiewicz, the Kearny, NJ high school teacher who was proselytizing for Christianity and creationism and then lied about it when his student Matthew LaClair complained, only to be caught because LaClair recorded the evidence, is taking students from the school on a field trip to the Creation Museum. Paszkiewicz, who is also the advisor for the school’s Christian Club, wants students to be exposed to the “science behind creationism."

Apparently the original plan was to take this field trip during school hours using taxpayer funds.

Matthew LaClair will be discussing this tonight on Equal Time for Freethought on WBAI radio 99.5 FM in NYC at 6:30 p.m. EDT, 3:30 p.m. MST (Arizona). WBAI broadcasts on the Internet in several streaming audio formats, so you don’t have to be in NYC to listen.

My AHA workshop session on Thursday

Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:12:00 +0000

I’ll be giving a talk during the pre-conference workshop sessions at this week’s American Humanist Association conference, which is being held June 5-7 at the Tempe Mission Palms Hotel.

My talk is on Thursday, June 4, from 4-5 p.m. in the Palm F room. While there is ordinarily a $20 charge for the pre-conference workshops, readers of this blog may attend for free (but donations to the AHA are appreciated).

My talk is entitled “Lessons learned from 25 years of battling creationists, Scientologists, and fundamentalists online."

I’ll also be representing the Arizona Coalition of Reason at a press conference on Friday morning about a new billboard campaign.

More about that on Friday.

UPDATE (June 4, 2009): My presentation (Keynote format) is here, published with a Creative Commons license (noncommercial, attribution, no derivative works).

UPDATE (June 8, 2009): Friday’s press conference was held by the American Humanist Association, the United Coalition of Reason, and the Arizona Coalition of Reason. Roy Speckhardt of the AHA introduced the press conference, Fred Edwords of United COR announced his new group and that it plans to start up about 20 COR groups throughout the country by the end of the year, and I spoke on behalf of ArizonaCOR. We have a billboard up at 44th St. and Washington, on the southbound route into Sky Harbor airport.

We got press coverage from ABC Ch. 15, Fox Ch. 10, and independent Ch. 3, from the Arizona Republic and New Times, and from KTAR radio. ASU’s State Press will also be running a story.

Most spun the issue as a big controversy, but that seems outlandish to me. Fox’s “man on the street” interviews ended up with two atheists out of five interviewed, and most didn’t seem to think it was a big deal. The owner of the business near the billboard made some strange argument about how the billboard should have required special regulatory approval, since he needed to get approval for his own business’s signs–but apparently didn’t recognize that such approval would only be needed for the billboard itself (unless it was grandfathered), not for its content.

UPDATE (June 21, 2009): Here’s my presentation, embedded via SlideShare:

UPDATE (June 29, 2009): Leslie Zukor of the Reed Secular Alliance at Reed College gives a recap of the AHA conference.

Sen. Jon Kyl's flip-flop on judicial filibustering

Tue, 26 May 2009 23:39:00 +0000

On May 19, 2005, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) spoke out against filibustering judicial nominations of President George W. Bush, and said he was willing to give up the tool permanently, and not block future Democratic presidential nominees:
“Republicans seek to right a wrong that has undermined 214 years of tradition - wise, carefully thought-out tradition. The fact that the Senate rules theoretically allowed the filibuster of judicial nominations but were never used to that end is an important indicator of what is right, and why the precedent of allowing up-or-down votes is so well established. It is that precedent that has been attacked and which we seek to restore….
My friends argue that Republicans may want to filibuster a future Democratic President’s nominees. To that I say, I don’t think so, and even if true, I’m willing to give up that tool. It was never a power we thought we had in the past, and it is not one likely to be used in the future. I know some insist that we will someday want to block Democrat judges by filibuster. But I know my colleagues. I have heard them speak passionately, publicly and privately, about the injustice done to filibustered nominees. I think it highly unlikely that they will shift their views simply because the political worm has turned."

Ian Plimer on climate change

Fri, 22 May 2009 14:43:00 +0000

As was mentioned last August by commenter Ktisophilos, Ian Plimer has a new book out on climate change, titled Heaven and Earth: Global Warming: The Missing Science, in which he challenges claims of anthropogenic global warming.

Plimer is an Australian professor of geology who I criticized for his methods in debate with creationists, as well as for his reliability and accuracy. He responded by criticizing me with more misrepresentation in his book Telling Lies for God, which contained numerous errors, as well as multiple cases of failure to properly quote and cite sources that he used in writing the book. (The Creation Ministries International documentary for which I was interviewed, Facing the Fire, is about Plimer’s 1988 debate with Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research.)

It now appears that Plimer’s latest work is also extremely sloppy and contains erroneous source attributions. Tim Lambert at the Deltoid ScienceBlog identifies a long list of problems in the book by page number, points out the facts about Plimer’s misleading figure 3, which doesn’t originate from the source Plimer has claimed, and about another misrepresented source and graph.

Some Christians who found Plimer to be worthless as a source on creationism as a result of my critique have nonetheless found him to be a worthwhile source on anthropogenic climate change, such as Bill Muehlenberg and some of the commenters at his CultureWatch blog. This strikes me as an inconsistent position–Plimer has demonstrated unreliability in both debates, and shouldn’t be relied upon as a source for either. That doesn’t mean to ignore what he says, or that everything he says is wrong–it’s just that everything he says needs to be thoroughly checked for accuracy. If it checks out, then it’s better to cite the original source, not Plimer.

UPDATE (May 26, 2009): Commenter Paul points out a review of Plimer’s book by Barry Brook, which also includes a link to a point-by-point critique of the book by Prof. Ian Enting of the University of Melbourne (PDF). (This link has been updated as of June 1, 2009 to point to a location that will continue to maintain the most recent version of the critique, as per a comment below from Prof. Enting.)

UPDATE (May 28, 2009): Bill Muehlenberg still appears to be refusing to publish contrary opinions from me, continuing his past record. I posted the following two comments on his blog, which he has not allowed through moderation:

1. Comment submitted on the evening of May 22, 2009:
I am a critic of creationism and skeptic who challenged Ian Plimer’s methods and reliability in his criticisms of creationism (cited by one of your commenters above). I am sorry to say that Plimer’s methods and reliability continue to be unsound in his contribution to the climate change debate. For example, see the following two blog posts that document errors and falsehoods in his new book:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php

I think that Plimer is mostly correct about creationism (it’s nonsense) and mostly incorrect about climate change (there are real trends that correlate with human activity), but given his record he shouldn’t be relied upon as a source in either debate without carefully checking up on everything he says.
2. Submitted on the morning of May 23, 2009:
Bill:

I do hope you will let my comments through moderation.

Here is another post from the Deltoid ScienceBlog about Ian Plimer misrepresenting one of his own sources:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/plimer_and_arctic_warming.php
UPDATE (September 2, 2009): Plimer has descended further into irrationality in his exchange with George Monbiot.

UPDATE (December 17, 2009): Plimer engaged in a debate, of sorts, with George Monbiot, on Australia’s “Lateline” program. Monbiot offers his overview of how it went.

Tracking cyberspies through the web wilderness

Tue, 12 May 2009 14:20:00 +0000

Yesterday’s New York Times has an interesting article about how security researchers at the University of Toronto have helped uncover online spy activity, apparently conducted by the Chinese government, against the Dalai Lama’s office in India.

One odd comment in the article: “And why among the more than 1,200 compromised government computers representing 103 countries, were there no United States government systems?"

I find this particularly odd in that I’ve seen compromised U.S. government systems plenty of times in my information security career, including spam issued from military computers. I don’t find it plausible that the U.S. government has recently improved the security of all of its computers and networks so that there are no more compromised systems.

In the context of the article, it’s discussing more specifically compromises due to the particular spy ring being monitored. The preceding sentences point out that they weren’t able to determine with certainty who was running it, and the immediately preceding sentence asks, “Why was the powerful eavesdropping system not password-protected, a weakness that made it easy for Mr. Villeneuve to determine how the system worked?"

The question should actually have asked why it wasn’t encrypted, rather than “password-protected,” but the possibilities suggested to me here are that (a) this particular activity is being run by amateurs or (b) this particular activity was intentionally detectible as either (i) a distraction from other, more hidden activity or (ii) to put the blame on China by somebody other than China.

Ambiguous letter in Smithsonian magazine

Mon, 11 May 2009 19:23:00 +0000

The April 2009 issue of Smithsonian magazine prints two letters about February’s “Darwin and Lincoln” article under the heading “Twin piques.” The first reads:
The only place Darwin and Lincoln are equals is in the mind of author Adam Gopnik ["Twin Peaks"]. What a stretch to weave their lives together because they share a birthday. “High peaks [that] look out toward each other”? Total hyperbole.
Rick Munsell
The Villages, Florida
Unfortunately, Dr. Munsell, a veterinarian from Florida who got his college degrees in Mississippi, doesn’t tell us which reputation he thinks is exaggerated. Given his status as a southerner, he could either be a fan of the Confederacy and southern secession, or he could be an anti-evolutionist. Then again, perhaps he just thinks nobody is ever equal to anybody else…

Lippards sight flying snakes

Sat, 09 May 2009 01:16:00 +0000

In any event, the next Carolina sighting is only briefly detailed, sadly, since it sounds even more interesting than most. On the afternoon of 16 September 1904, in the countryside near Troutman, North Carolina, Mrs John B Lippard and her children saw "30 or more large snakes sailing through the air" over their farm. Each was about 5ft (1.5m) long and 4-5in (10-13cm) wide. "They watched the snakes sail around and alight in a piece of thickety pine woods... Most assuredly these people saw something." (Statesville Landmark, 20 Sept)
Quoted from p. 34 of Jerome Clark, "Sky Serpents," Fortean Times magazine, #248, June 2009, pp. 30-36.

UPDATE (12 September 2014): There are, in fact, gliding snakes in the jungles of south and southeast Asia.

Gridman (2009-05-09):

Darn, that sounds like a good one. Pity I let my subscription to the Fortean Times lapse.
Obviously they weren’t really snakes but it might have been a primitive form of UFO. I believe that before they setup the Sedona Vortex UFO re-energizing portal UFOs had to generate their own dimension power by undulating wildly.

Who's behind the financial meltdown?

Thu, 07 May 2009 17:55:00 +0000

The Center for Public Integrity, an organization I support, has just published the results of an investigation into the roots of the recent economic crisis and the major players involved:
The top subprime lenders whose loans are largely blamed for triggering the global economic meltdown were owned or backed by giant banks now collecting billions of dollars in bailout money — including several that have paid huge fines to settle predatory lending charges. The banks that funded the subprime industry were not victims of an unforeseen financial collapse, as they have sometimes portrayed themselves, but enablers that bankrolled the type of lending threatening the financial system.
…
According to the analysis:

Greater percentage of nonreligious join religion than vice-versa

Mon, 04 May 2009 17:59:00 +0000

In an op-ed at the New York Times, Charles Blow offers a rebuttal to the claim that most people follow particular religions because they are raised in those religions with the following:
Maybe, but a study entitled “Faith in Flux” issued this week by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life questioned nearly 3,000 people and found that most children raised unaffiliated with a religion later chose to join one. Indoctrination be damned. By contrast, only 14 percent of those raised Catholic and 13 percent of those raised Protestant later became unaffiliated.

Same-sex marriage in Christian history

Mon, 04 May 2009 16:48:00 +0000

Jinxiboo’s blog reports on Saint Sergius and Bacchus, officers in the Roman army exposed as secret Christians and martyred in the fourth century:
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.
…
Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

Unconscious decision-making

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:00:00 +0000

Evidence continues to mount that human decision-making occurs in the brain prior to conscious awareness of the decision, which is evidence against the common religious view of a soul, separate from the brain, which is the seat of all of our mental capacities. It’s also at odds with an overly intellectualized view of human beings held by some atheists (as well as all Scientologists, who consider unconscious decision-making by the “reactive mind” or festering “body thetans” to be the cause of human unhappiness), on which we must strive to make all of our decisions based on conscious, deliberative reason. I don’t think this is a very common view among atheists today, who tend to have some familiarity with evolution and cognitive science, but there are still some out there who have an overly idealized view of what a rational human being should be.

A view of human beings that focuses solely on the intellectual and reason is not only at odds with the facts about how our cognition works, it gives short shrift to the importance of social bonds and emotion, which are areas that some religions focus on to the exclusion of the intellectual–with great success in expanding their memberships, at least over the short term.

George W. Bush on the difference between democracy and dictatorship

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:32:00 +0000

“It’s important for people to understand that in a democracy, there will be a full investigation. In other words, we want to know the truth. In our country, when there’s an allegation of abuse … there will be a full investigation, and justice will be delivered. … It’s very important for people and your listeners to understand that in our country, when an issue is brought to our attention on this magnitude, we act. And we act in a way in which leaders are willing to discuss it with the media. … In other words, people want to know the truth. That stands in contrast to dictatorships. A dictator wouldn’t be answering questions about this. A dictator wouldn’t be saying that the system will be investigated and the world will see the results of the investigation."

And on the treatment of war crimes: “War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, ‘I was just following orders."

The former quote is from the video below, the latter quote is from this March 2003 CNN transcript.

(First quote via Dispatches from the Culture Wars, second quote via The Agitator.)

And, for your edification, please read Scott Horton’s article, “Busting the Torture Myths."

"Fleeting expletives" FCC rule upheld

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:25:00 +0000

The FCC rule on “fleeting expletives,” permitting massive fines even for individual occurrences of the “seven words you can’t say on television,” arguing that they always have sexual connotations even when used as an intensifier, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. The decision is noteworthy for using the terms “F-word” and “S-word” and “fing” and “s*” in its text, rather than spelling them out.

Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in the majority, however, questioned the constitutional basis of the FCC’s ability to regulate content. It should be just a matter of time before the FCC’s ability to regulate indecency is curtailed, but the Supreme Court did not rule on that issue in this case.

Adam Thierer at the Technology Liberation Front has a thorough commentary:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Thierer points out that Scalia, purportedly a strict constitutionalist, in his decision has endorsed a brand-new justification for the FCC’s power to regulate broadcast content. The original justification was that the airwaves were a scarce resource that needed to be protected for productive uses; the new argument is that because there are so many unregulated alternatives like cable, satellite, and the Internet, that the government needs to protect one last refuge from offensive content.

(Previously, previously.)

Obama's $100M proposed budget cut, in perspective

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:51:00 +0000

A nice visual depiction of what it amounts to.

(Via The Agitator.)

Historical Comments

Ktisophilos (2009-05-03):

Good one!

ApostAZ podcast #15

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:03:00 +0000

Whoops, forgot to report on this one when it was released last month:
Episode 015 Atheism and wheat-gluten-Free Thought in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! All Music from Greydon Square- CPT Theorem and Compton Effect,Group Events, Sao Paulo- Making Hard Decisions is a Crime Against the Church, Half of UK Folks Agree that Evolution Makes God Obsolete, Thunderf00t’s PEARL of a Youtube vid.
Comments: The woman who claimed that someone being “dead” and resuscitated after eight minutes was miraculous is a bit off in her claim, since hearts and lungs are routinely stopped in open heart surgery for 4-6 hours, though that involves oxygenation of the blood by a heart-lung bypass machine. Perhaps more to the point are some hypothermia near-death cases, some of which have lasted for hours, like this recent case in Minnesota.

Nassim Taleb's ten principles for a black-swan-proof world

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:07:00 +0000

At the Financial Times (with more detail for each item):

1. What is fragile should break early while it is still small.

2. No socialisation of losses and privatisation of gains.

3. People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus.

4. Do not let someone making an “incentive” bonus manage a nuclear plant – or your financial risks.

5. Counter-balance complexity with simplicity.

6. Do not give children sticks of dynamite, even if they come with a warning .

7. Only Ponzi schemes should depend on confidence. Governments should never need to “restore confidence”.

8. Do not give an addict more drugs if he has withdrawal pains.

9. Citizens should not depend on financial assets or fallible “expert” advice for their retirement.

10. Make an omelette with the broken eggs.

(Via Will Wilkinson.)

The banker who said no

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:53:00 +0000

A banker who resisted the urge to invest in toxic assets during the boom is cleaning up during the bust. Andy Beal of Beal Bank in Plano, Texas “virtually stopped making or buying loans” from 2004 to 2007, leading people around him to think he was crazy. Now he’s buying up loans at fire sale prices and has tripled his bank’s assets to $7 billion in the last 15 months, and without government bailout money.

Beal is also known for high-stakes poker games against the top poker players in the world, in which he has lost more than he’s won, but occasionally taken for a lot of money (including an $11 million win in one day).

What the laws of physics say about sustainable energy

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:09:00 +0000

Cambridge University physicist David MacKay’s book, Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air, is available for free download or perusal in a variety of forms including HTML, PDF and PostScript, at the website www.withouthotair.com.

The ICR does law as well as it does science

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:28:00 +0000

The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School has filed a lawsuit in the state of Texas over its inability to advertise master’s degrees in science that it is not accredited or permitted to offer in the state of Texas.

An attorney evaluates their lawsuit and finds that it’s as crazy as their science, and doomed to dismissal.

(Via Pharyngula).

American Religious Identification Study 2008

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:43:00 +0000

The American Religious Identification Study 2008 has been published, and the only group to grow across the entire country is the “no religion” group.

Here’s how Arizona’s religious identifications have changed in the last decade:

1990: 24% Catholic, 57% other Christian, 3% other religions, 13% none, 3% don’t know/refused to answer.

2009: 29% Catholic, 44% other Christians, 5% other religions, 17% none, 5% don’t know/refused to answer.

The states with the highest percentage of persons identifying themselves as having no religion in 2008 are:

Vermont, 34%
New Hampshire, 29%
Wyoming, 28%
Maine, 25%
Washington, 25%
Nevada, 24%
Oregon, 24%
Delaware, 23%
Idaho, 23%
Massachusetts, 22%
Colorado, 21%
Montana, 21%

(Via the Secular Outpost.)

AiG/CMI dispute settled

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:28:00 +0000

CMI has taken down its AiG-critical material and posted a notice that reads:
CMI and AiG are pleased to inform you that the dispute between the ministries has been settled to their mutual satisfaction. Each ministry is now focused on its respective mission, having put this dispute behind them in April of 2009.
Nathan Zamprogno noted in a comment on my last blog post on this dispute that AiG still had some of its CMI-critical material about the case online, but it now appears to have been taken down as well.

Jeff Benedict and Little Pink House

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:33:00 +0000

This afternoon I had the pleasure of hearing writer Jeff Benedict speak about his book, Little Pink House, which is the story behind the Kelo v. New London case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. That case, which ruled that New London did have the right to use eminent domain to seize private property and turn it over to another private entity–effectively retranslating the Fifth Amendment’s use of the words “public use” into the meaning “public benefit”–was a case I thought I was familiar with. But Benedict’s talk revealed that while I was aware of some of the facts relevant to the legal case, I really had no idea about the whole story. In his short talk, he conveyed some of the events and details that did not make it to the national press, but which make the story all the more interesting. The political battles between state and city government, the plan to get Pfizer to stay in Connecticut when it was looking elsewhere, and the personalities involved made for a genuinely moving talk even when we already know how the story ends.

I look forward to reading his book.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 04:02:00 +0000

There’s FUD spreading about Sec. 14 of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, maintaining that it amounts to an effective repeal of the 4th Amendment for the Internet. That’s not so–the scope is restricted to “threat and vulnerability information” regarding the Internet, which I interpret to mean network service provider knowledge about compromised systems, botnets, etc., much of which is no doubt already being voluntarily shared with the government as is permissible under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, when, in the course of a provider’s normal service monitoring, it becomes aware of possible criminal activity.

I expect I’ll have more to say after I have a chance to read through the whole bill (PDF).

SkeptiCamp Phoenix today

Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:46:00 +0000

Today is the big day for SkeptiCamp Phoenix, starting at about 12:30 p.m. this afternoon.

Magic Tony, one of our presenters, will be live-blogging the event at his blog, and there may also be twittering at #skepticamp. No live video this time, but there will likely be video of at least some talks put online after the event, along with photos, presentations, and recaps.

I received the t-shirts last night (the back of which is shown in the photo) and the official SkeptiCamp 2009 banner earlier in the week, and I’ve got boxes of Skeptic magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, and some books for distribution to participants. Thanks to the generous contributions of our sponsors, the Skeptics Society/Skeptic magazine, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry/Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and the James Randi Educational Foundation, who provided the materials and funds for the t-shirts (which will also defray a portion of our dinner tonight after the event at Tempe’s ~~Rula Bula~~Boulders on Broadway).

It looks like we’ll have about twenty people physically present at the event, and twelve or thirteen presentations, some 30-minute presentations and some 10-minute presentations. The current list of presentations:

Tony Barnhart, Methods of the Pseudo-Psychic
Abraham Heward, What’s the difference between skepticism and denial? (led discussion)
David Jackemeyer, Henry Hazlitt’s Thinking as Science
Don Lacey, Words Important to Skepticism (PowerPoint 2007)
Jim Lippard, Positive Side-effects of Misinformation (SlideShare)
John Lynch, Academic Freedom and Intelligent Design (SlideShare)
Shannon Rankin, Skepticism for Dummies
David Weston, Creating Skeptical Happiness (PowerPoint)
Jack Ray, Skeptical Dating
Mike Stackpole, Practical Techniques for Street Skepticism
Charlie Cavanaugh Toft, Teaching Critical Thinking
Xarold Trejo, Why I am a Skeptic

SkeptiCamp Phoenix will be the first live-blogged SkeptiCamp event, and this is also the first day on which there will be two SkeptiCamp events in the same day–the other one going on today is SkeptiCamp Vancouver, which is occurring this afternoon at Langara College, with the sponsorship of the BC Skeptics.

UPDATE (April 2, 2009): Don Lacey of the Skeptics of Tucson, who participated in SkeptiCamp Phoenix, offers his thoughts at the James Randi Educational Foundation’s Swift blog. ScienceBlogger and SkeptiCamp Phoenix participant John Lynch gives a recap at his blog.

Dan Barker's Losing Faith in Faith, in Spanish

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:50:00 +0000

Dan Barker’s book, Losing Faith in Faith, has been translated into Spanish and is available as a free PDF download, Perder la fe en la fe.

Historical Comments

cowmix (2009-04-11):

When I first read you headline to this post I asked myself, "Why is Dan Barker losing faith in the spanish language?!"

:)

Corrupt drug cops in Philadelphia

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:38:00 +0000

From the Philadelphia Daily News:
ON A SWELTERING July afternoon in 2007, Officer Jeffrey Cujdik and his narcotics squad members raided an Olney tobacco shop.

Then, with guns drawn, they did something bizarre: They smashed two surveillance cameras with a metal rod, said store owners David and Eunice Nam.

The five plainclothes officers yanked camera wires from the ceiling. They forced the slight, frail Korean couple to the vinyl floor and cuffed them with plastic wrist ties.

Immigration and jobs

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 00:07:00 +0000

Despite the common concern that immigrants to the U.S. take jobs that would otherwise go to American citizens, immigrants actually create jobs and promote innovation. Two recent articles in The Economist look at this topic. In the March 7, 2009 issue, a study by Harvard economist William Kerr and University of Michigan economist William Lincoln looked at how patent production changes in response to changes in the number of H-1B visa holders, immigrants with technical skills. When the number of H-1B visas was increased by 10%, total patenting increased by 2%, caused mostly by patent activity by immigrants. However, rather than reducing the number of patents by the native population, those also increased.

In the March 14, 2009 issue’s special report on entrepreneurship, it’s noted that H-1B visas are capped at 85,000/year, and a maximum of 10,000 from any one country, increasing the wait for large countries such as India and China, where the wait time is about six years. There are over one million people waiting. This issue also notes that about half of Silicon Valley’s startups are founded by immigrants, and about 25% of all U.S. science and technology startups have a CEO or CTO who is an immigrant, and these companies employ 450,000 people and generate $52 billion in annual revenue. A quarter of U.S. patent applications in 2006 name foreign nationals as inventors or co-inventors.

Physical spam

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:01:00 +0000

On our dog walk this evening, we found that two neighborhoods to the south of us have been targeted by a new sort of marketing technique–in each yard was a bag containing a few rocks and a business card, apparently dropped by someone driving by who was too lazy to deliver them to the front door. In one neighborhood, these were like the ones pictured, in a ziploc bag with a card advertising a landscaping service. In another neighborhood, they were in twist-tied baggies with a piece of paper advertising a cleaning service.

This doesn’t seem to me like a very effective method of advertising. The door hanger flyers are annoying already, but these are worse–it’s like tossing trash into people’s yards.

Some interesting technology

Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:02:00 +0000

The March 7th, 2009 issue of The Economist Technical Quarterly has some items of interest:

Cool Earth Solar of Livermore, California is using balloons as solar energy collectors.

Narasimharao Kondamudi, Susanta Mohapatra, and Manoranjan Misra of the University of Nevada at Reno have found a way to turn coffee grounds into biodiesel.

David Whitten of the University of New Mexico and Kirk Schanze of the University of Florida have built “micro-sized ‘roach motels’” for capturing bacteria in hospitals and on the surfaces of ships.

Nicholas Kotov and his team at the University of Michigan have come up with a way to coat cotton threads with carbon nanotubes which can be used to carry electricity, and to add an additional material that reacts with human serum albumin, in order to detect bleeding, which might be used by the military in monitoring soldiers.

The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal

Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:17:00 +0000

Portugal decriminalized drugs in 2001, and Glenn Greenwald discusses the evidence that he says shows it has been “an unquestionable success, leading to improvements in virtually every relevant category and enabling Portugal to manage drug-related problems (and drug usage rates) far better than most Western nations that continue to treat adult drug consumption as a criminal offense.”

Historical Comments

Ktisophilos (2009-03-17):

The Drug War Body Count by Debra J. Saunders supports your case, and cites some former Central and South Americans as well as The Economist

Answers in Genesis censorship turns old-earther into young-earther

Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:47:00 +0000

Commenter Tim H pointed me to a post at Tim Martin’s Beyond Creation Science blog about another Answers in Genesis controversy. Old-earth creationist Charles Spurgeon delivered a June 17, 1855 sermon (four years before Darwin published Origin of Species) in which he stated that the earth had to be “many millions of years” old. When Answers in Genesis published that sermon on their website, they omitted that sentence, “We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be-certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam."

After Martin pointed out the omission, Answers in Genesis inserted a footnote containing the omitted sentence, stating that this footnote was inadvertently omitted from their publication of the sermon. But they made no apologies for removing the sentence in question from its proper context and relegating it to a footnote.

UPDATE: AiG did more than just remove that sentence–they revised language throughout the sermon, which in some other areas also changed the intended meaning to bring it in line with young-earth creationist dogma.

The U.S. Nazi dirty bomb plot

Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:28:00 +0000

Remember how the press was all over the story of the 29-year-old millionaire white supremacist and fan of Adolf Hitler in Maine who was building a dirty bomb that he planned to set off at Obama’s inauguration, but it didn’t happen because his wife shot and killed him?

Me neither, but James G. Cummings of Belfast, Maine, had (quoting Wikileaks) “four lots of one gallon containers of bomb-grade hydrogen peroxide, uranium, thorium (also radioactive), lithium metal, thermite, aluminum powder, beryllium (radiation booster), boron, black iron oxide and magnesium ribbon” which he somehow planned to set off at the inauguration. Personally, I don’t think that volume of material could have been easily smuggled in anywhere near the inauguration activities without raising suspicion.

Why no press coverage of this story, apart from the Bangor Daily News?

Wikileaks has a summary; Wonkette has summarized that; the Washington D.C. Regional Threat and Analysis Center report (PDF) is here.

Pat Robertson on Christians studying the Koran

Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:21:00 +0000

From the J-Walk blog:

Pat Robertson answers a question from a “pastor of a ministry to international college students” who asks whether his ministry leaders should be permitted to study the Koran in order to understand Islam, which he thinks is a bad idea since “there are plenty of Christian resources out there to get information on other religions."

Robertson’s reply:

Kelly, it won’t be wrong if somebody studies Islam, but they need guided study, because somebody needs to go along and point out the incredible inconsistencies in that book. And if you have a guided study of the Koran and see how much in there is just repetitious, how much comes out of the Old Testament and the New Testament, how much is just plagiarism from the Bible, etc.?.

Copyright treaty classified on national security grounds

Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:12:00 +0000

The U.S. government is negotiating the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a treaty which imposes new controls over copyright, but refuses to let the general public know its specific content. In response to a Freedom of Information Act Request from Knowledge Ecology International, the Obama administration responded that the content is classified for national security reasons pursuant to Executive Order 12958, a Clinton order from 1995.

As Declan McCullagh points out, the executive order “allows material to be classified only if disclosure would do ‘damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.’” He also points out that one of Obama’s first acts as president was to sign a memo that said that FOIA “should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure."

The claim that this treaty cannot be disclosed for national security reasons sounds bogus, but if it’s so, what’s the purported damage being prevented? In the absence of a clear rationale, this treaty should be openly discussed and available to the general public.

SkeptiCamp Phoenix

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:40:00 +0000

On March 28, SkeptiCamp Phoenix 2009 will take place at Arizona State University in Tempe.

Participants include Mike Stackpole of the Phoenix Skeptics on “Practical Techniques for Street Skepticism,” John Lynch on “Academic Freedom and Intelligent Design,” and Tony Barnhart on “Methods of the Pseudo-Psychic."

The event is sponsored by the Skeptics Society/Skeptic magazine, the Center for Skeptical Inquiry/Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and by the James Randi Educational Foundation. It will be the fifth SkeptiCamp, after two in Colorado, one in Vancouver, and one in Atlanta.

For more information on the event, see the SkeptiCamp Phoenix 2009 wiki page, the SkeptiCamp Phoenix registration site, or the SkeptiCamp Phoenix Facebook page.

For more on SkeptiCamp, see Reed Esau’s “The Skepticamp Bargain” in JREF’s Swift and his article “Raising Our Game” (PDF) published by the Skeptics Society.

(Previously, previously, previously.)

Scientology and religious visas

Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:19:00 +0000

Jeff Jacobsen has a new article on Scientology’s use of religious R-1 visas to bring people from other countries to the U.S. to work at menial labor for $50/week (with billion-year Sea Org contracts). R-1 visas are supposed to be for religious ministers who have been working for the U.S. organization sponsoring them for at least two years, and it appears that Scientology has abused these conditions to get cheap labor. And in the process, they’ve brought in people like Artur Solomonyan from Armenia, who was subsequently arrested and found guilty of illegal weapons sales after trying to sell weapons including surface-to-air missiles to an FBI informant.

Legalize pot and tax the crap out of it

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:44:00 +0000

Today’s Overcompensating makes a timely proposal. Just as the repeal of Prohibition during the Great Depression helped economic recovery and reduced associated criminal activity, repealing the drug war could do the same. Legalizing prostitution along the lines of the New Zealand model (adopted in 2003, and in 2008 in Western Australia) is also a good idea.

Now that Attorney General Eric Holder has confirmed Obama’s campaign promise that the feds will not engage in drug raids against medical marijuana operations in states that have legalized such activity, the time is right.

2 fatally killed after fight near house party

Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:57:00 +0000

The Arizona Republic reports:
2 fatally killed after fight near house party

by Ofelia Madrid - Feb. 28, 2009 07:51 PM
The Arizona Republic
Two men are dead after an early morning shooting in south Phoenix, police said.

Officers responded to a shooting near 36th Avenue and Broadway Road a little after midnight Friday, police said.

Officers arrived to find numerous people fleeing and were directed to a 27-year-oldman who was dead in the alley from gunshot wounds, police said.

Using the stimulus to accelerate the downturn

Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:34:00 +0000

$10.1 billion in federal stimulus money has been released to the states by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Arizona is receiving more than $150 million of that. And what is that money to be used for, in a state where there are tens of thousands of homes for sale with few buyers (50,000+ in Maricopa county alone)?

Building more housing.

The Arizona Republic reports that
Millions of dollars more will go to state and local programs. That includes $32 million to begin construction of affordable rental housing, $22 million to prevent homelessness and $12 million to build or repair public housing across the state.
To the extent this money is used to build new homes, as opposed to repairing deteriorating ones, it’s just going to accelerate the decline of home prices, putting more homeowners underwater and providing them with more incentive to walk away from their mortgages. Now, I think that a further decline in home prices is inevitable, no matter what the stimulus money tries to do, but it’s ridiculous to throw additional money at accelerating that process. It makes about as much sense as using federal stimulus money to give grants to investment bankers to develop more complex collateralized debt obligations.

Now, this isn’t actually quite that bad, since it does apparently focus on some particular communities–a third of the money is for Native American communities that didn’t get a housing bubble of speculative buying. Some of it is also for families that need short-term help with utility bills, rent, or other expenses (something that the Modest Needs Foundation has been doing for years with private donations). And Tucson is apparently using it to improve energy efficiency of existing public housing units. Those are all much more reasonable uses of the money than building more houses.

Best Nigerian 419 scam ever

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:44:00 +0000

I just read this email this morning, which has to win a prize for the best Nigerian 419 scam I’ve ever seen:
Reply-To: marysderrick@att.net
From: “Mrs. Mary S. Derrick”marysderrick@att.net
Subject: Stop Contacting those people !!!
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:43:50 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
X-NetStation-Status: PASS

Attn: My Dear,

I am Mrs Mary Susan Derrick, I am a US citizen, 48 years Old. I reside here in New Braunfels Texas. My residential address is as follows. 108 Crockett Court. Apt 303, New Braunfels Texas, United States, am thinking of relocating since I am now rich. I am one of those that took part in the Compensation in Nigeria many years ago and they refused to pay me, I had paid over $20,000 while in the US, trying to get my payment all to no avail.

So I decided to travel down to Nigeria with all my compensation documents, And I was directed to meet Mr. Henshaw I. Anderson, who is the member of COMPENSATION AWARD COMMITTEE, and I contacted him and he explained everything to me. He said whoever is contacting us through emails are fake.

He took me to the paying bank for the claim of my Compensation payment. Right now I am the most happiest woman on earth because I have received my compensation funds of $1,500,000.00 Moreover, Mr Henshaw I. Anderson, showed me the full information of those that are yet to receive their payments and I saw your name as one of the beneficiaries, and your email address, that is why I decided to email you to stop dealing with those people, they are not with your fund, they are only making money out of you. I will advise you to contact Mr. Henshaw I. Anderson

You have to contact him directly on this information below.

COMPENSATION AWARD HOUSE
Name : Mr. Henshaw I. Anderson
Email: henshawanderson@sbcglobal.net
Phone: +234 802 739 4935

You really have to stop dealing with those people that are contacting you and telling you that your fund is with them, it is not in anyway with them, they are only taking advantage of you and they will dry you up until you have nothing.

The only money I paid after I met Mr. Henshaw I. Anderson was just $580 for the paper works, take note of that.

Once again stop contacting those people, I will advise you to contact Mr Henshaw I. Anderson so that he can help you to Deliver your fund instead of dealing with those liars that will be turning you around asking for different kind of money to complete your transaction.

Thank You and Be Blessed.

Mrs. Mary Susan Derrick.
She’s being so honest about those other Nigerian scammers that ripped her off, so surely she must be honest about this compensation fund. The sad thing is that those who have been ripped off multiple times already will probably fall for this one, too.

Fourth stray dog of 2009

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:29:00 +0000

We found this dog–~~some kind of Spaniel?~~an Aussie sheepdog–at 20th St. and Euclid, where he appeared to be wanting to get into a mini-van with a group of mariachis. They just drove off and ignored him, so we stopped our dog walk to pick him up. He had a collar, no tags. This dog is a neutered male, unusual for the strays we find.

This could have been our seventh stray of 2009, but the pack of three dogs we saw running along the canal yesterday morning wouldn’t let us near them.

UPDATE: We’ve been contacted in email by the owner; this dog’s name is Woody and the owner will be going to pick him up at the pound.

Bristol Palin disproves intelligent design

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:19:00 +0000

The Weekly World News, now online only, looks like it’s trying to become more like The Onion:
Bristol Palin held her first interview since giving birth Monday night with Greta Von Susteren. The 18 year old daughter of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin talked about her experience as a mother and her mother’s policies towards education.

“Mom says that science and stuff is too hard to force kids to learn. That the world is too complicated to have just happened by accident, and things like an eyeball show signs of a designer. She’s right, Bio is totally hard. But if you work at it, it does kinda make sense.”

Mississippi's medical forensic fraudsters

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:45:00 +0000

Radley Balko at Reason magazine exposes video that shows Michael West in the act of falsifying evidence used to frame someone for rape and murder, by using plaster casts of the accused’s teeth to make bite marks on a toddler’s corpse.

This is one of three cases in which Michael West and Steven Hayne provided evidence in the form of bite marks on a body to link a murder victim to an accused rapist and murderer–and in the other two cases, the alleged killers were subsequently freed when exonerated by DNA evidence which linked the cases to the actual murderer, who confessed when they were released.

West and Hayne belong in jail, as does the judge who claimed that the referenced video contained “no exculpatory evidence favorable to the defendant."

Hayne performed over 80% of Mississippi’s autopsies for the last 20 years, and was permitted to complete a backlog of 600 autopsies even after he was terminated as the state’s coroner as a result of Balko’s exposure of other misconduct. This misconduct and the state’s failure to hold them accountable brings every criminal case they’ve ever touched into question.

(Previously on Hayne.)

Daniel Dennett at ASU

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:55:00 +0000

Last night, Daniel Dennett gave the 2009 Beyond Center lecture with a talk appropriate for the bicentennial of Charles Darwin’s birthday, titled “Darwin’s ‘Strange Inversion of Reasoning.’” While not quite drawing the crowd that last year’s lecture by Richard Dawkins did (3000 people at Gammage Auditorium), Dennett filled the 485-seat Galvin Playhouse and an overflow room was set up with a video link. The Phoenix Atheists Meetup group alone had about 57 members who attended.

The talk was videotaped by the Beyond Center, and what may be an unauthorized video has been made available on YouTube.

Skyhooks and Cranes
The content of Dennett’s talk was largely drawn from his book, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, and centered on the idea that Darwin brought about a change from thinking of the world as the product of top-down design to a recognition of apparent design as the result of bottom-up processes. Dennett referred to the former as the “trickle-down theory of creation” and the latter as the “bubble-up theory of creation,” and used his “intuition pump” of skyhooks vs. cranes to make the point.

“Skyhooks” are explanations of design in terms of miraculous intervention by an entity which itself has no explanation, a deus ex machina. Dennett illustrated that with the drawing above, a Guy Billout illustration titled “Deus ex Machina,” from the May 1999 issue of The Atlantic Monthly. By contrast, “cranes” are built up from the ground to provide scaffolding for constructing new things. The dome of the Florence Cathedral (Santa Maria del Fiore), depicted in Billout’s illustration, was a marvel of engineering by Filippo Brunelleschi, which used some innovative construction techniques to build something that many thought was not possible.

Darwin’s “Strange Inversion of Reasoning”
The title of Dennett’s talk came from a critique of Darwin’s theory of natural selection by Robert Beverley MacKenzie in 1868, who wrote (as quoted by Dennett in DDA, p. 65):
In the theory with which we have to deal, Absolute Ignorance is the artificer; so that we may enunciate as the fundamental principle of the whole system that, IN ORDER TO MAKE A PERFECT AND BEAUTIFUL MACHINE, IT IS NOT REQUISITE TO KNOW HOW TO MAKE IT. This proposition will be found, on careful examination, to express, in condensed form, the essential purport of the Theory, and to express in a few words all Mr. Darwin’s meaning; who, by a strange inversion of reasoning, seems to think Absolute Ignorance fully qualified to take the place of Absolute Wisdom in all the achievements of creative skill.
To which Dennett’s response was: “Exactly!” He illustrated the point with an example that is now somewhat commonplace, the computer. Dennett observed that prior to Alan Turing, “computers” referred to people who were hired to perform tasks that today are performed by mechanical devices with the same name. In order to perform these functions, people had to understand arithmetic. Dennett cited Turing’s 1936 paper, “On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem" (PDF), a demonstration that arithmetic computation is a specific case where, in fact, understanding is not required to perform the action–another example of the same kind of “strange inversion of reasoning.” Dennett quotes Turing: “The behaviour of the computer [meaning a person] at any moment is determined by the symbols which he is observing and his ‘state of mind’ at that moment,” noting that “state of mind” is in quotes because Turing’s showing a method by which no mental activity or understanding is actually required. Substituting into MacKenzie’s argument, we get “IN ORDER TO BE A PERFECT AND BEAUTIFUL COMPUTING MACHINE, IT IS NOT REQUISITE TO KNOW WHAT ARITHMETIC IS."

Creationists and Mind-Creationists
Dennett observed that many people cannot abide Darwin, and we call them creationists. There are also people who can’t abide Turing, and he suggests we call them mind-creationists. (Steve Novella’s presentation at last year’s The Amazing Meeting, on “Dualism and Creationism," drew this same analogy.) Dennett said that there are some people who can’t abide either–including both Jerry Fodor and Thomas Nagel, referring to his paper “Public Education and Intelligent Design” in Philosophy and Public Affairs vol. 36, no. 2. I think Dennett mischaracterizes Nagel’s position here–Nagel is an atheist who thinks that we don’t have the full account of evolutionary theory, and who also thinks that if a god exists, there’s no reason to think science couldn’t study such a being and its effects. I agree with Nagel about that–methodological naturalism could potentially find its own limits and suggest the existence of entities that operate independently of the laws of physics we’ve discovered. I think we’d end up just modifying our understanding of those laws and continuing to call the result “natural.” Jake Young, at the Pure Pedantry ScienceBlog, argues otherwise, defending Stephen J. Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria” (NOMA), the view that science and religion are completely distinct subjects with no intersection, a view I find implausible unless religion is restricted to matters that are completely unobservable and have no causal consequences in the empirical world–which is not the case for any actual religion that I’m aware of.

A few of the “mind-creationists” Dennett pointed out were Jerry Fodor and John Searle. Another is Victor Reppert, author of C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, the main argument of which I criticized in a short paper (“Historical But Indistinguishable Differences: Some Notes on Victor Reppert’s Paper,” Philo vol. 2, no. 1, 1999, pp. 45-47). Reppert’s position is that Turing machines don’t actually do arithmetic, because they have no semantics, only syntax, and that you only get meaning through original intentionality of the sort that John Searle argues is an irreducible feature of the world. Computers only have semantics when we impute it to them. My argument was that if you have two possible worlds that are exactly alike, except that one was created by a top-down designer and one evolved, there’s no reason to say that one has semantics and the other one doesn’t–how they got to the point at which they have creatures with internal representations that stand in the right causal relationships to the external world doesn’t make a difference to whether or not those representations actually refer and have meaning. [UPDATE (March 3, 2009): Victor Reppert says I’ve misdescribed his position and elaborates a bit at his own blog.]

Hunting for Skyhooks
Dennett observed that people’s issues with bubble-up theories of creation and design center around the fact that some designs seem to be too remarkable to have evolved. Michael Behe’s notion of “irreducible complexity” is the idea that some structures require all of their parts in place to function at all, and cannot evolve step-by-step from a previous structure that doesn’t also have all of those parts. (The mistake there is that the previous structure may have some other function.) So those arguing for intelligent design have gone “hunting for skyhooks,” to try to find examples of design in nature that require a top-down designer’s intervening hand to bring into existence. Dennett observed that all of the hunting for skyhooks has failed to come up with any actual examples, but instead has resulted in multiple new discoveries of cranes. This is certainly true for the main examples of “irreducible complexity,” blood clotting systems and bacterial flagella. This has led to the quip, “evolution is cleverer than you are,” which Dennett discussed in the Q&A as “Orgel’s Second Rule."

Another example Dennett gave was the discovery of motor proteins, which he showed using a clip from the film “The Inner Life of the Cell," produced by XVIVO for Harvard University. Dennett didn’t mention that this film was the subject of a controversy regarding the film “Expelled," pre-release versions of which used XVIVO footage without permission. Earlier still, intelligent design advocate William Dembski used an overdubbed version of their film in his lectures.

The Bubble-up Path
“We are made of trillions of mindless little robots,” Dennett said, “but not a one of them knows who you are or cares.” But we do know, and we do care. How is that possible? The bubble-up view has to provide an explanation. Dennett provided some examples of how certain evolutionary changes in the past have created entirely new ways for evolution to proceed. His first example was one that was championed for years by Lynn Margulis to much resistance, but which has now become mainstream, which is the idea of a symbiotic origin for eukaryotes.

For the first 2.5 billion years of life, everything was prokaryotic–single-celled organisms without a nucleus. But then, one form of single-celled organisms invaded another without destroying each other, and came to evolve together, forming eukaryotic life. Each of our cells has not only its own genome in the cell nucleus, but a separate genome in its mitochondria, which is inherited only from our mothers. This development allowed cells to become more complex and versatile, as well as allowed a division of labor that made multicellular life possible.

The Need-to-Know Principle
Dennett showed a video clip about the cuckoo (the link is to a different but similar one). The mother bird lays her egg in the nest of another bird, and removes one of the other bird’s eggs. The other bird is then surprised to find that one of its eggs–the cuckoo’s egg–hatches first, and the hatchling pushes the other eggs out of the nest. It seems evil, Dennett said, but “don’t worry, the cuckoo chick doesn’t know what it does. It doesn’t need to know."

A principle something like the CIA’s need-to-know principle applies in evolution as a matter of thrift, but matters are often confused because biologists tend to attribute more understanding when explaining a feature of living things than actually exists. This, Dennett says, is partly a linguistic matter, because we don’t have a word for a “semi-understood quasi-representation” or a “hemi-semi-demi-understood quasi-representation.” But Turing does give us models of competence without comprehension.

He then showed a video of a New Caledonian crow trying to use a bit of metal wire to get a worm out of a glass beaker. The crow bends the wire around the glass to make it into a hook, then uses it to fish the worm out of the beaker. This was an example of a creature that goes a step beyond the cuckoo chick. Dennett cited the work of Ruth Millikan, noting that the crow is an example of an animal that represents its goals in the same system in which it represents its facts–but not its reasons for those goals, which are produced by evolution and not represented within the organism.

The MacCready Explosion and Memes
Dennett observed that there has been about 3.5 billion years since the start of the whole tree of life, and only about 6 million years since the divergence of humans from chimps and bonobos, our closest hominid relatives. But a mere 10,000 years ago, as Paul MacCready pointed out, the total human population plus livestock and pets composed about a tenth of one percent of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass. Today, however, we consume 98% of it (most of which is cattle).

The Cambrian “explosion” in which multicellular life became dramatically more diversified took place over millions of years, while the “MacCready explosion” took place over a mere 500 generations, and the explanation is science and technology, communicated from parents to children not by biological evolution but through culture.

Here Dennett gave an introduction to memes by analogy–the cultural highway of transmission of ideas, once it exists, can be invaded by “rogue cultural variants,” or “memes,” as Richard Dawkins originally called them They are vehicles of information, like viruses, that invade our brains.

He then paused for a “skeptical interlude” to address the question of what’s the evidence that memes even exist. He asked, “do you believe that words exist?” If so, then those are examples of a subset of memes, those that can be pronounced. (I’m not sure of the practical benefit of talk of memes as opposed to ideas, concepts, and language, but I’ll save commentary on that until I read the meme chapters in DDI.)

So, said Dennett, we are apes with “infected” brains, or, on analogy to prokaryotes/eukaryotes, we are “euprimates.” We carry with us virtual machines that give us new powers and versatility to bring organization of the world up another level.

Mind Tools
Dennett quoted one of his own students, Bo Dahlborn, who wrote, “Just as you cannot do very much carpentry with your bare hands, there is not much thinking you can do with your bare brain.” We have conceptual tools and methods. At the very simplest level, there are words as tools, such as passwords or labels. Douglas Hofstadter’s I Am A Strange Loop identifies a bunch of phrases that are frequently used as tools for analogies, such as “wild goose chases,” “tackiness,” “loose cannons,” “feet of clay,” “feedback,” “slamdunks,” “lip service,” and “elbow grease.” Dennett compared these to Java applets for the mind–collections of information transmitted from one person to another that allow them to do something more.

Long division is a more complex example. With a sufficiently well developed English (or other language) “virtual machine,” you can “download” the procedure in the form of mathematical instruction or from a book, to be able to perform the process. Cost-benefit analysis is a bigger, more complex set of tools learned in the same way.

While some such tools have distinct authors, others have evolved. Language itself, money, and tonal music are examples of such mental tools that were not created at once by individual authors, but have evolved over time.

What this implies for who we are is that we are not Cartesian egos with original intentionality, but “an alliance of hemi-semi-demi-understood virtual machines."

Darwin’s Trio
Darwin proposed three types of selection. First, two types of selection where the selective force is human beings. 1. Methodical selection, or intentional artificial selection, where humans intentionally breed creatures for particular characteristics. 2. Unconscious selection, where humans simply preferred certain organisms to others, and helped those to reproduce–such as in farming, and raising domestic animals. To those, Darwin added 3. Natural selection.

Now we’ve also added 4. Genetic engineering.

And the same categories can be applied to memes. There are original, synanthropic memes, those which live with us but are not domesticated, such as superstitions; these are analogous to memes created by natural selection. There are memes replicated by unconscious selection, such as differential replication of tunes based on how catchy they are. Dennett noted that the Germans call tunes that get stuck in your head “earworms.” And then there is methodical selection of domesticated memes, which would include science, literature, and calculus. Dennett compared calculus to laying hens, for which broodiness has been selected out–you have to work hard to get it to reproduce.

And to these categories we can add memetic engineering–spin-doctoring, marketing, propaganda, etc.

Bootstrapping
Dennett asked, how do you draw a straight line? We use a straight edge. And how do we make straight edges? By drawing a line along a piece of metal with a straight edge, and cutting it. How do we get the first straight edge? He pointed to a book on the history of straight edges, and observed that over time we have gradually improved our technology for making straight edges, and can now measure far more precisely how we fall short in reaching the unattainable goal of a perfectly straight line. We can represent our goal, our reasons for achieving the goal, and the imperfections and errors in reaching that goal.

He suggested that the Platonic “form of the true” has a similar history, and that in science “memes have been selected for veridicality."

At this point, we really do have the capacity for genuine top-down design.

Dennett concluded his talk (apart from the next section, which seemed more like an afterword) by stating that “What makes us human is not our genetic children, but our brainchildren. We’ve finally reached genuine intelligent design."

Darwin Fish
Dennett concluded his prepared lecture by pointing out that he was wearing a Darwin fish lapel pin. The physicist Murray Gell-Mann observed to Dennett that this was patterned after the Jesus fish, a fish symbol which contains the Greek word for fish, which was apparently the first acronym. The Greek letters ΙΧΘΥΣ stand for the Greek words for Jesus Christ, God’s Son, the Savior, said Gell-Mann. But what does “DARWIN” stand for?

Dennett took that as a challenge, and came up with a Latin expansion for “DARUUIN” (since there is no letter “W” in Latin):

Delere
Auctorem
Rerum
Ut Universum
Infinitum
Noscas

This translates into English as

Destroy
the author
of things
in order to understand
the infinite
universe

I’m not too fond of this–it confirms anti-evolutionists’ worst fears of evolution, and refers to an “author of things” to be destroyed, as though there is one that exists, rather than a myth not to be believed. It’s clever, though.

UPDATE (February 20, 2009):

Dennett then answered a few brief questions, and then signed a bunch of books. The first question (and the only one I’ll note) was what it was like to work with W.V. Quine, his mentor. Dennett said that he transferred to Harvard University as an undergraduate specifically to work with Quine, and that two of the most significant influences from Quine were the view that science and philosophy are significantly overlapping and parts of the same larger project, and that the quality of Quine’s writing (in contrast to his lecture style) was something to aspire to.

He’s well-spoken, entertaining, and thought-provoking, and I encourage you to hear him speak if you have the opportunity. I think that his views, like those of Richard Dawkins, argue that science and evolution in particular either imply or at least cohere better with or provide evidence for atheism. I don’t think there is a logical implication, and I’m not sure Dennett and Dawkins do, either–that’s something that anti-evolutionist lawyer Phillip Johnson has argued, which I’ve critiqued at the talkorigins.org website, and which the views of Christian evolutionists like Kenneth Miller, Glenn Morton, and Mike Beidler contradict by their very existence. On the other hand, I’m not sure Miller’s position is coherent (I really should get around to writing a summary of last year’s Skeptics Society conference), and I reject the NOMA view that there is no overlap between the domains of religion and science and agree with Dennett’s and Quine’s views that there is significant overlap between science and philosophy (and history, for that matter).

The National Center for Science Education and many scientists argue for a sharp divide between science and philosophy, and between science and religion, and find cases like those made by Dawkins and Dennett (and P.Z. Myers) to be problematic, especially when it comes to the legal arena and the goal of keeping intelligent design and creationism out of the public schools (though public universities have more freedom). I think that this is ultimately due to a tension between the principles of separation of church and state, public education, and academic freedom, given that there is no sharp divide between the domains of science and religion (or science and philosophy). In my view, in any case where a religion makes an empirical claim, if there’s scientific evidence against that claim, it should be legitimate to discuss that scientific evidence in a public school classroom even if that has the primary effect of inhibiting (or promoting) religion (violating the second prong of the Lemon Test for measuring whether a government action is a violation of the Constitution’s establishment clause). I consider it a flaw in the Lemon Test that people can always create new religions which attempt to turn secular ideas into religious content with the specific intent of turning government actions into church-state violations (e.g., creating a doctrine that paying taxes is a sin), as well as the fact that it provides an unwarranted immunity to criticism in the classroom for religious claims, even if they are empirically falsified or conceptually incoherent. (See the comments of this Ed Brayton post at Dispatches from the Culture Wars on the Summum monument case for some legal puzzles. BTW, Justice O’Connor argued for a either a different test in Lynch v. Donnelly, the “endorsement test,” which asks whether a reasonable person would conclude government is endorsing or disapproving religion from the action. This has sometimes been interpreted as a complement to the Lemon Test, and sometimes as a substitute for it. Judge Jones in the Dover case applied both the endorsement test and the Lemon Test, and argued that the Dover school district violated both, including all three prongs of Lemon.)

Another resolution is to finesse the issue by getting government out of the business of being a direct provider of education, and instead meet the goal of free public education by providing government funding and standards that include mandatory curriculum requirements that any school can exceed with content that expresses particular religious viewpoints. By providing a fixed amount of per-pupil funding and a mandatory minimum curriculum that doesn’t include religious content, those two items are tied together and anything beyond it would be considered provided at the school’s own expense, and thus not a church-state violation. In my view, more discussion and debate of religious claims at a younger age will yield better-educated adults (and probably more atheists). Ironically, it is western democracies without a strong history of separation of church and state where religion is weakest and acceptance of evolution is strongest.

Without finessing the problem like that or modifying the Lemon Test, views like those of Dennett and Dawkins must be excluded from public school classrooms along with creationism for the same reasons (to the extent that they express a religious viewpoint), and I think that ultimately the “exploring evolution” or “academic freedom” strategies of the creationists for getting critiques of evolution into the public school classrooms will succeed in passing constitutional muster. Ultimately, the reason their arguments should be excluded from science classrooms is not that they are religious, but that they are bad arguments, and there’s no constitutional provision prohibiting the establishment of bad arguments.

Chase Bank makes stupid offers, and loses money by failing to live up to them

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:12:00 +0000

I recently wrote about how Chase Bank’s inflexible systems just cost it money by not allowing me to make a $100 payment to my mortgage account to make up an erroneous underpayment. Instead, I had to make an entire additional payment, depriving them of a significant amount of future interest.

In January, I received an offer from Chase Bank to open a checking account with them, with a minimum deposit of $100. After I set up direct deposit, within ten business days of the first deposit they would deposit $125, which would be mine to keep so long as I left the account open and receiving direct deposits for at least six months.

I asked an online banker whether there was any minimum amount that had to be direct deposited, and was told no. I decided to set up the account in person at a branch near my office, and again asked whether there was any minimum direct deposit. The banker told me no, there was no minimum–if I wanted to deposit only $1 per paycheck, that would be fine.

As I have no interest in using Chase Bank as my primary bank–I’m quite happy with a regional bank that is one of the top-rated places to work in the country and has demonstrated reliability to me repeatedly over several decades–I decided to maximize my return on this otherwise non-interest-earning account by minimizing my deposits. My employer provides a convenient way for me to control my own direct deposits into up to three different banks, so I added a new direct deposit of $0.01 per paycheck into my new Chase Bank account.

The first $0.01 went in on January 15. On January 30, no $125 had been deposited, so I sent an online email inquiry asking when I could expect to see it. A response a couple days later told me I needed to call in to get an answer to my question, so I dialed the toll-free number, waited on hold, and finally got to a person who told me I needed to wait four to six weeks after the first direct deposit.

My second $0.01 went in on January 30. My third $0.01 went in on February 13. Still no $125.

Today, I got another $125 offer from Chase Bank, which prompted me to dig up my application materials and see that they promised my $125 would be deposited within ten business days, not four to six weeks. So I called and left a message for the banker at my branch, I sent another online inquiry asking whether Chase Bank is going to remedy its failure to honor its offer, and called in to the toll-free number again. I described the issue to my “telephone banker,” and he asked for my account information. When he brought up my account, he asked if the $0.01 deposits were pre-authorizations for direct deposit, and I told him no, those are the deposits–I was told multiple times that there was no minimum deposit, and there is nothing in the written offer that mentions a minimum deposit. He was unable to solve the problem, and said he would have to send it to be researched, and I would hear back within a couple of days.

If they didn’t want to honor the offer, they shouldn’t have made it in the first place. By failing to live up to it, they’re costing themselves even more money. It’s surprising to me that this is probably the strongest of the major banks in the U.S., and the least likely of the majors to end up costing the U.S. Treasury money in the long run from the TARP’s preferred investments ($25 billion put into Chase so far).

UPDATE (February 18, 2009): I received a voice mail from Chase Bank stating that the promised $125 will be deposited into my account within the next two weeks. My real-life banker left me a voice mail saying that the issue was that their system doesn’t automatically count direct deposits for issuing an award if they are less than $1. So they do intend to honor their offer, it will just take longer since I used the system in a way they apparently didn’t anticipate (or did anticipate with the same reasoning companies use with rebates).

UPDATE (February 25, 2009): My $125 was deposited yesterday.

6th Circuit Court of Appeals tells AiG and CMI to go to arbitration

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:30:00 +0000

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis to settle their dispute with private arbitration, the outcome sought by Answers in Genesis and affirming the trial court’s ruling. CMI had hoped to force the U.S. dispute into the Australian courts, where a second lawsuit is ongoing and has its next hearing in April. This decision opens a route for AiG to stop the Australian proceedings in favor of the private arbitration that has been ordered in the United States.

The court’s decision is here (PDF).

It appears to me that CMI is going to be held to the agreements that its previous board of directors signed, however foolish, irresponsible, or unethical it was of them to do so. As those previous board members resigned in return for indemnification, it doesn’t appear to me that CMI is likely to obtain any remedy for the wrongs it alleges have occurred. It looks like AiG operated within the bounds of the law in its actions.

Our third stray of 2009

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:58:00 +0000

This black unneutered male Cocker Spaniel came up to us at around 11th St. and Caldwell while we were walking our dogs. There were some people nearby, and we asked if this was their dog, and they said no, so we brought him home and called Animal Care & Control.

He’s wearing a spiked collar with no tags and looks like he’s been wandering the streets for a couple of days or so. He was very tired and thirsty.

We’ve put his picture and description up on Pets911.com.

ApostAZ podcast #14

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:02:00 +0000

The latest ApostAZ podcast is now available:
Episode 014 Atheism and Sucker-Free Thought in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! Intro from Vocab Malone ‘Lean Back- But think’, Guest Shawn from the Tough Questions Podcast and http://www.youtube.com/user/azsuperman01 and Josh, Religion and the Workplace, Outro Music from Greydon Square- CPT Theorem
Comments:

I wish people would stop saying that you can’t prove a negative. You can. (Also see this.)

Obama administration backs state secrets defense of extraordinary rendition and torture

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:22:00 +0000

So much for change.

ABC News:

The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.

The case involves five men who claim to have been victims of extraordinary rendition — including current Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed, another plaintiff in jail in Egypt, one in jail in Morocco, and two now free. They sued a San Jose Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, accusing the flight-planning company of aiding the CIA in flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured.

The two religious conversions of George W. Bush

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:13:00 +0000

Russ Baker’s new book, Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, The Powerful Forces that Put it in Power, and What Their Influence Means for America, states that George W. Bush’s conversion to evangelical Christianity was staged as a way to wipe the slate clean of his past record of misbehavior. It further makes the case that his story of a conversion after a visit from Billy Graham was his second conversion, the first coming a year earlier after a meeting with evangelist Arthur Blessit, who was determined to be too controversial for the story Bush wanted to convey:
… what was a starchy, Episcopalian heir to a blue-blooded Yankee political pedigree to do? And what of his reckless, apparently non-religious, playboy son? These were the intertwined questions faced by Vice President Bush and George W. in the 1980s as they planned Poppy Bush’s run for president in 1988–and W.’s political future.
Baker’s chapter titled “The Conversion” features startling revelations that challenge the well-known narratives of the Bush family’s religious history– including the way they crafted a strategy for winning over the religious right, and the creation of a conversion legend for George W. Bush. The purpose of the latter was not only to position him as a religious and political man of his time, but to neutralize the many issues from his past that threatened to undermine his future in politics (and possibly that of his father as well). The plan probably worked far better than anyone could have hoped. “I’m still amazed,” Doug Wead, a key architect of the Bush family’s evangelical outreach strategy told Baker, “how naïve so many journalists are who have covered politics all of their life."

How Chase Bank's inflexibility is costing it money

Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:32:00 +0000

My mortgage has been purchased by Chase Bank a couple of times (after the first time, I refinanced with another bank and then Chase bought my mortgage from them), and they’re my current lender. I pay extra principal with every payment, usually about 30% more. For my February payment, I decided to reduce the extra principal a bit, for various reasons including keeping a bit more cash on hand in current economic conditions.

Unfortunately, I made a $100 error in my payment. Rather than paying an extra $40.37, I underpaid the monthly payment by $59.63. I learned my mistake when I received my mortgage statement, indicating that my entire payment was in “suspense funds received” and had not been applied to my mortgage at all.

I immediately called Chase. Even though it was an hour before their call center closed, I was unable to get to a human being. Instead, after being told I was being transferred to customer service, I got an automated message saying that my call could not by completed. I looked for online options for payment, but the Chase website referred me instead to their phone-based “FastPay” system. The “FastPay” system by phone charges a $15 fee (which the phone system says can be avoided by using the online payment system) and only allows making a full payment.

I tried again the next morning, and got through to Tonja, a customer service rep who told me that I could only make a full payment through the phone (not the $100 I wanted to pay), but said if I connected an external bank account online, I could make the payment that way, and as soon as the extra $100 was received, the payment would be applied as normal. I’m also well within the 15-day grace period for a payment, so I don’t have to worry about late fees.

Online, I searched through some counter-intuitive menu options–within the mortgage account, payment options send you to the page about FastPay over the phone–I finally found that from the front page I could get to an option to connect an external account. I started the process, and learned that my bank could not be connected instantly by putting in my online banking authentication information, but had to use a method of verification where Chase puts two small deposits in my account and I come back later and input those amounts back to Chase to prove that it’s my account (or at least that I have access to it). It then allowed me to attempt the instant verification method, despite its previous claim that my bank didn’t accept it, but that failed (and I probably shouldn’t have tried–Chase shouldn’t have my authentication credentials to another bank). It then said it would take up to two business days for these deposits to go through.

The next day, my bank showed me that there were two pending deposits from Chase (yet another cost Chase is incurring), so I went back to the verification page and entered those amounts. Chase’s website informed me that because those deposits had not been made yet, I was not allowed to verify the amounts yet. Dumb design. I tried again later in the evening, and my verification was accepted. Now I went to the page to make a payment, only to find that once again, the only option is to make an entire payment. Contrary to what Tonja told me, I cannot pay just an additional $100, because there is an outstanding payment that hasn’t been made, and my $1100 sitting in “suspense funds” doesn’t count and can’t be used.

Well, I’ve got the money in savings, so I decided that if Chase is going to make things so difficult, I’m going to go ahead and make a full extra payment and deprive them of a little more interest over the life of my loan, in addition to the overhead costs they’ve incurred through this episode. The website told me it would take two business days to process, so it will be applied on February 11–still during the grace period. But now I still am not sure that the $1100 will be applied to principal reduction, so I called in again and spoke with Kim. I explained what has happened, and pointed out to her that Chase is losing money from its inflexibility, and she offered to move $100 from my January extra payment to February so that I could cancel the additional payment. I thanked her for the option (which I would have needed to take if I didn’t have the money to spare), but declined, since that would result in an increase in interest. I asked if she could verify that the $1100 would be applied correctly, and she suggested that I call in again after I see online that the new payment is applied–which will incur yet further costs to Chase.

This is a nice demonstration of how an inflexible payment system doesn’t deal well with partial payments can cost a company money and customer goodwill.

Our second stray of 2009

Sat, 07 Feb 2009 04:06:00 +0000

As we prepared to take our dogs for a walk this evening, we found this guy in our yard. He has a collar, but no tags. We’ve put his photo up on Pets911.com, and he’ll spend the night here and get a pound pickup tomorrow.

UPDATE (February 7, 2009): This black lab (mix?) isn’t happy-go-lucky like our first stray of the year–he was quite fearful, but did relax a bit when we got him on leash. He was interested in our dog Fred, which we used to catch him. Once on leash and after receiving some attention, he warmed up, and he would then come back after being let off leash.

He was terrified to come in the house, and didn’t seem to want to walk on the wood floor of the kitchen, but we did eventually get him into the spare bedroom, where I stayed with him overnight. He ended up sleeping peacefully at the foot of the bed.

This morning, I had the same challenge getting him out of the bedroom that I had getting in–so I ended up letting him straight out to the side patio, and he’s now back out in the front yard.

UPDATE: The same animal control officer who picked up our first stray just picked up this dog, and gave us some good news–the first stray we turned in was successfully adopted, and is now named Truman!

UPDATE: We got our first call today about our Pets911.com listing for the above dog, which includes a photo and a description. The call went like this:
ME: Hello?

CALLER: Uh. Did you find a lost dog?

ME: Yes, we did.

CALLER: What did it look like?

ME: It’s a black lab mix, young …

CALLER: Oh, that can’t be our dog. Our dog is white.
Every phone call save one that we’ve received as a result of our found dog notices online has been from someone whose dog could not possibly have been confused with the dog in the description. (The one exception was one where the dog was returned to his rightful owner.) By contrast, when we’ve put up posters there’s been no similar mistake. I suspect the Internet information is being passed on to the callers by friends or family, but apparently people who look at lost dog information on the Internet do not know how to communicate basic information about color or breed. Or perhaps this caller has a computer infected by a virus that replaces all images with photographic negatives?

Heartland Institute mistakes parody for reality

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:36:00 +0000

Just as Conservapedia is often edited with parodies that even the real conservatives there can’t distinguish from conservatism (let alone everyone else), the global warming-denying Heartland Institute has mistaken a parody video for a real one, and briefly posted it on their site until they realized they’d been had. It was probably the traffic from Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog that tipped them off.

This is a problem faced by ideological groups that search for evidence to support their established positions rather than trying to honestly evaluate the evidence. This isn’t the first time the Heartland Institute has demonstrated that this is how they operate, and I’m sure it won’t be the last.

Not-pology from Holocaust-denying bishop reinstated by the Pope

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:19:00 +0000

Orac at Respectful Insolence shows the deception from Bishop Richard Williamson, the formerly excommunicated Holocaust-denying Catholic bishop who was recently reinstated by Pope Benedict XVI. Williamson created a recent media firestorm because of his Holocaust denial, and has now apologized–not for his Holocaust denial, but for the fact that there was a media reaction to it. It’s a not-pology.

Orac debunks some of Williamson’s falsehoods about the Holocaust, and points to some of the best sites for responding to Holocaust denial: Nizkor, The Holocaust History Project, and Holocaust Denial on Trial.

What Michael Phelps should have said

Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:50:00 +0000

At The Agitator blog, Radley Balko writes what Michael Phelps should have said when a photograph of him taking a bong hit was published in a tabloid:
Dear America,

I take it back. I don’t apologize.

Because you know what? It’s none of your goddamned business. I work my ass off 10 months per year. It’s that hard work that gave you all those gooey feelings of patriotism last summer. If during my brief window of down time I want to relax, enjoy myself, and partake of a substance that’s a hell of a lot less bad for me than alcohol, tobacco, or, frankly, most of the prescription drugs most of you are taking, well, you can spare me the lecture.

Our first stray of 2009

Sun, 01 Feb 2009 16:04:00 +0000

We found this dog at Circle K Park while walking our dogs. He is a friendly pit bull mixed with something big and shaggy (perhaps Bernese Mountain Dog), with a partly brindle coat. He was easy to capture on leash–he came right up to Kat. We brought him home and he eagerly drank a full bowl of water and some food. He raced around our front yard and chased a ball and brought it back. He’s just a puppy with perfect teeth and bad habits of jumping up and being overly excited.

We put his picture on Pets911 and took him by the house of a neighbor who said he lost a brindle-coated pit bull a few months ago that had been seen in the vicinity of the park. We had trouble coaxing him into the car, but eventually he crawled in on his own accord. Unfortunately, the man’s wife said this wasn’t their dog

He seemed to have some kind of allergy, as he had red around his eyes and his gums were bright red, so we gave him a Benadryl. I spent the night with him in our spare bedroom, and he couldn’t seem to sit still or stop breathing hard (or stop wanting attention) until the Benadryl kicked in, and he had a couple of decently long periods of sleep and rest. When he got up this morning, his eyes and gums looked much better, and he again enjoyed racing around the front yard and playing fetch.

Animal Care and Control picked him up just a few minutes ago, and he was shaking in the kennel on the truck. I don’t think he’s one who is going to do well in a kennel situation. We got his case number, in case someone calls us as a result of the Pets911 ad, but unfortunately, that rarely happens.

UPDATE (February 7, 2009): When the animal control officer picked up our second stray of 2009, he let us know that this good boy was quickly adopted, and is now known as Truman.

Congratulations, Truman!

2009: A Year for Chinese Dissidents

Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:45:00 +0000

June 4 will be the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. March 10 is the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising that led to the Dalai Lama’s exile. July 22 is the 10th anniversary of the banning of the Falun Gong cult in China. And October 1 is the celebration of 60 years of Communist rule in China.

Chinese leaders worry that the first three anniversaries may cause issues for the last, and they are right to worry. This looks like it will be a year for dissidents in China to come forward, and it has already begun with an online petition issued in December called Charter 08 at the 60th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Charter 08 (in English here) was named after Charter 77, a human rights manifesto issued by Czechoslovakian dissidents in 1977. Charter 08, which has been signed by more than two thousand Chinese citizens, calls for recognition of “basic universal values”:

Happiness, charity, religiosity, and liberals vs. conservatives

Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:29:00 +0000

In a recent paper, Jamie Napier and John Jost argue that the reason conservatives are happier than liberals is that they are, for ideological reasons, not pained by observing high levels of income inequality. They draw this conclusion on the basis of responses to a survey item about attitudes about meritocracy that ranges from a scale of “hard work generally doesn’t bring success–it’s more a matter of luck” to “hard work pays,” which Will Wilkinson shows cannot do the job of supporting their explanation:
I strongly agree that success, understood as a significant upward move on a valued status dimension, is largely a matter of luck. But I also strongly agree that hard work (in a society with decent institutions) usually brings a better life. It’s possible to work hard and achieve a better life without ever winning anything you’d count as success. So I haven’t a clue how I’d answer this question. Do I believe in meritocracy or not?
He observes that there’s also a much better explanation for the answers to that question than assuming a blindness or lack of care about inequality:
If one wants to see a meritocratic bent as a common cause of conservative leanings and higher happiness, here’s a less tendentious explanation. (1) Those with a greater sense of the efficacy of their behavior — with a greater sense of being in control — will tend to (a) think hard work brings a better life, (b) be happier, (c) see policies that seem to penalize hard work as unjust. (2) People likely to see high taxes as an unjust penalty on hard work tend to identify as “conservative.”
And a further problem about attributing a blindness to inequality to conservatives is that conservatives give more to charity than liberals, as Wilkinson’s commenter John Thacker points out (and I’ve previously observed at this blog). Thacker attributes the difference to religiosity; again, I’ve previously pointed out that he is apparently correct on this point (also see this post and the previous reference on conservatives vs. liberals), that the religious give far more to charity than the secular, even if you don’t count donations to churches. (But apparently Christians are well-known in the service industry as lousy tippers.)

The same Napier and Jost paper is discussed at Marginal Revolution, where commenter DocMerlin points out that:

D.C. and the inauguration

Sun, 01 Feb 2009 02:41:00 +0000

Kat and I made arrangements to travel to D.C. for the inauguration a few months before the election. Our plan was to attend regardless of who was elected president, but we preferred Obama over McCain and his winning the election solidified our plans. We flew to D.C. on U.S. Airways Flight 44 to see the 44th president inaugurated, leaving 72-degree weather in Phoenix and arriving to 26-degree weather in D.C. We had prepared with layered clothing, but I found that my toes were still freezing in my shoes with two layers of socks, so we visited a mall near our hotel and found evidence of massive price deflation in coats and boots. I picked up a nice pair of Dupont “thinsulate” insulated boots, and Kat bought a full-length padded coat, each of which were only $20. We saw some further evidence of price deflation in goods at the Smithsonian gift shop in the National Museum of the American Indian, where T-shirt prices had been lowered from $20 last time we visited to $16 this trip. Food prices, however, seemed to be about the same, and the price of a 7-day Metro pass had climbed from $20 to $26.40 (no doubt still a subsidized price).

On Saturday, we visited the newly-reopened National Museum of American History, where there were special events going on with actors portraying figures from American history such as Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. We paid a visit to the American flag from Fort McHenry (the star-spangled banner), the First Ladies’ dresses collection, the pop culture exhibit, “The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden,” musical instruments, the Gunboat Philadelphia, and a few other exhibits. We followed this up with lunch at the National Museum of the American Indian, then checked out the new Capitol visitors’ center and took a look at the setup for the inauguration. We then walked over by the Newseum, passing the Canadian Embassy and its huge banners welcoming President Obama.

The theme of pending change was everywhere–not only the expected political banners, but in commercial advertising (e.g., Metro ads from Pepsi and Ikea), religious advertising (the Seventh-Day Adventists were handing out a magazine with Obama’s photograph on the front), and even by the homeless begging for “change I can believe in."

On Sunday we went to the Columbia Heights Metro station and were amazed at how much the area has changed. We visited an apartment building in the area where Kat used to live in the 1990s, finding it boarded up and for sale (last sold 10/16/2008 for $1.1M). Next was Adams-Morgan, where there was a kiosk to “Tell the President … tell him what you think! tell him what you want!” by sticking up handwritten notes. A few examples: “TAKE A STAND 4 PALESTINE,” “WE ARE HUMANS NOT MACHINES,” “GAY MARRIAGE,” “Make Weed Legal,” “fix our schools,” “NO MORE LIES PLEASE,” “Respect our privacy! Stop USA spying on Americans!,” and “MAKE LOVE TO ME."

We visited a friend’s clothing store (Redeem, on 14th St. south of S), walked past the Church of Scientology near Dupont Circle that was in the act by offering free “touch assists” for D.C. visitors, and approached as close as we could to the White House, which was to walk on Pennsylvania Ave. near the president’s inaugural parade viewing stand. From there we could hear U2 playing at the “We Are One” concert on the Mall, which we chose not to brave the crowds to see.

Monday we spent time with family in the early afternoon, and spent the rest of our afternoon paying a visit to the American Humanist Society’s MLK Day open house. In the evening, we went back to Dupont Circle, where a giant inflatable George W. Bush with a giant nose labeled “GIVE BUSH THE BOOT” was available to throw shoes at.

Tuesday morning, we got up at 5:30 a.m. and got to the Silver Spring Metro Station by 6:40 a.m. The station was packed, and we squeezed into a very crowded train. We got out at Gallery Place and walked towards the Mall, where we ran into an immense crowd at 7th and E that was waiting to go through security screening to the inaugural parade seats. We hung out there for a while, where several people from Meetup.com were handing out nametags and pens, and then walked around the security perimeter to the west to get to the Mall. This required us to go back north to I St., and west to 19th St. (we could have gone down 18th, but 19th was less crowded). We went through no security and had no trouble getting to the Mall.

We walked east past the Washington Monument, but U.S. Army soldiers suddenly closed the road at 15th St. and so we went back and found a good spot in front of the Jumbotron just northeast of the Monument. The crowd continued to build, and the Jumbotron showed a replay of the “We are One” concert from Sunday (which would might have been annoying if we had already seen it).

At long last, the Jumbotrons switched to a live (with audio slightly delayed) feed, with a live mike somewhere in the expensive seats that seemed unintentional. We got to hear one side of multiple conversations, including Sen. Joe Lieberman telling someone, “I love your mother!” The captioning was a little behind the already-delayed audio, and occasionally bizarrely off. When Aretha Franklin sang, one caption at the end of her song said “THREAT RING."

I thought that Pastor Rick Warren’s invocation was awful–it was sectarian and it was blatantly hypocritical (cf. Matthew 6:5-7), and I considered it, along with the cold, to be the low-light of the swearing-in ceremony.

George W. Bush attracted some mild booing, and we almost (but not quite) felt sorry for him. But the crowd was ecstatic at Obama’s being sworn in (and at Bush’s helicopter leaving).

Obama’s inaugural speech seemed to mostly be fairly generic new-politician-in-office platitudes, but there were a few standout positive points for me. First, his acknowledgement that some Americans are nonbelievers and we have a stake and a voice in this country was a breath of fresh air. I cheered that line, and several people near by looked at me and smiled. His affirmation that science must be “restore[d] … to its rightful place” was another good one, as was his statement that we cannot give up the Constitution for safety.

It is a pleasure to again have a president who can speak in complete English sentences and not make me cringe every time I hear him.

After the swearing-in ceremony was over, it took us well over an hour to leave the Mall. People were packed in trying to leave, and at one point we saw the crowd knock down a barricade on the north side of the Mall, and a second barricade just north of that, to get access to Constitution. We moved in the opposite direction, which proved to be the right move to get to a flowing stream of people moving towards the actual exit. Police showed up at the downed barricades after about ten minutes, and put them back in place.

On Wednesday, we visited the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, the largest Catholic church in North America, on the grounds of Catholic University of America. It was interesting to see the different ethnic versions of Mary, Mother of Jesus in the Shrine, including Our Mother of Africa, the Virgin of Guadalupe, and Our Lady of La Vang (Vietnam). We did a little shopping for Obama swag at Union Station.

On Thursday, our last day in D.C., we visited Battleground National Cemetery on Georgia Ave., a little-known burial ground of Union soldiers killed at the battle of Fort Stevens, the only Civil War battle that occurred in D.C. We also visited Fort Stevens itself, which has a monument where President Lincoln stood on the rampart and was told to “Get down, you fool” as he was likely to be killed by attacking Confederate soldiers there. Finally, we visited the recently restored Lincoln Cottage at the Old Soldier’s Home, just north of Catholic University of America, where Lincoln spent about a quarter of his presidential term, made many of his decisions, and drafted and finalized the Emancipation Proclamation.

ApostAZ podcast #13

Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:42:00 +0000

The latest ApostAZ podcast is now available:
Episode 013 Atheism and Shit-Free Thought in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! All Music from Greydon Square- CPT Theorem, Ten Things the Pope Hates About Reality, Some Obama Topics, Family Planning and Stem Cell Research, REBT: Self-Downing.
Jan. 31: Filming for ArizonaCOR welcome video (happened today).
Feb. 13: Phoenix Atheists meetup new member welcome at Baby Kay’s.
Feb. 15: SMOCA 10th anniversary, Phoenix Atheists will attend.
Feb. 18: Daniel Dennett speaking at ASU on “Darwin’s Strange Inversion of Reasoning.” Phoenix Atheists will attend.

Comments on this episode:

I don’t think the difference between a religion and a cult is just the number of members, though growing large enough certainly tends to change social perception. As I’ve written previously at this blog, I think the characteristics that make a group a cult are something like Steve Hassan’s BITE model (Behavior control, Information control, Thought control, Emotional control) or better yet (since it doesn’t depend on questionable notions of mind control), Isaac Bonewits’ Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (ABCDEF).

Bart Simpson shilling for Scientology

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:06:00 +0000

Via the Village Voice, a prerecord call promoting a Scientology event by Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson (and a Scientologist):

Eamon Knight (2009-01-30):

Is she violating any Fox IP by using the Bart Simpson persona in her pitch?

Lippard (2009-01-30):

Probably.

When Dan Castellaneta introduced Paul Krassner for a standup performance, in character as Homer Simpson, that was recorded for a CD, Artemis Records contacted Fox for permission to use it, and was denied. (But apparently they haven't gone after Paul for putting the MP3 on his website.)

Obama odds and ends

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:45:00 +0000

Obama’s inauguration speech was censored in China. They didn’t like these two sentences:

“Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions.” The words “and communism” were removed from the Chinese translation by the state-run Xinhua news agency.

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history.” That whole sentence was removed from the Chinese translation.

Rick Warren’s invocation speech was the low point in the career of a U.S. Army officer who gave in to pressure to conform when his commanding officer expected everyone to applaud, saying “God Bless him for having the courage to pray for all of the lost souls in the name of our Savior Jesus Christ!"

On Obama’s first day in office, he issued executive orders to suspend military commissions for 120 days, close Guantanamo Bay in the next year, require all government agency interrogations to comply with the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation, freeze salaries for the 100 top executive branch officials, reverse George W. Bush’s executive order allowing former presidents and their relatives to keep presidential materials out of the National Archives beyond the 12-year statutory limit, close all CIA secret prisons, and call for a review of all U.S. government detention procedures.

The Obameter is tracking Obama’s campaign promises. So far he’s kept five, compromised on one, stalled on one, taken no action on 488, and broken none. He will need to delay, if not break, some of his spending promises…

UPDATE (February 17, 2009): So far, it appears that Obama has no intention of keeping his promise to post all bills to the web for five days of public comment prior to signing them. He’s broken that promise repeatedly already.

Petwalk donations plea!

Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:32:00 +0000

This Sunday, January 25th is the first annual Petwalk. Fred and I are participating and need your help in the form of a donation. Sure the economy looks bad right now, but if you can spare just $5 for a great cause, I’d really appreciate it. To learn more, please visit my donation page.

NY conference on the religious-secular divide

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:04:00 +0000

A conference on “The Religious-Secular Divide: The U.S. Case” will be held on March 5-6, 2009 at The New School in New York City. The conference will:
explore the tension between religion and secularity in the United States, which is long-standing, widespread, and increasingly intense. This is evident in contemporary debates over such issues as evolution and intelligent design, the importance of religion in political decision-making, and in spiritual or faith-based philanthropy. These issues will be addressed from the perspectives of religious studies, legal studies, political science, sociology, and philosophy. Charles Taylor will deliver the keynote address on March 5th at 6:00pm.
The conference website may be found here. The current speaker list is:

Richard J. Bernstein
Jose Casanova
David L. Chappell
William E. Connolly
James Davison Hunter
Daniel Dennett
Noah Feldman
Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad
Susan F. Harding
George Kateb
Mark Lilla
David Martin
Michael W. McConnell
James A. Morone
John T. Noonan, Jr.
Ann Pellegrini
Winnifred Sullivan
Charles Taylor
Peter van der Veer

Big Brother, meet Little Sis

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:57:00 +0000

The Sunlight Foundation, promoting transparency in government, has issued an invitation to check out the beta of Little Sis, a wiki described as “an involuntary Facebook of powerful Americans,” created by the Public Accountability Initiative.

You can sign up for an account to edit the wiki at http://www.littlesis.org/join, or just check out the site at http://www.littlesis.org.

What Does It Take for a Police Officer to Get Fired?

Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:07:00 +0000

Radley Balko, guest-blogging at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, describes three police officers, asking whether each has engaged in egregious enough conduct to be fired:

One,
Shoving a 71-year-old Walmart greeter to the ground and, when another customer came to assist, shoving that customer through a glass door?
Two,
How about three DWI incidents within a one-year span, including one in which the officer ran a roadblock, then had to be tasered, pepper-sprayed, and wrestled to the ground; another in which he hit another car, then left the scene of the accident; and another in which he fell asleep in his cruiser in front of a school, while in drive, with his foot resting on the brake?
Three,
How about an officer with an otherwise stellar record, who has a reputation in the department for honesty, but who became an outspoken critic of the war on drugs, and on one occasion declined to arrest a man after finding a single marijuana plant growing outside the man’s home?
Can you guess which of these officers lost their jobs for the described conduct? Read Balko’s post to find out.

ApostAZ podcast #12

Thu, 15 Jan 2009 04:02:00 +0000

The latest ApostAZ podcast is now available:
Episode 012 Atheism and Nonsense-Free Thought in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! Solstice Party Wrap Up, January Events, UK Atheist Bus, Papua New Guinea Witch Burning… In This Century! Yeah! Jeremy’s Funeral Proselytization, REBT: Unconditional Other Acceptance.
Comments:

The “penis panics” (also known as “koro” or “genital retraction syndrome”) are typically in Nigeria, Ghana, and Benin, but have also appeared in parts of Asia such as China and Singapore.

Jeremy’s funeral proselytization story is unfortunate. I’ve attended a few too many funeral services of late (six so far this century), of which four have been religious and two have been completely secular. All of the religious ones had a tone to them that occasionally seemed to assume that everyone present was Christian, but none had a hellfire component or a call to Jesus that I remember–they were focused on remembering the person who was gone and addressing the loss of the people present. I have heard of churches that emphasize the hellfire component, and in 2003 a priest at the funeral service of Ben Martinez in Chama, NM, said that the deceased was a lukewarm Catholic who now burns in hell. The family filed a lawsuit over it.

Shannon and Noel, congratulations on your engagement!

Re: Jeremy’s godfather story–you should say sure, you’ll be happy to tell the kid all about their faith, thinking to yourself, “including that most of what you believe is not true.”

Job creation by president

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:16:00 +0000

The creation of jobs in the economy is neither the president’s responsibility nor within his power to do anything other than influence through policy, but it’s still interesting to look at the record of job creation under the last eleven presidents (Truman to Bush Jr.), as presented at Barry Ritholtz’s blog (from the Wall Street Journal’s Real Time Economics):

Welcome, Pharyngulites!

Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:44:00 +0000

The photo P.Z. linked here with was taken in Phoenix, Arizona in February 1999, near the intersection of 19th Ave. and Campbell. The post at this blog which links to it is this one.

While you’re here, here’s an index of some of my better posts.

Gridman (2009-01-14):

It's funny, I live just a few blocks from that intersection and pass it all the time. I can't recall ever seeing the sign.

Utah Sen. Chris Buttars' Mormon Gulag

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:07:00 +0000

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars points out an account of a 15-year-old kidnapped from his grandmother’s house at the request of his parents, and taken to the Utah Boys Ranch, then run by Utah Senator Chris Buttars. Apparently the mind-control treatment didn’t take, and he started the Utah Boys Ranch Network to expose the abuse.

DFV (2009-02-19):

Sorry to bother you, but...
This is now Feb. 19th - why can't I find ONE DAMNED THING on the Mormon Gulag in major papers, TV, blogs, etc. after January? E.G.: was West Ridge Academy's license renewed? Why wasn't any of this covered by mainstream media?

Dan Vojir
dan-vojir@sbcglobal.net

CC-licensed NIN album is Amazon's #1 MP3 seller for 2008

Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:38:00 +0000

The record labels and the RIAA have insisted that peer-to-peer filesharing is cannibalizing the music industry and that aggressive lawsuits and copy protection are necessary to protect the industry. But Nine Inch Nails released Ghosts I-IV under a Creative Commons license which allowed free redistribution from its initial release, while also selling it in MP3 format from its website and via Amazon.com, with no copy protection. The result–it’s the #1 selling MP3 album on Amazon.com for 2008 and generated $1.6 million in revenue for the band in its first week, with no cut to a record label.

Looks like record labels are now superfluous for established artists, who no longer need to see their revenue cannibalized by middlemen.

Scientology vs. the Internet history lesson

Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:59:00 +0000

Jeff Jacobsen and Mark Bunker are hosting a 90-minute Internet radio show on the battle between Scientology and the Internet that took place before Anonymous, and it’s about to start now (4 p.m. Arizona time, 3 p.m. PST, 6 p.m. EST). A number of old-timers from alt.religion.scientology will likely be calling in.

It’s on blogtalkradio, show title is “Old-Timers give a history lesson."

First guest: Modemac, skeptic, SubGenius, and author of an Introduction to Scientology website, on the early history of alt.religion.scientology.

Second guest: Paulette Cooper, author of The Scandal of Scientology, an early major book-length criticism of Scientology, who was the victim of dirty tricks including framing her for a bomb threat and filing 19 lawsuits against her.

Third guest: Ron Newman, author of the Church of Scientology vs. the Net web pages and alt.religion.scientology regular.

Fourth guest: Yours truly.

UPDATE (January 5, 2009): A few clarifications and additional links:

The “Miss Bloodybutt” story Modemac referred to is described in the article Jeff and I wrote in Skeptic magazine, which includes dates. The -AB- posting didn’t predate the event and included information from the police report. I interviewed Tom Klemesrud and Linda Woolard as part of my research for that story.

I was taken out to lunch by Scientology’s Mesa Org OSA Director, Ginny Leeson, who asked what they could do to stop the criticism and pickets. My reply was that if they stopped suing people and trying to stop criticism, the pickets would probably stop. Ginny Leeson was soon replaced by a new OSA Director, Leslie Duhrman, who was a lot more hostile and aggressive–she went after picketer Bruce Pettycrew with legal action. I have received legal threats from Scientology and a DMCA notice, but nothing ever came of them; I periodically see Church of Scientology IP addresses visiting my web sites (also here).

My Scientology private investigators page is still online, though woefully out-of-date.

I wasn’t the one who first called for coordinated international pickets, that was Jeff Jacobsen. I did issue (on behalf of the “Ad Hoc Committee Against Internet Censorship”) the first coordinated press release about why the picketing was occurring, in response to Scientology’s “Cancelbunny” that was issuing cancellations of Usenet posts containing their secrets.

There was a Salon.com article in 1999 about Susan Mullaney (“xenubat”)’s posted audio files of L. Ron Hubbard saying embarrassing things, which Scientology used the DMCA to shut down. She issued a counter-notice and the material came back online. Some of those clips were used in very funny Scientology-critical songs by “Enturbulator 009” or the “El Queso All-Stars."

I’ve previously posted a “Scientology sampler” of my history of Scientology criticism and some posts about the “Anonymous” protests. This blog has a “Scientology” label you can click to find all my Scientology-related posts.

Facing the Fire: creationist video

Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:20:00 +0000

The creationist video I was filmed for, Creation Ministries International’s “Facing the Fire,” a documentary about the 1988 creation/evolution debate between Ian Plimer and Duane Gish, is available on YouTube in four parts (and embedded below). I first appear around 4:34 in the first segment, at 1:06 in the second, at 1:04 in the third, and at the very beginning of the fourth segment.

I described my experience being filmed and reasons for appearing in this documentary here, my reaction to the result here (which includes links to critiques of Gish), and you can find the articles I refer to in the documentary here:

“Some Failures of Organized Skepticism," The Arizona Skeptic vol. 3, no. 1, January 1990, pp. 2-5.
“How Not to Argue with Creationists," Creation/Evolution vol. 11, issue XXIX, Winter 1991-92, pp. 9-21.
“How Not to Respond to Criticism: Barry Price Compounds His Errors," talkorigins.org FAQ, 1993.
“Criticisms from an Obscure Corner of the World," review of Plimer’s Telling Lies for God.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Literary hoaxes

Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:06:00 +0000

Now that Berkley Books has just cancelled Herman Rosenblat’s Angel at the Fence: The True Story of a Love That Survived after the core story about how he met his wife while in a concentration camp was proven false, ABC News has put together a slide show of some other famous literary hoaxes.

The list includes, in addition to Rosenblat:

James Frey
JT Leroy
Norma Khouri
Margaret B. Jones
Misha Defonseca
Nasdijj
Anthony Godby Johnson
Lauren Stratford
Clifford Irving
Araki Yususada
Jayson Blair
Binjamin Wilkomirski
Forrest Carter
Kaavya Viswanathan
Tom Carew
Janet Cooke
The Hitler Diaries
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

There are a few others they could have covered–there are entire genres of hoaxes, like Christian conversion stories of fake Illuminati, witches, Satanists, Jesuits, and terrorists, stories of fake undercover agents and spies, stories of mind-controlled sex slaves, and so on. The Christian conversion stories are the ones I’m most familiar with, many of which have been promoted by Jack T. Chick of Chick tract fame, or have involved film producer David Balsiger (see especially footnote 7 of the linked article).

Anchoring and credit card minimum payments

Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:23:00 +0000

“Anchoring” is the psychological effect that, when presented with a sample number prior to being asked to estimate some quantity, people tend to stick closer to that sample number than they would if no number were mentioned, even if the number is completely irrelevant to what’s being estimated.

A study by Neil Stewart at Warwick University suggests that minimum payment amounts on credit card bills cause people to pay less on their credit cards per month than they otherwise would, since the minimum payment tends to be extremely low. While it has no effect on those who intend to pay off the full monthly amount (the only reasonable way to use credit cards, in my opinion), Stewart’s work suggests that those who pay less than the full amount pay 43% less on average than they would if no minimum payment were specified.

While this might be interpreted as counter to the intent of a minimum payment, I suspect it’s exactly the intended effect from the credit card companies–to drag out payments over the longest possible time and accumulate the most interest.

Books Read in 2008

Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:56:00 +0000

Once again, here’s my annual list of books I’ve read in the last year. I did somewhat worse than last year in finishing books I started, and I found last year disappointing. The piles of started but unfinished books are growing–but perhaps I can match last year’s total by the end of the year (I’m only ~~three~~two short at the moment). I’ve not done a good job of writing Amazon.com reviews of any of these, though I’ve put a few short comments on Facebook’s Visual Bookshelf for a few of these. I owe Guy Harrison an Amazon.com review/blog review/etc. for his excellent book, which I recommend as a nice (and less threatening) companion piece to Julian Baggini’s Atheism: A Very Short Introduction as an introduction to atheism.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Infidel
Matthew Chapman, 40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, OxyContin, and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania
Anderson Cooper, Dispatches from the Edge: A Memoir of War, Disasters, and Survival
Cory Doctorow, Little Brother
Cory Doctorow, Someone Comes to Town, Someone Leaves Town
Joseph Finder, Paranoia
Guy P. Harrison, 50 reasons people give for believing in a god
Gene Healy, The Cult of the Presidency: America’s Dangerous Devotion to Presidential Power
Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War
Susan Jacoby, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism
Robert A. Levy and William Mellor, The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom
Maureen McCormick, Here’s the Story: Surviving Marcia Brady and Finding My True Voice
Mary Roach, Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex
William C. Speidel, Sons of the Profits
Jim Steinmeyer, Art & Artifice and Other Essays on Illusion
Jim Steinmeyer, Charles Fort: The Man Who Invented the Supernatural
Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
Carl Zimmer, Soul Made Flesh: The Discovery of the Brain–And How It Changed the World
Jonathan Zittrain, The Future of the Internet and How To Stop It

(Previously: 2007, 2006, 2005.)

Looking for donations, again!

Thu, 25 Dec 2008 21:31:00 +0000

I am once again asking for donations. I will be walking January 25, 2009 in the 1st annual PetSmart PetWalk to help raise funds for R.E.S.C.U.E.

Please visit my donations page and help out if you can, as always, donations are tax deductible.

Happy holidays!

Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:43:00 +0000

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make our country great (not to imply that the United States is necessarily greater than any other country) and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

The Hound of Mons

Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:51:00 +0000

In the January 2009 issue of Fortean Times, Theo Paijmans reports the following story of “The Hound of Mons,” quoted from the Ada Evening News, Ada, Oklahoma, 11 August 1919:
That weird legend of No Man’s Land, the gruesome epice of the “hound of Mons,” has, according to F.J. Newhouse, a returned Canadian veteran, been vindicated throughout Europe as fact and not fiction. For four years civilian skeptics laughed at the soldiers’ tale of a giant, skulking hound, which stalked among the corpses and shell holes of No Man’s Land and dragged down British soldiers to their death. An apparition of fear-crazed minds, they said. But to the soldiers it was a reality and one of the most fearful things of the world war.

“The death of Dr. Gottlieb Hochmuller in the recent Spartacan riots in Berlin,” said Capt. Newhouse, “has brought to light facts concerning the fiendish application of this German scientist’s skill that have astounded Europe. For the hound of Mons was not an accident, a phantom, or an hallucination–it was the deliberate result of one of the strangest and most repulsive scientific experiments the world has ever known.

Teeth Marks in Throats.
What was the hound of Mons? According to the soldiers, the legend started in the terrible days of the defense of Mons. On the night of November 14, 1914, Capt. Yeskes and four men of the London Fusiliers entered No Man’s Land on patrol. The last living trace of them was when they started into the darkness between the lines. Several days afterward their dead bodies were found–just as they had been dragged down–with teeth marks at the throats.

Several nights later a weird, blood-curdling howl was heard from the darkness toward which the British trenches faced. It was the howl of the hound of Mons. From then on this phantom hound became the terror of the men who faced death by bullets with a smile. It was the old fear of the unknown.

Howl is Heard.
Patrol after patrol, during two years of warefare, ventured out only to be found days later with the telltale marks at their throats. The ghastly howl continued to echo through No Man’s Land. Several times sentries declared that they saw a lean, grey wraith flit past the barbed wire–the form of a gigantic hound running silently. But civilian Europe always doubted the story.

Then after two years, while many brave men lost their lives with only those teeth marks at the throat to show, the hound of Mons disappeared. From then on the Germans never had another important success.

“And now,” says Captain Newhouse, “secret papers have been taken from the residence of the late Dr. Hochmuller which prove that the hound of Mons was a terrible living reality, a giant hound with the brain of a human madman."

Hound Had Human Brain.
Captain Newhouse says that the papers show that this hound was the only successful issue of a series of experiments by which Dr. Hochmller hoped to end the war in Germany’s favor. The scientist had gone about the wards of the German hospitals until he found a man gone mad as the result of his insane hatred of England. Hochmuller, with the sanction of the German government, operated upon him and removed his brain, taking in particular the parts which dominated hatred and frenzy.

At the same time a like operation was performed on a giant Siberian wolfhound. Its brain was taken out and the brain of the madman inserted. By careful nursing the dog lived. The man was permitted to die.

The dog rapidly grew stronger and, after careful training in fiendishness, wa taken to the firing line and released in No Man’s Land. There for two years it became the terror of outposts and patrols.
Back before the Internet, the local newspapers met our needs for fabulous hoaxes, and many of them applied, at least periodically, the journalistic standards of the Weekly World News–you only need one source.

UPDATE (April 25, 2009): Fortean Times reader Alistair Moffatt writes in a letter in the May 2009 issue (p. 73) to point out that while F.J. Newhouse did exist, there was no Captain Yeskes of the London Fusiliers and Yeskes is an American or Canadian name, not a British one, suggesting a local origin for the above tale. He also notes that the Battle of Mons took place in August 1914, not November. He suggests that the tale may have originated from a propagandized and heavily distorted account of Captain Max von Stephanitz’s breeding of the German Shepherd.

How to get on an atheist's good side

Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:31:00 +0000

Greta Christina writes a list of “nine tips for believers who want to reach out” to atheists:
1: Familiarize yourself with the common myths and misconceptions about atheists – and don’t perpetuate them.
2: Familiarize yourself with what it’s like to be an atheist, both in the U.S. and in the rest of the world.
3: Find common ground.
4: Speak out against anti-atheist bigotry and other forms of religious intolerance.
5: Be inclusive of atheists.
6: Don’t divide and conquer, and don’t try to take away our anger.
8: Do not – repeat, DO NOT – talk about “fundamentalist atheists."
9: Be aware of how religious belief gives you a place of mainstream and privilege.
Read her article for the details.

Rick Warren caught lying

Wed, 24 Dec 2008 21:22:00 +0000

Last Sunday, Rick Warren recorded a video for his congregation in which he denies ever comparing gay marriages to incest or pedophilia:
I have been accused of equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophila. Now, of course as members of Saddleback Church, you know I believe no such thing, I never have. You’ve never once heard me in thirty years talk that way about that.
But Rachel Maddow shows that he made exactly that comparison:
I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Q. Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Oh, I do!
Rick Warren has been caught lying, in addition to being anti-gay and anti-evolution. He should ask to be taken off the agenda for the inauguration, and if he doesn’t, Barack Obama should just withdraw his invitation to speak.

Blindsight

Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:05:00 +0000

At Not Exactly Rocket Science is a video of a man navigating a hallway filled with obstacles, even though he’s completely blind–he has zero conscious awareness of visual perception and his visual cortex shows no activity when given visual tasks (most of which he fails), but he does have an ability known as blindsight. He became blind as a result of strokes which caused damage to the occipital lobe of his brain, including his visual cortex. Yet his eyes still function and there is still some visual processing occurring without rising to the level of conscious awareness. He can perform a number of visual tasks with perfect accuracy, even though his conscious perception is that he is simply guessing.

(Hat tip to Dan Noland for the link.)

Anthropogenic global warming debate

Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:54:00 +0000

I just came across this post from Duae Quartunciae from July about the American Physical Society’s publication of pro and con arguments on the subject of anthropogenic global warming, and I direct it to your attention now because it has a very lengthy, detailed, and respectful debate in the comments.

I recently heard Jane Orient of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons speak about global warming (she thinks it’s a pseudoscientific scam), in which she promoted the paper she published by Arthur and Noah Robinson and Willie Soon and the Petition Project. Before the event, I sent an email to the event organizer with links to Michael MacCracken’s critique of that paper (PDF) and a wiki page critiquing the paper and the Robinsons’ Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (where Dr. Orient is listed on the faculty as a professor of medicine; she also teaches a course on “global warming controversies” for the Schlaflys’ Eagle Forum University). While my links weren’t redistributed to the other attendees of the talk, I did get a chance to express my skepticism in the discussion, which led to an email exchange with Dr. Orient.

She took the position that advocates of anthropogenic global warming are engaging in pseudoscience and are biased by their own need to keep up the hype in order to continue to receive government funding, but will ultimately be refuted by a growing disconnect between the projections of the climate models and the facts–she seems to think that the recent warming trends have been the result of solar irradiance and that we are now on a cooling trend. She stated in her talk that James Hansen is unreliable because he falsely claimed that 1998 was the warmest year on record, and was forced to retract it and admit that 1934 was the warmest year on record; and similarly was forced to retract an incorrect claim that October 2008 was the warmest October on record after Steve McIntyre found that there was an error in some of the reported data. I pointed out that her first claim is incorrect–1998 is still the warmest year on record for global temperatures, but the second-warmest for the contiguous 48 U.S. states after 1934, which is what Hansen said. And while she was correct about October 2008, after the correction it still remains the fifth-warmest October on record. The top three years for global temperatures are 1998, 2005, and 2002; the eight warmest years on record are all since 1998; the fourteen warmest years on record are since 1990.

I also pointed out Skeptic magazine’s recent critique of the Petition Project, which she dismissed as a criticism of Robinson for not using methodology to do something he was not trying to do; that all he was trying to do is show that there is no consensus among scientists. I compared the Petition Project to the Discovery Institute’s “Dissent from Darwinism,” which she said she did not see as analogous.

We found some points of agreement–we both support the legitimacy of questioning, and of science over pseudoscience, though we disagree about who’s doing science and who’s doing pseudoscience.

UPDATE (December 16, 2009): The “Petition Project” isn’t a petition of scientists, it’s a petition of people with at least a bachelor’s degree in a science-related field. Whittenberger at eSkeptic points out that the signature breakdown by level of education was 29% Ph.D., 22% M.S., 7% M.D. or D.V.M., and 41% B.S. or equivalent. By field, it was 12% earth science, 3% computer science or mathematics, 18% physics and aerospace sciences, 15% chemistry, 9% biology and agriculture, 10% medicine, and 32% engineering and general science. The percentage of Ph.D.s in relevant areas isn’t available, but it’s clear from the breakdown that at least two thirds have less than a Ph.D. and at least 80% do not have education in a relevant field. I conclude that it’s not possible to conclude on the basis of that petition that there’s dissent among scientists with relevant credentials–it is just like the DI petition in that regard.

Arizona Court of Appeals overturns CityNorth subsidy

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:04:00 +0000

The City of Phoenix’s $97.4 million sales tax subsidy to the CityNorth retail center project in north Phoenix has been declared unconstitutional, a violation of the Arizona Constitution’s gift clause. All three members of the appeals court agreed, writing in their opinion that “We think these payments are exactly what the Gift Clause was intended to prohibit."

The city’s subsidy would have granted $97.4 million in sales tax revenues (or less, not to exceed 50% of the sales taxes collected by CityNorth businesses) over 11 years to the project developer, the Klutznick Company, in return for 3,180 parking spaces, including 200 parking lot spaces set aside for public use for “park and ride,” for the next 45 years. The ruling found that the only public benefit for which the city could legitimately be paying were the 200 “park and ride” spaces, and that the city may still pay market rate for those 200 spaces (probably about $6 million over 45 years), but not for the other 3,180 spaces. The appeals court’s ruling may be found here (PDF).

Congratulations to Goldwater litigation director Clint Bolick and the owners of the six small businesses that were plaintiffs in the case: Meyer Turken of Turken Industrial Properties, Ken Cheuvront of Cheuvront Wine and Cheese Cafe and Cheuvront Construction (and Democratic State Senator), Zul Gilliani who owns an ice cream shop at Paradise Valley Mall, James Iannuzo of Sign-a-Rama, Kathy Rowe of Music Together, and Justin Shafer of Hava Java.

The Goldwater Institute team initially lost the case, Turken v. Gordon, at the trial court level in Maricopa County Superior Court. The City of Phoenix tried unsuccessfully to get an award of $600,000 in attorney’s fees from the Goldwater Institute in an attempt to chill future public interest lawsuits; now they’ll no doubt appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

(Previously.)

More police puppycide

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:36:00 +0000

The cases continue to mount–when police officers come to search property and they are confronted by dogs, they often shoot and kill them, even if they are puppies.

A Milwaukee resident whose Labrador-Springer Spaniel mix was killed by police in 2004 has filed a lawsuit against the city, and she requested a list of every dog killed by city policy for the last nine years. There were 434–a dead dog every seven and a half days, and that’s just one city.

In Oklahoma, a police officer pulled into a driveway to ask a woman for directions, and when the woman’s Wheaton Terrier came bounding toward him, he shot and killed it. The police refused to do anything about the woman’s complaint, and tried to pay her off to shut her up when she let them know that her security cameras had captured the incident. She also sued.

Radley Balko at The Agitator has been doing a great job of collecting and reporting on cases of unwarranted police killings of dogs. His latest summary of cases, from which the above two cases were taken, is his 16th “puppycide” blog post.

Unintended side-effects of speed cameras

Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:31:00 +0000

In Montgomery County, Maryland, teens have found a new use for speed cameras–getting revenge on people they don’t like or who have wronged them. Since the tickets from photo radar cameras are issued to the owners of the cars whose license plates are captured, they print out fake license plates on glossy photo paper, stick them over their own license plates, and then go out speeding.

This shows yet another flaw in the photo radar ticket process. I’ve speculated that registering your cars in the name of an LLC or trust is probably sufficient to make it difficult to assign individual responsibility to a speeding incident.

UPDATE (December 23, 2008): In Australia, an even more creative revenge against a mobile speed camera–have it issue tickets to itself! They could have just noted the plate number and followed the example of the Maryland teens, rather than stealing the actual plate… (Thanks, Adam, for the link.)

Diskeeper sued for Scientology indoctrination

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:34:00 +0000

Two ex-employees of Diskeeper Corporation have filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court after being fired, charging that the company makes Scientology training a mandatory condition of employment. Diskeeper founder and CEO Craig Jensen is a high-level Scientologist (OT VIII) and member of the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises (WISE), which means that he follows Hubbard “management technology” in how he runs his businesses and donates a portion of revenues to the Church of Scientology.

UPDATE (December 25, 2008): Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has more.

Arpaio foes arrested for clapping

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:12:00 +0000

Four people associated with the anti-Arpaio group Maricopa Citizens for Safety and Accountability, were arrested on Wednesday for standing and applauding a speaker at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting. The East Valley Tribune notes that:
A double standard clearly was in effect during the Board of Supervisors meeting Wednesday. At one point, public-transit advocate Blue Crowley used part of his public-comment time allotment to sing a birthday song to [MCBoS chairman Andy] Kunasek. Kunasek blushed and several people applauded, but none was ordered to leave or threatened with arrest.

However, Kunasek, deputies and security officers refused to tolerate applause after the anti-Arpaio speech minutes later.
The criminal clappers were charged with “suspicion of disorderly conduct and trespassing."

This brings the arrests of MCSA members to eight for the week and nine for the last four months.

Four other members of MCSA were arrested on Monday, after a group of 20 went to Andy Kunasek’s office to talk with him and he refused to meet with them. Sheriff’s deputies asked them to leave and arrested the four who refused.

The other arrest was MCSA co-founder Randy Parrez, who was arrested on September 29 outside a Board of Supervisors meeting on similar charges–suspicion of trespassing and disorderly conduct.

All but one of the members of the Board of Supervisors are Republicans. The Tribune article quotes Supervisor Max Wilson (R-District 4) as saying, “I don’t tell the police how to do their job. I don’t instruct them to do it or when to do it. They’re professionals at it and that’s the way they handle it.” The lone Democrat, Mary Rose Wilcox (D-District 5), however, stated that she thought the arrests were excessive and that she would talk to security about it.

PATRIOT Act NSL gag order unconstitutional

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:20:00 +0000

For a second time, a U.S. appeals court has found unconstitutional the provision of the USA PATRIOT Act which forbids recipients of National Security Letters from disclosing that they have received them. After the first time around, Congress amended the law to introduce some minimal judicial review, but maintained the burden of proof on the recipient if the government claimed there were national security reasons for the NSL to remain secret. The courts have ruled that this burden needs to fall on the government.

If this continues to stand, then perhaps the rsync.net warrant canary will become superfluous.

Credit Suisse helps solve the toxic debt problem

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:30:00 +0000

In a fiendishly clever plan, Credit Suisse Group AG has found a way to reduce its exposure to toxic securities and transfer risk off its balance sheets–it’s paying senior executives’ bonuses with them.

Managing directors and directors, the two highest ranks at the Zurich-based company, will be paid year-end bonuses in its most illiquid loans and debt. Those assets will be transferred to a “Partner Asset Facility,” and those directors will receive shares of ownership in the facility. Those assets will make semi-annual payments to the owners, with the full value only to be known as the assets mature or default.

A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:12:00 +0000

Last night Einzige, frequent commenter Schtacky, and I went to see “A Very Merry Unauthorized Children’s Scientology Pageant” in Tempe, put on by the Stray Cat Theatre. By lucky coincidence, local Scientology expert and critic Jeff Jacobsen was also attending (see his recent article), and we sat with him in the front row for what proved to be a very enjoyable performance.

On the way to work this morning, I heard Robrt Pela of Phoenix’s New Times reading his review on the local NPR station, and his review describes our experience quite well:
About three minutes into Stray Cat Theatre’s newest production, I found myself thinking: This can’t be really happening. When you go to see it — and you must, if you do nothing else this holiday season, go see this astonishing stage production — you will almost certainly experience the same sense of delighted confusion. … I rarely stopped laughing during this barely-hour-long show, and my single complaint about A Very Merry Unauthorized Children’s Scientology Pageant is that it ended too soon.
The play was a special treat for those of us who already know something about Scientology and the life of L. Ron Hubbard.

The production tells the story of L. Ron Hubbard’s life (“writer, explorer, nuclear physicist …”) and how he came to develop Dianetics and Scientology, in the form of a children’s holiday pageant. Cheesy props and frequent costume changes are used to portray rapid changes of location, from Hawaii to New York to China. Much of what is presented is accurate–Hubbard’s birthplace, some of his claims about his life, and especially the content of Dianetics and Scientology. A few liberties are taken in the story of his life, though fewer than Hubbard himself and contemporary Scientologists take in describing his achievements. While there are countless amusing and disturbing events of Hubbard’s actual life that could have been used for comic relief but were omitted, we were surprised at how much they managed to pack into a short show. If you want the longer version, you can read Russell Miller’s biography of Hubbard, Bare-Faced Messiah, online, complete with supporting documentation including paperwork from his FBI files.

The show continues tonight and tomorrow–if you have the opportunity to see it, take it, and you’ll be very glad you went.

Bank slogans as signals to depositors

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:41:00 +0000

The traditional bank lobby, filled with expensive marble and and furnishings, is designed to signal to the customer that the bank is stable and isn’t going anywhere.

Some recent failed banks have used advertising slogans also designed to inspire confidence, such as IndyMac’s “you can count on us."

Others, however, should perhaps have been recognized as clues of impending problems:

Dexia: “The short term has no future."
Fortis: “Here today, where tomorrow?"
Countrywide: “[A] lender that actually finds ways to make loans."
Fannie Mae: “As the American dream grows, so do we."
Washington Mutual: “Whoo hoo!"

(Via The Economist, October 2, 2008.)

Sean Hannity: Media Matters' Misinformer of the Year for 2008

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:22:00 +0000

The award appears to be well-deserved.

(Hat tip to Schtacky.)

Historical Comments

Hume's Ghost (2008-12-20):

He deserves it, but to be fair, there would be no contest if they gave it to the person who flat out misinforms the most. That would be Sean Hannity's idol Rush Limbaugh - and he would win every single year he's on the air. The amount of idiocy across a spectrum of subjects he is able to disseminate on a sentence to sentence basis is staggering.

Jeff Jacobsen article on Anonymous protests against Scientology

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:27:00 +0000

Jeff Jacobsen has written a detailed article about the Anonymous protests against Scientology, which brings the reader up-to-date on Internet-supported counter-Scientology protesting since the article we wrote for Skeptic in 1995, “Scientology v. the Internet: Free Speech and Copyright Infringement on the Information Superhighway."

The new article is called “We Are Legion: Anonymous and the War on Scientology." Check it out.

Historical Comments

Reed (2008-12-19):

I've read the first chapter. Jacobsen provides much detail on the CoS's missteps of which I've heard only bits and pieces over the years. Excellent stuff.

What made it especially engaging was having read and studied Shirky's book beforehand. Anonymous' protest serves as a fascinating example of undirected collective action of which Shirky basically said "it's coming."

IIRC, Shirky's book hit the shelves about the same time the Anonymous thing got big.

Wine accelerator from SkyMall

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:10:00 +0000

If there was any doubt that the SkyMall catalog is full of bogus products that are complete ripoffs for idiots, that should be removed by this product–a “wine and liquor accelerator” that “surrounds the beverage with a powerful triangular-shaped magnetic field, and in just 10 seconds, you’ll taste a premium drink’s smooth, mellow flavor equal to years of traditional slow aging."

And here, Alex Chiu has been telling us that magnetic devices slow aging, not speed it up.

Not to mention that aging is not something that tends to improve the quality of wine.

The Center for Public Integrity is doing great work

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:13:00 +0000

The Center for Public Integrity has published a slew of new investigative reports:

“Global Warming: Heated Denials” – reporting on climate change denialism pseudoscience from the Heartland Institute.

“The Shadow Government” – 900 little-known federal advisory committees wielding influence over public policy.

“Divine Intervention” – how the Bush Administration’s initiative to fight AIDS abroad is hampered by conservative ideology.

“Broken Government” – an assessment of 128 executive branch failures since 2000.

Check them out, and consider providing financial support for this organization, which is one of my top organizations to support.

Beware the feral hogs

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:43:00 +0000

This is what we need more of in apocalyptic future science fiction–rampaging herds of feral hogs:

There are thought to be between 4m and 5m feral hogs at large in America, spread across 38 states. The biggest population is in Texas, but states from Florida to Oregon are infested and worried. Feral hogs destroy the habitats of plants and animals, spread diseases, damage crops, kill and eat the eggs and young of wildlife and sometimes menace people with their aggressive behaviour.
The problem originated with the Spanish conquistadors, who took herds of pigs with them as they marched across the American continent. Stragglers reverted to their wild state. Much later “sportsmen” began releasing hogs into reserves for commercial hunting. More recently still declining pork prices have induced farmers to turn some of their stock loose rather than continue feeding them. Pigs produce so many piglets that a feral herd can double or even triple within as little as a year.
Via The Economist.

Eamon Knight (2008-12-17):

This is what we need more of in apocalyptic future science fiction--rampaging herds of feral hogs:

I take it you've read Oryx and Crake? Make that genetically-enhanced, intelligent rampaging herds of feral hogs...

Bill of Rights celebration at the Wrigley Mansion

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:58:00 +0000

Kat and I attended Alan Korwin’s Bill of Rights celebration, celebrating the 217th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, which was held this evening at the Wrigley Mansion. There were several hundred people in attendance, mostly civil libertarians of both liberal and libertarian varieties, including people from the Institute for Justice and the ACLU. We were asked in the invitation to think about which Amendment is our favorite–I would probably rank the 1st and 4th at the top of my list, of which the 1st is much healthier than the 4th. I’d also put the 8th and 5th high in importance, both of which have taken some recent hits but are showing signs of recovery. And of course the 6th, and the under-utilized 9th… ah, heck, they’re all important. The crowd seemed dominated by 2nd Amendment fans, not surprising since Alan Korwin is the author and publisher of numerous books on U.S. gun laws.

The reading of the Bill of Rights and its preamble was excellent, but I was disappointed that the event included a Patrick Henry impersonator played by Lance Hurley of Founding Fathers Ministries. Hurley is a Christian who endorses David Barton’s works of pseudohistory on his website (for which the antidote is Chris Rodda’s Liars for Jesus), and at the event argued in character, with quotations from Henry, that the 2nd Amendment came from the teachings of Jesus Christ, that the American revolution was fought on Christian principles, and the Constitutional Convention succeeded because of Ben Franklin’s prayer. He also stated, when there were discussions of the health of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, that freedom of religion is in serious danger, because no one can mention God in schools but the Koran can be discussed. This is simply untrue–God and the Bible can be discussed by students, but such discussions cannot constitutionally be imposed by state agents such as teachers and administrators in a way that constitutes an establishment of religion. The Bible can be legally taught as the combination of myth, history, poetry, literature, and religious doctrine that it is, but Christianity cannot be endorsed as true by state agents. The same rules apply to the Koran. Hurley seems not to realize that Madison’s version of the First Amendment won out, not Henry’s. Some Christians–and it appears that Hurley may be one of them–have a view that their freedom of religion is infringed if they are prevented from legally imposing their religion on others through acts of state agents.

I’ll find it amazing that Christians consider themselves to be a poor, persecuted minority prohibited from expressing their religious views when they are, in fact, regularly engaging in establishment clause violations, and Congressmen are signing on to bills like last year’s House Resolution 847.

Hurley does public speaking as both Patrick Henry and George Washington–I wonder if his George Washington is historically accurate with respect to Washington’s religious views. He’s also an advocate of conspiracy theories (Illuminati, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, etc.) and an advocate of the National Day of Prayer.

Further fringe elements were represented at the event by Ernie Hancock of the Ron Paul Revolution, who distributed multiple pieces of literature promoting his Freedom’s Phoenix website, billed as “uncovering the secrets & exposing the lies.” That site also promotes conspiracy theory, including “9/11 truth” conspiracy claims.

In the discussions, several people brought up Phoenix’s recently installed freeway traffic speed cameras as evidence of the sickliness of the Bill of Rights, though no one really offered an explanation of how the Bill of Rights is violated by them. And the objection seemed to only be to the cameras, not to speed limit laws. I’m not a fan of speed cameras, and I agree that they are more of a revenue generation method than a safety measure, but I don’t see an obvious case that they violate the Bill of Rights.

That’s not to say that the event was entirely dominated by the lunatic fringe–one woman in the audience commented that she was particularly concerned about the 4th Amendment, because she is now regularly stopped at a “border checkpoint” while driving between destinations well inside the U.S. border, because of the 100-mile “Constitution-free zone” that the courts have created around the perimeter of the U.S. And Jennifer Perkins of the Institute for Justice pointed out that even though the U.S. Supreme Court blew a gigantic hole in the 5th Amendment with the Kelo case, nearly all of the states have passed legislation adding further protections against eminent domain abuse (and Arizona’s are the strongest).

There was one critical mention of the USA PATRIOT Act (by the Patrick Henry impersonator, to well-deserved applause), but no mention of Guantanamo Bay, the Military Commissions Act, or torture that I noticed. I think concern over traffic cameras is at least a bit lower on the priority list than any of these items. A point in favor of the Patrick Henry arguments is that he correctly identified the risk of expanding executive power and judicial decisions that disregarded basic rights (the fact that the Bill of Rights, as well as the Constitution itself, has many passages that have effectively been written out of it, is testament to the accuracy of that prediction).

The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, at least, is alive and relatively well.

UPDATE (December 16, 2008): Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars points out that Ron Paul introduced the American Freedom Agenda Act which would:
Repeal the “Military Commissions Act of 2006” and thereby restore the ancient right of habeas corpus and end legally sanctioned torture by U.S. government agents
Restore the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (FISA) and thereby outlaw warrantless spying on American citizens by the President of the United States

Otto on a fundraising mailer

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:15:00 +0000

Our dog Otto continues his celebrity career by being featured on the front of a “save the date” postcard for a fundraiser for Altered Tails, a local charity that provides low-cost spaying and neutering for dogs and cats. The image is a painting done by local artist Susan Barken.

Who started the "War on Christmas"

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:27:00 +0000

I had previously been aware of Fox News “The Big Story” anchor John Gibson’s book, The War on Christmas, as well as former National Review author John O’Sullivan’s 2001 article on the subject, and of course Bill O’Reilly’s repeated misrepresentations on the subject. But until I read Max Blumenthal’s article, “Who Started the War on Christmas?," I wasn’t aware of VDare founder Peter Brimelow’s role. Turns out he blames it on the Jews.

(Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.)

Drunk driver kills someone, yet gets only a speeding ticket

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:58:00 +0000

Mario Chavez was driving drunk when he hit another car, killing its driver, 20-year-old University of Maryland student Brian Gray. Gray’s mother was traveling behind him in another vehicle, and watched her son die. When police arrived at the scene, they did not bother to give Chavez a test for his blood alcohol level. Chavez lied to investigators about what he was doing prior to the crash, claiming he was sleeping even though his cell phone records show that he was talking on the phone. He didn’t lose his job and he has only received a speeding ticket. Brian Gray, however, had blood taken from his dead body to see if he had been drinking, but he had not.

It seems the rules are different when the guilty party is a police officer. Mario Chavez is a Prince George’s County, Maryland police officer who was driving his patrol car at the time of the accident. For some reason the black box recording device for his police cruiser has not been checked for evidence due to “software problems.” A page of nurse’s notes about Chavez after his admission to Prince George’s Hospital after the crash has also disappeared.

(Via The Agitator.)

Quarterbacks, teachers, and financial advisors

Sun, 14 Dec 2008 01:14:00 +0000

I’m generally quite averse to watching sports, let alone reading about them. But I did read Michael Lewis’s Moneyball at one sitting and just read Malcolm Gladwell’s “Most Likely to Succeed” in the December 15 issue of The New Yorker.

Gladwell’s article looks at examples of jobs where there are few, if any, available measurements of performance available before hiring that correlate with success in the position. The performance of college quarterbacks doesn’t track their success in the NFL (apparently due to factors such as the sizes of players and the types of offensive formations used), and none of the items on a resumé seem to predict the success of teachers or financial advisors.

Yet quality of teaching is a huge factor in student educational success (as I’ve previously noted on this blog with regard to an Economist article about a McKinsey & Co. study that compared education across OECD nations). As The Economist article I referenced noted, “Studies in Tennessee and Dallas have shown that, if you take pupils of average ability and give them to teachers deemed in the top fifth of the profession, they end up in the top 10% of student performers; if you give them to teachers from the bottom fifth, they end up at the bottom. The quality of teachers affects student performance more than anything else."

Gladwell suggests that we should find a way to hire more teachers, have them apprentice with demonstrably successful teachers, and weed out the bad ones. But the most successful nations do not follow Gladwell’s suggestion of increasing the number of new teachers, instead doing nearly the opposite. Again quoting The Economist:

Wal-Mart pricing on Jesus shirts

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:55:00 +0000

(Via FailBlog.)

A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:36:00 +0000

Tempe’s Stray Cat Theatre is performing “A Very Merry Unauthorized Children’s Scientology Pageant,” December 5-20.

The East Valley Tribune has described the show, and more details may be found at the Stray Cat Theatre’s website.

UPDATE (December 19, 2008): A few of us went to see the show last night, which I’ve described in a separate post.

Historical Comments

Schtacky (2008-12-04):

Jim,

Are you and Kat going to attend? If so, let me know and perhaps we will join you.

Joe

Roger Ebert reviews Expelled

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:34:00 +0000

In what may be the most entertaining review of “Expelled” yet, Roger Ebert gives Ben Stein what for in the Chicago Sun Times:
This film is cheerfully ignorant, manipulative, slanted, cherry-picks quotations, draws unwarranted conclusions, makes outrageous juxtapositions (Soviet marching troops representing opponents of ID), pussy-foots around religion (not a single identified believer among the ID people), segues between quotes that are not about the same thing, tells bald-faced lies, and makes a completely baseless association between freedom of speech and freedom to teach religion in a university class that is not about religion.

And there is worse, much worse. Toward the end of the film, we find that Stein actually did want to title it “From Darwin to Hitler.” He finds a Creationist who informs him, “Darwinism inspired and advanced Nazism.” He refers to advocates of eugenics as liberal. I would not call Hitler liberal. Arbitrary forced sterilization in our country has been promoted mostly by racists, who curiously found many times more blacks than whites suitable for such treatment.

Ben Stein is only getting warmed up. He takes a field trip to visit one “result” of Darwinism: Nazi concentration camps. “As a Jew,” he says, “I wanted to see for myself.” We see footage of gaunt, skeletal prisoners. Pathetic children. A mound of naked Jewish corpses. “It’s difficult to describe how it felt to walk through such a haunting place,” he says. Oh, go ahead, Ben Stein. Describe. It filled you with hatred for Charles Darwin and his followers, who represent the overwhelming majority of educated people in every nation on earth. It is not difficult for me to describe how you made me feel by exploiting the deaths of millions of Jews in support of your argument for a peripheral Christian belief. It fills me with contempt.

Pastor who got "under God" added to pledge dies

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:21:00 +0000

Lest there was any remaining doubt that the 1954 insertion of “under God” into the pledge of allegiance was explicitly religious, the news has covered the death of the Rev. George M. Docherty, a Presbyterian minister from Scotland, noting that it was his sermon heard by President Dwight D. Eisenhower that prompted the change:
“I didn’t know that the Pledge of Allegiance was, and he recited it, ‘one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,’” he recalled in an interview with The Associated Press in 2004. “I came from Scotland, where we said ‘God save our gracious queen,’ ‘God save our gracious king.’ Here was the Pledge of Allegiance, and God wasn’t in it at all."
He delivered his sermon calling for “under God” to be added to the pledge first in 1952 with little effect, but delivered it again on February 7, 1954, while Eisenhower was in attendance at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington D.C., near the White House. Eisenhower immediately let Congress know he wanted it to happen, and Rep. Charles G. Oakman (R-MI) introduced a bill the very next day to make that addition, which Eisenhower signed into law on Flag Day.

Michael Newdow currently has a second lawsuit working its way through the courts to remove “under God” from the pledge on the grounds that Congress’s action was a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. His first lawsuit went to the Supreme Court, where the justices declined to rule on the merits of the argument, and instead reasoned that he lacked standing to bring the suit because he was involved in a custody dispute over his daughter, who was the plaintiff because she was required to recite the pledge in school. That ruling, like Eisenhower’s signing of the original unconstitutional bill, was delivered on Flag Day (in 2004).

Phoenix-area foreclosures

Sun, 30 Nov 2008 15:01:00 +0000

Yesterday the Arizona Republic had an interactive foreclosure map and document of data (PDF) which includes the monthly foreclosure statistics for the last eighteen months:

April 2007: 553
May 2007: 475
June 2007: 579
July 2007: 676
August 2007: 806
September 2007: 1,093
October 2007: 936
November 2007: 1,344
December 2007: 1,617
January 2008: 2,052
February 2008: 2,249
March 2008: 2,365
April 2008: 2,969
May 2008: 3,402
June 2008: 3,717
July 2008: 4,104
August 2008: 4,013
September 2008: 4,378
October 2008: 4,587

Total foreclosures per year:
2004: 4,444
2005: 1,370
2006: 1,070
2007: 9,920
2008: 33,836 through October

This is not good news for a state where construction and real estate provide a large share of the employment opportunities. It is good news for those who do not own homes and have been waiting to buy at lower prices–it looks like next year will offer significantly better prices than this year, but there are still a lot of delusional sellers out there asking way too much. (There’s a two-bedroom, two-bathroom house on a half acre in a quiet neighborhood near us that looks very nice, but is probably worth about half of the $429,000 asking price, based on comparable sales and the current downward trend. Zillow says it’s worth $277,000.)

See their summary article, which has links to the map and other documents.

Disorder breeds disorder

Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:20:00 +0000

When Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York City, he had a zero-tolerance policy on graffiti, litter, and broken windows, on the assumption that small crimes like vandalism create an environment conducive to more serious crimes.

Now, a study in the Netherlands published in Science provides support for this theory. In an alley used to park bicycles, the experimenters set up two conditions, one in which the walls of the alley were freshly painted and one in which they were tagged with graffiti. Flyers advertising a bicycle shop were attached to the handlebars of all parked bicycles. In the graffiti condition, 69% of bicyclists dumped the flyer on the ground as litter; in the clean condition, 33% littered. They performed several other similar experiments, and in each case the test subjects were more likely to engage in anti-social acts such as littering, trespassing, and stealing in the condition of disorder as opposed to in the condition of order.

(Via The Economist, where you can read more details of the experiments.)

Peter Schiff vs. Art Laffer, Tom Adkins, Mike Norman, Ben Stein, Charles Payne

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:46:00 +0000

Gee, who was completely full of crap?

I love the captions–Dow over 13,000 and Ben Stein is saying now’s the time to buy… Merrill Lynch a buy at $76, Charles Payne says buy Bear Stearns… they were delusional idiots.

Schiff was right about everything except inflation and gold (at least so far–deflation looks like a bigger immediate risk than inflation). He was saying to buy gold at $830 in late 2007; it’s at about the same point today, but if you had taken his advice you could have sold higher earlier this year, and at least you wouldn’t have taken any real losses.

(Hat tip to Brett Vickers for the video.)

Cranky 9/11 truther joins lawsuit against Obama

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 22:18:00 +0000

The case of Philip J. Berg v. Barack Hussein Obama, filed in the eastern district of Pennsylvania in an attempt to argue that Obama cannot become president because he is not a U.S. citizen, has been joined by Paul Andrew Mitchell, a “private attorney general” and 9/11 truther known for filing nonsensical papers with the courts. The character of Mitchell’s filing can be seen on p. 5, where he writes that “I, Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the ‘United States’ (federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct …” The italics and bolding are as in the filing. Mitchell is one of the crackpots who argues that the United States of America is distinct from the United States and that he’s not subject to the laws of the latter, including the income tax, because he’s a “sovereign citizen."

Mitchell used to be a customer of Primenet, an Internet Service Provider based in Phoenix, that was my employer. He named us in one of his lawsuits, along with numerous other ISPs, on the grounds that one of our users had the temerity to put a link on his web page to a copy of Mitchell’s “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue.” Mitchell insisted that he didn’t authorize that copy of his work, and that our user’s link constituted contributory infringement of his copyright. When I pointed out that the link was actually a dead link and didn’t point to anything at all, this did not persuade him that Primenet shouldn’t be sued. He never bothered to properly serve Primenet with papers, and the case was thrown out of court.

Mitchell is or was also a member of the “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” organization; I’ve previously written more about Mitchell and that organization on this blog.

FFRF billboard in California taken down at city request

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:40:00 +0000

The FFRF’s “Imagine No Religion” billboard in Rancho Cucamonga, California, is being removed by General Outdoor Advertising after they received a request to remove it from the city. The city asserts that it requested the removal but did not demand it, and therefore did not violate the First Amendment. The contract no doubt gives General Outdoor the ability to back out of the contract and refund the money in response to controversy. FFRF says the company has agreed to refund the money.

The city reports that they received about 90 complaints.

Has anyone ever heard of a religious billboard in this country being removed after a government request?

UPDATE (November 25, 2008): FFRF plans to sue Rancho Cucamonga for this infringement of its freedom of speech. The city’s Redevelopment Director, Linda Daniels, apparently realizes now that she has done something wrong, and has changed her story:
Last Thursday, Redevelopment Director Linda Daniels said a member of her staff had informed the sign company about the 90 complaints the city received regarding the billboard.

ApostAZ podcast #11

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:37:00 +0000

The latest ApostAZ podcast is now available:
Episode 011 Atheism and Feces-Free Thought in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! Shyness, Group News,Election Post-Mortem, Email from Shawn of Tough Questions Podcasts, Winter Solstice, Musings on Rhetorical Debate Styles, Ridiculous Marriage Amendment.
My comments: Duane Gish was vice president of the Institute for Creation Research.

Nice listener email on the FLDS members pretending to be truck stop hookers–I like the listener feedback.

Obama opposes same-sex marriage.

On proving a negative, please see this and/or this.

Phoenix-area foreclosures and preforeclosures

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 10:50:00 +0000

October set a new record of 8,503 notices of trustee’s sales in Maricopa County, of which 900 were duplicates of previous notices. The number of pending foreclosures has dropped, as Bank of America cancelled numerous foreclosures after acquiring Countrywide. 3,516 foreclosures were cancelled in October, about double September’s rate.

At the end of October, there were 27,874 pending foreclosures in Maricopa County. (Back in the summer of 2005, the total inventory of homes for sale was around 5,000. Today it’s around ~~50,000~~ 34,000, which obviously has the potential to go much higher.)

Trustee’s sales hit 4,587 in October, up from 4,378 in September.

(Via azcentral.com.)

UPDATE (November 26, 2008): Updated the inventory number to October 21, 2008, which is down from a peak of over 50,000, but which has been climbing back up from a recent low of just under 26,000 at the beginning of August 2008.

White House may be forced to recover "lost" emails

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:33:00 +0000

Lawsuits by the National Security Archive of George Washington University and the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) have won a ruling from a U.S. district court judge that the White House can be forced to recover the five million “lost” emails that were deleted between March 2003 and October 2005. Those emails were required to have been preserved under the Presidential Records Act. Another set of emails from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney from September 30, 2003 to October 6, 2003 were found to be “lost and unrecoverable” by an Office of Administration investigation.

65,000 backup tapes have been preserved as part of the litigation, and those tapes will apparently be available for review to recover some of the five million lost emails.

More details at IntelDaily.

Criminal activity by air marshals

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:23:00 +0000

Looks like the air marshals have a problem similar to the TSA and the Border Patrol:

Shawn Nguyen bragged that he could sneak anything past airport security using his top-secret clearance as a federal air marshal. And for months, he smuggled cocaine and drug money onto flights across the country, boasting to an FBI informant that he was "the man with the golden badge."

Michael McGowan used his position as an air marshal to lure a young boy to his hotel room, where he showed him child porn, took pictures of him naked and sexually abused him.

And when Brian "Cooter" Phelps wanted his ex-wife to disappear, he called a fellow air marshal and tried to hire a hit man nicknamed "the Crucifixer."

Since 9/11, more than three dozen federal air marshals have been charged with crimes, and hundreds more have been accused of misconduct, an investigation by ProPublica, a non-profit journalism organization, has found. Cases range from drunken driving and domestic violence to aiding a human-trafficking ring and trying to smuggle explosives from Afghanistan.

More details at USA Today.

UPDATE (8 March 2015): Another air marshals scandal:

What began as an internal investigation into allegations of harassment and threats stemming from a spat between ex-lovers has expanded into a criminal inquiry focused on the Federal Air Marshal Service’s dispatch hub in Herndon, Virginia. More than 60 federal employees are under scrutiny as investigators look into whether flights considered at risk of hijacking or a terrorist attack were left without marshals on board, sources with knowledge of the investigation told Reveal.

Historical Comments

Sheldon (2008-11-18):

Wow! Thats 36 Federal law enforcment officials who had passsed the background checks to fill those positions, and then went bad, some very bad. Pretty scary when you think about it.
Thanks.

How delusional is John Hinderaker?

Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:52:00 +0000

John Hinderaker of the Powerline blog writes:
Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn’t raise his standards, he will exceed Bush’s total before he is inaugurated.
I find it difficult to imagine the amount of delusion and cognitive dissonance that can produce such a paragraph. George W. Bush is the man whose spoken words have produced multiple books of “Bushisms," and multiple years of “Bushism” calendars with a quotation for every day of the year.

The Sadly No blog responded to this paragraph with a series of YouTube videos vividly depicting Bush gaffes. I prefer this Andy Dick contribution:

ACLU plan for restoring U.S. civil rights

Sun, 09 Nov 2008 03:07:00 +0000

Day one steps are closing Guantanamo Bay, ceasing and prohibiting torture, ceasing and prohibiting extraordinary rendition; steps for the first 100 days include ending warrantless spying, watch lists, the Ashcroft doctrine on FOIA requests, monitoring of activists, the Real ID Act, the abortion gag rule, the death penalty, and faith-based initiatives.

At least one of Obama’s transition teams is, at the very least, reviewing Bush’s executive orders for constitutionality, which covers some elements of the above. Most, however, have been implemented by act of Congress, which will require Congressional action to repeal.

Behind the scenes during the election process

Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:21:00 +0000

Newsweek reports some interesting tidbits from behind the scenes of the election process in both the McCain and Obama campaigns:
Both the McCain and Obama campaigns had computers compromised by “a foreign entity or organization [which] sought to gather information on the evolution of both camps’ policy positions.” And that entity was successful in collecting such data, apparently.
Palin’s shopping spree was more extensive and expensive than has previously been reported: “While publicly supporting Palin, McCain’s top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards.” The spending was allegedly tens of thousands of dollars more than reported.
McCain rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and although she wanted to speak in Phoenix along with McCain for his concession speech, this was vetoed by McCain’s campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt.
The Secret Service reported “a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied."
Palin attacked Obama about his connection to William Ayers before the campaign had finalized its plan about that issue–McCain had not given his approval, and a top advisor was resisting it.
Hillary Clinton was on much better terms with McCain than with Obama, and McCain feared that Hillary Clinton would be named as Obama’s VP, and was glad when he chose Biden.
There are lots of other interesting bits in the article, as well.

Good and bad news on propositions

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:32:00 +0000

Good: Washington joins Oregon in allowing doctor-assisted suicide, South Dakota rejects further abortion limits, Michigan allows medical marijuana and stem cell research, California rejects further abortion limits, Colorado rejects the definition of person as beginning at conception.

Bad: California, Arizona, and Florida ban gay marriage with constitutional amendments, Arkansas bans gay couples from adopting children.

(Results at CNN.)

UPDATE: Ed Brayton notes at Dispatches from the Culture Wars that the California result on gay marriage was evidently due to religious bigotry:
In California, exit polls showed that those who attended church regularly voted against marriage equality 83-17%. Those who attended church only occasionally voted for marriage equality 60-40%. Those who do not attend church at all voted for marriage equality 86-14%.
The same was true in Arizona, where exit polling found that:
Protestants generally supported the measure but that Catholics were fairly evenly divided. Nonreligious voters were solidly against it. … Proposition 102 had slight leads among Whites and among Hispanics.
…
The youngest voters were split for and against, with support for Proposition 102 increasing among voters in older age groups. Voters age 65 or over were solidly for the amendment.
Prop. 102 will ultimately be overturned as the older generation dies off.

Arizona election results

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:05:00 +0000

Arizona will now have a majority of Democratic Representatives in the House, as Rick Renzi is replaced by Ann Kirkpatrick in District 1 in a close race. The other close race is District 5, where Harry Mitchell has defeated David Schweikert. This means the Arizona delegation will be Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl (both Republicans), and Representatives Ann Kirkpatrick (D-District 1), Trent Franks (R-District 2), John Shadegg (R-District 3), Ed Pastor (D-District 4), Harry Mitchell (D-District 5), Jeff Flake (R-District 6), Raul Grijalva (D-District 7), Gabrielle Giffords (D-District 8).

Bad news: Andrew Thomas was re-elected as Maricopa County Attorney, and Joe Arpaio was re-elected as Maricopa County Sheriff. And Arizona went for John McCain as president, though he has graciously conceded to Barack Obama.

Some bad results on the propositions: Prop. 102 is passing, amending the Arizona constitution to ban same-sex marriage, Prop. 101 on medical choice is failing. But there’s also good news: the payday loan industry-backed Prop. 200 is failing (that would add barriers to entry to new payday loan companies, as well as prevent the current payday loan legislation from sunsetting), and Prop. 100’s ban on additional home transfer taxes is passing.

UPDATE (November 5, 2008): Prop. 101 is still too close to call, with “no” votes leading by 2,195 votes (867,924 no, 865,729 yes). There should be a conclusive result tomorrow.

UPDATE (November 6, 2008): Still counting on Prop. 101–it’s now a 2,944-vote lead for no, 887,821 to 884,877.

UPDATE (November 12, 2008): Prop. 101 has been defeated, 961,567 no votes to 950,440 yes votes.

ApostAZ podcast #10

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:03:00 +0000

ApostAZ podcast #10 is out:
Episode 010 Atheism and Dogma-Free Thought in Phoenix! Go to meetup.com/phoenix-atheists for group events! Quiverfull, Innocence, Over-population, Which Came First, Religion or Ignorance? (Some of David’s artwork: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidbessent/), Fear and Dogma, Ignosticism, Priming the Gish Gallop.
There’s some discussion of what the legal standards should be for government prevention of abuses by separatist religious groups like Warren Jeffs’ FLDS group. It’s a tough problem, especially when various child protective agencies themselves have a poor reputation and cause harm themselves. In the FLDS case in Texas, the state raided the FLDS compound on the basis of a hoaxed complaint, adult women were taken and held as minors, and the Texas CPS repeatedly misrepresented the facts to try to justify its actions (links are to several of numerous blog posts by economist David Friedman, who blogged the FLDS situation in detail).

Republicans kicked out of McCain event for not looking right

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:39:00 +0000

From the Iowa State Daily:
Audience members escorted out of Sen. John McCain’s, R-Ariz., campaign event in Cedar Falls questioned why they were asked to leave Sunday’s rally even though they were not protesting.

David Zarifis, director of public safety for the University of Northern Iowa, said McCain staffers requested UNI police assist in escorting out “about four or five” people from the rally prior to McCain’s speech.

Zarifis said while the people who were taken out weren’t protesting or causing problems, McCain’s staff were worried they would during the speech.

“Apparently, they had been identified by those staffers as potential protesters within the event,” Zarifis said.
…
Lara Elborno, a student at the University of Iowa, said she was approached by a police officer and a McCain staffer and was told she had to leave or she would be arrested for trespassing.
…
Elborno said even McCain supporters were among those being asked to leave.

“I saw a couple that had been escorted out and they were confused as well, and the girl was crying, so I said ‘Why are you crying? and she said ‘I already voted for McCain, I’m a Republican, and they said we had to leave because we didn’t look right,’” Elborno said. “They were handpicking these people and they had nothing to go off of, besides the way the people looked.”

Love the War, Neglect the Warrior: McCain's lack of support for veterans

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:33:00 +0000

Amy Silverman’s “Love the War, Neglect the Warrior: His fame’s based on his POW status, but Senator John McCain’s made a point of voting against fellow veterans," tells the story of McCain’s voting record on support for war veterans, and how various veterans’ groups and retired military personnel feel about him:
Most vet special-interest groups decline to officially take sides (even VoteVets hasn’t made a presidential endorsement).

But VoteVets is among many veterans groups to note the discrepancy between John McCain’s talk and his actions.

Otto saves the canal dog

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:30:00 +0000

Last night Otto was barking at something while inside the house. This isn’t unusual, but what was unusual was that he didn’t run out into the backyard to bark. I was trying to get to sleep early in order to deal with 4 a.m. irrigation, and he came upstairs and continued to bark. Kat went outside to see if there was an animal outside (such as a cat that spends a lot of time in our front yard), and heard a dog barking nearby that was too close to be one of the neighbor dogs.

She got a flashlight and went out to find a dog trapped in the Highline Canal, struggling to get out, but the sides were too steep. The dog’s front paws were bloody from the effort. She managed to get a leash around its neck to try to pull him out, but he resisted. She called the Arizona Humane Society to get someone to come take him (and help get him out if we were unable to manage it)–since he’s an injured dog, this was a case they are permitted to deal with. (If a stray dog is over 6 months old and uninjured, Maricopa County Animal Care & Control is the only entity legally permitted to take them.)

I went and got a ladder and put it into the water to see if he could use it to pull himself up, but he just used it to hold himself in place.

When the Arizona Humane Society arrived, they had a dog snare which, combined with the leash, we were able to use to pull the dog to safety. He was dried off and willingly jumped into the kennel on the truck.

The dog had a collar, but no tags. Kat will be putting his photo up on Pets911 this morning.

Thanks to Otto’s barking, this dog avoided the fate of another whose skeleton was pulled out of the canal by our house, in the same location, earlier this year.

Gas station ghost: Captain Disillusion's re-edit

Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:37:00 +0000

“Captain Disillusion” has produced a re-edited version of a news story about a ghost caught on a gas station security camera that is much better than the original.

Historical Comments

Einzige (2008-10-30):

Hilarious!

Economic results by political party

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:19:00 +0000

Here’s a nice set of graphs from the New York Times that shows various economic metrics by President and party majority in the Senate and House of Representatives.

For the budget surplus vs. deficit, there seems to be a benefit to having one party in the presidency and another party in control of Congress. In general, it looks like Republicans in the presidency and the Senate produce bad results…

(Via the Big Picture blog.)

Palin "going rogue"

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:05:00 +0000

There are reports that Sarah Palin is “going rogue” by continually going off message and clashing with key McCain aides. One McCain aide reports:
“She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,” said this McCain adviser. “She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

“Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."
This is not the kind of person who should be in a position of political leadership in a representative democracy–perhaps in a banana republic, but not a first-world nation.

(I do agree with her that “robocalls”–prerecorded political advertisements–are extremely annoying.)

Palin declines to call abortion clinic bombers terrorists

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:54:00 +0000

Sarah Palin says that Bill Ayers counts as a domestic terrorist for setting off bombs, but declines to apply the term to those who set off bombs to blow up abortion clinics:

WILLIAMS: Are we changing – it’s been said that to give it a vaguely post-9/11 hint, using that word that we don’t normally associate with domestic crimes. Are we changing the definition? Are the people who set fire to American cities during the ’60s terrorists in – under this definition? Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under this definition, Governor?

The Constitution-free zone

Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:29:00 +0000

Via the Reason blog: The 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte established an exception to the Fourth Amendment, allowing the federal government to establish roadblock checkpoints within 100 miles of U.S. borders to stop people and search for illegal immigrants and smuggling.

The ACLU notes that 190 million people live within 100 miles of U.S. borders, providing this helpful map. (Although Lake Michigan is entirely within U.S. boundaries, by treaty Canada is allowed full navigation rights to the lake–so it’s not clear if that 100-mile boundary would actually be as in the ACLU’s map around Lake Michigan.)

There are currently 33 checkpoints in operation within the boundary area. Here’s some video footage of one of them in Arizona:

(Via Checkpoint USA, which has numerous videos of interactions at one of these temporary checkpoints.)

Muslim McCain supporter shut down by McCain

Sat, 25 Oct 2008 02:15:00 +0000

Daniel Zubairi, one of McCain’s state leaders for Maryland, stepped forward to publicly criticize a person who was criticizing Obama and claiming that he’s tainted because of a Muslim background. CNN wanted to put Zubairi on air, but the McCain campaign said no.

(Via Daily Kos.)

Scott McClellan is voting for Obama

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 04:45:00 +0000

Former George W. Bush press secretary Scott McClellan says he’s voting for Obama:
“From the very beginning I have said I am going to support the candidate that has the best chance for changing the way Washington works and getting things done and I will be voting for Barack Obama and clapping,” McClellan told new CNN Host D.L. Hughley.

Blatant deception on Arizona Proposition 101

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:59:00 +0000

Arizona ballot proposition 101, the Medical Choice for Arizona amendment, says this:
Be it enacted by the People of Arizona:
1. Article II, Section 36: Constitution of Arizona is proposed to be added as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

ARTICLE II, SECTION 36. BECAUSE ALL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR HEALTH CARE, NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED THAT RESTRICTS A PERSON’S FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OR PRIVATE PLANS OF ANY TYPE. NO LAW SHALL INTERFERE WITH A PERSON’S OR ENTITY’S RIGHT TO PAY DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL MEDICAL SERVICES, NOR SHALL ANY LAW IMPOSE A PENALTY OR FINE, OF ANY TYPE, FOR CHOOSING TO OBTAIN OR DECLINE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE OR FOR PARTICIPATION IN ANY PARTICULAR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OR PLAN.

Religious makeup of the United States

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:25:00 +0000

Good news!

(Via Pharyngula.)

Historical Comments

Reed (2008-10-24):

Those 'None' are better labeled as 'unaffiliated.' But striking nonetheless.

Details from the original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/25cnd-religion.html (may require registration)

City of Phoenix foolishness

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:07:00 +0000

The City of Phoenix’s “notes” newsletter for October 2008 (PDF), which comes with the water bill, features a story on the front page about its Glenrosa Service Center receiving the city’s first LEED Gold certification for its environmentally sound features, like being “build with wood from responsibly managed forests” and possessing “low energy and water use fixtures, non-toxic carpet and paint, energy-saving lighting sensors, native drought-resistant vegetation, dual-pane windows, an under-floor air distribution system and a heat-reflecting roof."

Page two features an announcement that “The APS Fiesta of Light will kick off the city’s holiday activities this season with a long-time tradition–the APS Electric Light Parade.” This parade of “illuminated floats, marching bands, performance units [?] and helium balloons” has a theme of “Preserving a Family Holiday Tradition.” I wonder how many years of the Glenrosa Service Center’s energy savings will be expended this year in preserving that tradition.

The financial crisis via charts and graphs

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:43:00 +0000

Colorado College political science professor David Hendrickson has put together a nice resource at his new “Cause for Depression” blog:
Think of it as a cartoon guide to the ongoing earthquake in the world of high finance. Through pictures, we will try to understand the dimensions of the current financial crisis–its origins and causes, its likely consequences, its potential remedies.

The “Labels” in Blogspot allow us to construct a chapter organization that the reader should approach as she would a book. By hitting on the topics under “Labels,” the presentation will appear in an orderly fashion.

Blogspot is not made for blogbooks, though it is easily adaptable to that purpose. Ordering within each of the chapters depends on time of posting, so my time stamps are not necessarily indicative of the actual time the material was posted. I have altered them to allow for an orderly presentation. If it seems to matter, I will post the date of composition and updates in the entry. The initial foray of posts was made in mid-October 2008.

In seeking to understand the crisis, we need to begin with the credit mechanism. We are living through the bust of one of the greatest credit cycles of all financial history. In order get a handle on the seriousness of the bust, we must register the mania that fed the boom.

We’ll first look at some measures indicative of the financial turmoil. Then we examine general conditioning circumstances: the role of the housing boom and bust, the general growth of credit market debt, the explosion in derivatives, all of which are relevant in considering how much insolvency exists within the financial system. That question–are our financial institutions insolvent?–in turn is vital in assessing the wisdom of various bailouts and rescues, the opportunity costs associated with the government-mandated maintenance of the “FIRE” sector (Financials, Insurance, Real Estate), and how the global imbalances that have marked the last fifteen years are likely to change. I conclude with some lessons. The final entry is a collection of paper topics for interested students to consider.

Where possible, I’ve tried to indicate where readers can find updated sources of information for the material presented here. Given my harsh view of “derivatives,” I’m obliged to say that this compendium is almost entirely derivative. I’m deeply indebted to my blogroll for ideas, inspiration, and many of the charts contained herein.

So, if you’ve read thus far, go now to “Financial Stress” in the “Labels” section.
(Via Financial Armageddon.)

The amount of public and non-public U.S. debt will inevitably come back down, one way or another. I just hope we don’t end up as a third-world nation (or worse yet, multiple third world nations) in the process.

S&P's Enron moment

Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:33:00 +0000

IM conversation between two Standard & Poore’s employees, April 2007, as revealed in testimony before Congress today:
Shannon Mooney: i didn’t really notice…but now that i think about it i kindof tune her out when she talks

Rahul Dilip Shah: well she just is too political…and she doesn’t have anything of substance to say…but keeps thinking that she does.

Rahul Dilip Shah: (I’m done venting now) :)

Shannon Mooney: k go take a nap

Shannon Mooney: see you later

Rahul Dilip Shah: ok

Rahul Dilip Shah: btw - that deal is ridiculous

Shannon Mooney: i know right…model def does not capture half of the rish

Shannon Mooney: risk

Rahul Dilip Shah: we should not be rating it

Shannon Mooney: we rate every deal

Shannon Mooney: it could be structured by cows and we would rate it

Rahul Dilip Shah: but there’s a lot of risk associated with it - I don’t personally feel comfy signing off as a committee member.
(Via the Big Picture blog and The Epicurean Dealmaker. The latter has a pictorial illustration that I like, Mark Tansey’s “The Innocent Eye Test”; the former has links to the transcript.)

Hallucinatory near-death experiences

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:40:00 +0000

Keith Augustine’s “Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences” article on the Internet Infidels website has been updated to reflect its publication as a three-part series of articles in the Journal of Near-Death Studies, where it was published along with commentary from leading researchers of near-death experiences. The online version of the article includes content that was not published in the JNDS due to space considerations.

Keith has done a great job of reviewing the evidence that near-death experiences contain elements that are demonstrably hallucinatory, and therefore not evidence for survival or for consciousness leaving the body.

Bigoted and ignorant McCain/Palin supporters in Ohio

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:58:00 +0000

This is no doubt not a representative cross-section of McCain and Palin supporters, but it’s a disturbingly ugly set of them. It’s fortunate that most of the worst comments are from the older generation–I hope that younger people are less likely to hold such views. McCain has shot down such remarks from supporters when they’ve been made in his presence, to his credit. (And yes, this is from Aljazeera.)

UPDATE: Here are more bigoted McCain and Palin supporters in Johnstown, Pennsylvania:

UPDATE (October 20, 2008): Sarah Palin says if she heard such bigoted comments she’d shut them down:
“What we have heard through some mainstream media is that folks have hollered out some atrocious and unacceptable things like kill him,’ " Palin said, referring to a Washington Post story two weeks ago about angry supporters at a Palin rally in Florida. “If I ever were to hear that standing up there at the podium with the mike, I would call them out on that, and I would tell these people, no, that’s unacceptable."
She goes on to break with McCain by supporting a U.S. Constitutional amendment to oppose gay marriage and claim that “Faith in God in general has been mocked through this campaign, and that breaks my heart and that is unfair for others who share a faith in God and choose to worship our Lord in whatever private manner that they deem fit."

UPDATE (October 21, 2008): And here’s another video, from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (same link provided by Hume’s Ghost in the first comment), of McCain and Palin supporters entering Lehigh University (the school where intelligent design advocate Michael Behe is a professor):

UPDATE (October 22, 2008): And be sure to check out this woman’s reasons for voting for McCain, at the Secular Web.

UPDATE: And more videos of McCain supporters heckling early voters (most of whom were from an Obama rally) in West Virginia.

UPDATE (April 10, 2026): Google seems to think that this calling out of bigoted and ignorant statements from 18 years ago itself constitutes “dangerous or derogatory content” in 2026, which is absurd. These videos are hosted on YouTube, Google’s platform, so if they have a problem with the content they should take down the videos.

UPDATE (April 13, 2026): My request for a review was unsuccessful. Here’s the policy that Google claims is being violated by this 18-year-old blog post in 2026 (a time when the rhetoric has become far, far, worse, including from the president of the United States): “We do not allow content that:
incites hatred against, promotes discrimination of, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization.
harasses, intimidates, or bullies an individual or group of individuals.
threatens or advocates for harm to oneself or others.
relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative, scientific consensus.
exploits others through extortion."
It is absolutely absurd to think that the content of this blog post does any of these things.

TSA airport security is a waste of time and money

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:14:00 +0000

Jeffrey Goldberg explains why in The Atlantic. The check for whether you’re on the no-fly list is at the time of ticket purchase and check-in; there is no validation of your actual ticket against your ID at the TSA checkpoint (you can easily print and use a fake boarding pass at the TSA checkpoint); there is no check of ID when you board the plane. The checks for substances and items at the TSA checkpoint are easily subverted, with the restrictions on liquids probably the most absurd and pointless.

We’re throwing away billions of taxpayer dollars per year on security theater.

(Hat tip to John Lynch.)

(Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.)

A Shared Culture

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 16:30:00 +0000

Jesse Dylan has made a short video about Creative Commons licensing (which is used for the contents of this blog), and how it helps patch the flaws in current copyright law.

Hell House

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 14:05:00 +0000

The Door Christian Fellowship, a creepily cultish Pentecostal Christian sect that’s an offshoot of Aimee Semple McPherson’s Foursquare Gospel Church, is putting on a “hell house” in Chandler. They’re calling it “Hell 101," and, as usual, they are advertising it in a deceptive manner that attempts to hide the fact that it’s religious propaganda. I say “as usual” because not only have they put on such “hell houses” for years around Halloween, they’re also known for advertising events such as Christian rock concerts while conveniently forgetting to mention the “Christian” part.

Such deception has long been associated with Aimee Semple McPherson (1890-1944), who was a fraudulent faith healer, alcohol Prohibitionist, and anti-evolutionist who later in life faked her own abduction in order to run off with her lover, Kenneth G. Ormiston, who had been an engineer for her radio station KFSG in Los Angeles. After disappearing for 35 days, she stumbled out of the desert in Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico, just south of the border from Douglas, Arizona, and told a phony story of kidnapping which quickly fell apart when witnesses came forth who had seen her at a resort in Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. She ended up dying of an accidental drug overdose from taking too many Seconol sleeping pills, but her Foursquare Gospel Church still exists today with over two million members, mostly outside of the U.S. (Interestingly, as a teenager McPherson was an agnostic who defended evolution in letters to the newspaper.)

The Potter’s House, The Door, Victory Chapel, and other Foursquare Gospel spinoff churches are Pentecostal churches that engage in faith healing, speaking in tongues, being slain in the spirit, and other activities of anthropological interest. They can be very hardcore in the pushiness of their evangelism, and engage in cult-like conversion techniques such as separating people from groups they come with, pairing them off with someone of the same approximate age and sex, and bombarding them with rehearsed questions designed to push someone to a conclusion that they need to accept Jesus and join their group. (The Wikipedia page on The Potter’s House describes this particular sect’s origins in Prescott, Arizona in 1970, originally officially affiliated with the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. The Wikipedia biography of its founder, Wayman O. Mitchell, is also of interest. The sect’s origins trace back to Los Angeles, as does the Pentecostal movement in general.)

“Hell 101”’s website calls it “Final Destination III,” and describes the hell house as “a twist on a haunted house style attraction that was described by Phoenix Arizona NBC News Affiliate Channel 12 as ‘scary, horrifying, suspenseful, sick….’ NBC 12 News had a live video feed from our annual event where hundreds waited up to two hours in line to have the hell-scared out of them.” Their FAQ has the question “If I quit because I was scared or anything else can I get a refund?” The “anything else” would include feeling defrauded by having paid money for a haunted house, but getting instead Christian propaganda. The answer: “There are no refunds if you get scared, cry, feel angry, get sick, hate it, love it or just want to run!!! Our job is to confront your senses and that we do!"

A Christian hell house can be quite entertaining, so long as you know what to expect and are prepared to exercise your right to walk away at the end when the attempts at conversion go into overdrive (they may suggest that the doors are locked and that you may not leave). George Ratliff’s documentary film “Hell House” is a great way to get a preview, and shows some of the unintentional comedy that can be produced when a bunch of ignorant people try to put together a scary haunted house designed to persuade you that you’re going to hell unless you believe the way they do. That documentary also shows how ineffectual some atheists can be in their confrontation of Christians, and I highly recommend that anyone planning to visit one of these hell houses for any reason give it a watch before going.

A “hell house” usually follows a common script template which the churches purchase and customize. They go through a writing, casting, and production process similar to a high school stage production. The “hell house” script typically guides a group of visitors through a series of rooms, each of which contains a brief performance by actors portraying some scene that argues for certain practices, beliefs, or actions as likely to terminate with eternity in hell, though that latter point may initially be somewhat subtle. (By the end, it is anything but.)

I attended a hell house at a Potter’s House church in Tucson in 1990, from which the flyer image was obtained. (Also see this PDF of an Arizona Daily Star newspaper story about that particular hell house, which got in trouble with the local fire department for fire code violations.) That hell house followed a female character from scene to scene which included a car crash caused by teenage drinking (featuring an actual wrecked car and empty beer cans), a band of demons playing AC/DC’s “Highway to Hell” (suggesting that at least some rock music is demonic in origin and consequences), and the ever-popular hanging nun in hell (Catholicism is regarded by this sect as ruled by Satan) and young woman on a stretcher with a pool of blood between her legs shrieking that she’s killed her own baby (the anti-abortion segment). At the end, there’s a high-pressure call to Jesus which provides an opportunity to argue with someone who may be something like a street preacher in their skill of providing pre-programmed responses to common objections they’ve heard many times but is unlikely to have actually thought deeply about. If you do choose to visit one of these, I advise not getting involved in such a discussion if you’re somebody who is likely to blow up, call people stupid, or otherwise lose your cool–that’s just going to be seen as confirming evidence that you’re under the control of the devil and anything you say can be dismissed without consideration.

UPDATE (October 31, 2008): New Times has a review of The Door’s “Final Destination III” hell house.

Scott McClellan reviews Oliver Stone's "W"

Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:30:00 +0000

In The Daily Beast:
At best, Stone’s interpretation is educated conjecture. He takes plenty of liberties with the facts, a story-telling strategy he considers justified in order to get at larger truths in a 2-hour movie. As a result, the real-life complexities of the characters and events are left unexplored.
…
Overall, as should be expected from the high-caliber cast, the acting was fabulous. Brolin rightly deserves kudos for his portrayal of Bush. He has the swagger down, and does a decent job on Bush’s voice and gestures. The president’s eating habits were overdone, but not completely off the mark (you will know what I mean when you see the movie). … The most unflattering portrayal was that of Condi Rice, caricatured by Thandie Newton as a mere yes–woman, which is excessively denigrating but not entirely without basis.
There are a number of inaccuracies in the movie, some grounded in Stone’s satirical impulse. (Maybe I was too close to the real-life situations to laugh at those moments.)

A measure for crackpots

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:31:00 +0000

Last night at a party, a few of us were discussing some recent self-published books by crackpots that we’ve seen or had pushed on us. We noted that these books seem to have in common a few features. They seem to often have long rambling introductions that are missing key elements like thesis statements or an indication of what the book is about. They use words in non-standard ways, yet don’t bother to explain how they are being redefined. They claim that the author has some special knowledge, yet don’t provide any reason to believe it is the case.

I had a dim recollection of having come across a “crackpot index” before somewhere, and a little bit of searching yielded Fred J. Gruenberger’s December 1962 publication from the RAND Corporation titled “A Measure for Crackpots” (PDF), which offers the following scoring mechanism for distinguishing the scientist from the crackpot:

1. Public verifiability (12 points)
Scientists promote public verifiability; crackpots rely on revealed truth.

2. Predictability (12 points)
Scientists promote predictability and track their record of failure as well as success; crackpots promote wild predictions and count only successes, not failures.

3. Controlled experiments (13 points)
Scientists promote controlled experiments; crackpots avoid them.

4. Occam’s razor (5 points)
Scientists prefer the simplest explanation that covers all the facts; crackpots enjoy wildly complex theories.

5. Fruitfulness (10 points)
Scientists prefer theories that generate new ideas and new experiments; crackpots prefer theories that produce nothing of value for further research.

6. Authority (10 points)
Scientists seek the endorsement and validation of known authorities and tend to obtain it if their work is valid; crackpots usually fail to obtain it.

7. Ability to communicate (8 points)
Scientists tend to promote clear (if sometimes dull) communications through approved channels; crackpots tend to be incomprehensible and self-published.

8. Humility (5 points)
Humility is a desirable (if sometimes lacking) trait in scientists; it is rare in the crackpot.

9. Open mindedness (5 points)
Scientists tend to qualify and carefully couch their statements as tentative based on the current evidence; crackpots tend to make absolutely certain statements that may not be challenged.

10. The Fulton non sequitur (5 points)
I’m more familiar with this as the “Galileo Gambit,” or the common crackpot claim that “They laughed at Galileo; they’re laughing at me; therefore I’m right just as Galileo was.” Gruenberger uses steamboat inventor Robert Fulton in place of Galileo. This logically invalid argument is refuted by the Bozo rejoinder, which is that “they also laughed at Bozo the clown.” This is a negative test, lack of the characteristic is 5 points, presence is 0.

11. Paranoia (5 points)
Another negative test–crackpots tend to be paranoid about their ideas being actively suppressed by conspiracy.

12. The dollar complex (5 points)
Another negative test. The crackpot claims immeasurable value for his discoveries as revolutionary, worthy of the Nobel prize, and world-changing.

13. Statistics compulsion (5 points)
The crackpot tends to use and continuously explain statistics allegedly supporting his claim, while the scientist tends to use standard methods and assume the reader is familiar with them.

Gruenberger’s index is focused on science crackpots rather than philosophy crackpots, but a number of the above features do apply to the books we were talking about.

A more recent “Crackpot Index," also focused on physics, was created by John Baez, a mathematical physicist at the University of California, Riverside:

Christianity in China

Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:09:00 +0000

The October 4, 2008 issue of The Economist has an interesting article, “Sons of heaven," about Christianity in China, which reports that the official estimate of 21 million Chinese Christians (16 million Protestants, 5 million Catholics) is probably a vast underestimate. The Centre for the Study of Global Christianity estimates that the number is 70 million, while the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, former Communist Party official turned Christian Zhao Xiao, and the China Aid Association all think the number may be as high as 130 million. This is compared to membership in the Chinese Communist Party of 74 million.

The reason for the underestimate is that many Christians in China are unaffiliated with any official church. The government doesn’t allow more than 25 people to meet in a gathering without official permission, so Christians in China have formed thousands of “house churches,” similar to the way Pentecostalism has grown through small groups across South Korea. Just as private meetings in homes were how Christianity spread in Rome, the result has been a proliferation of more and more smaller groups in China. These house churches tend to be unaffiliated with any denomination, with “no fixed liturgy or tradition,” and run by recent converts who themselves are not expert on Christianity.

The article points out that in China, Christianity is not associated with tradition and ritual, but with modernity, business and the market economy (where it’s seen as a necessary check on the market to provide ethics in business), and science. Six of the 30 leaders of the student protests at Tiananmen Square became Christians, and the article states that “One Confucian Chinese says with a rueful smile that most of the pretty girls at university were Christians–and would date only other Christians."

Christianity has spread in China as a result of rural Christians migrating to the cities, and students who travel to the United States and become Christians and then return home.

I look forward to seeing a similar article in the future about the spread of atheism, skepticism, and pro-science groups in the United States through Meetup groups and student groups.

Return of the canal ducks

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:16:00 +0000

As of last Tuesday (October 7), the ducks have returned to the Highline Canal. They left sometime after May 18.

The Economist's poll of economists

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:22:00 +0000

The Economist conducted a poll of 683 research associates of the National Bureau of Economic Research. 142 responded, of whom 46% self-identified as Democrats, 10% as Republicans, and 44% as neither.

80% of respondents, 71% of those who did not identify a political affiliation, and 46% of those who identified themselves as Republicans said that Obama has a better grasp of economics than McCain. (Only 23% of those who identified themselves as Republicans said that McCain had better understanding of economics.)

81% of respondents, 71% of the unaffiliated, and 31% of the Republicans said that Obama will pick a better team of economic advisors to run the country than McCain.

The full results can be found at The Economist’s website.

Prosperity theology created foreclosure victims?

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:56:00 +0000

An article at Time magazine suggests that those following the “prosperity theology” of some Pentecostal ministers are more likely than average to have obtained mortgages they cannot afford, leading to foreclosure:
Has the so-called Prosperity gospel turned its followers into some of the most willing participants – and hence, victims – of the current financial crisis? That’s what a scholar of the fast-growing brand of Pentecostal Christianity believes. While researching a book on black televangelism, says Jonathan Walton, a religion professor at the University of California at Riverside, he realized that Prosperity’s central promise – that God will “make a way” for poor people to enjoy the better things in life – had developed an additional, dangerous expression during the subprime-lending boom. Walton says that this encouraged congregants who got dicey mortgages to believe “God caused the bank to ignore my credit score and blessed me with my first house.” The results, he says, “were disastrous, because they pretty much turned parishioners into prey for greedy brokers."
Yet another case of religious trust being exploited to victimize those who have it.

(Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

Bailout bill bonuses

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:26:00 +0000

The bailout bill has a few extra features:
* Sec. 105. Energy credit for geothermal heat pump systems.
* Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credit.
* Sec. 113. Temporary increase in coal excise tax; funding of Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.
* Sec. 115. Tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration.
* Sec. 205. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.
* Sec. 405. Increase and extension of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax.
* Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
* Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
* Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child tax credit.
* Sec. 503 Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
It also includes tax credits for solar and wind power, a requirement that health insurance companies cover mental health the same way they cover physical health (so look for some huge premium increases on your health insurance).

And during all the bailout bill discussion, Congress quietly authorized another $612 billion defense authorization bill.

(Via The Agitator.)

Bush and Palin anti-intellectualism

Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:44:00 +0000

Radley Balko on Palin’s performance in the VP debate:
Palin was rambling, didn’t answer the questions she was asked, and the folksy stuff felt contrived. I suppose Palin did okay in that she didn’t come off like the train wreck she was in her Katie Couric interview, but Jesus, is that the standard? Is the bar that low for vice president of the United States? That seems to be the way the conventional wisdom is playing out. Oddly, the Couric interview may have actually helped her, then.
Palin seems to have crammed just enough so she could toss out key phrases here and there to give the veneer that she’s informed. But it’s pretty clear she was in way over her head for most of the debate. Pick her apart with follow-up questions, as Couric and Gibson did, and she falls to pieces.

Mexico to try again to decriminalize drug possession

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:37:00 +0000

Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon has sent a proposal to Congress to decriminalize possession of small amounts of heroin, methamphetamine, opium, and marijuana for personal use. This is similar to a proposal that actually passed Congress in 2006 which then-president Vicente Fox said he would sign, but then backed down from after pressure from the United States.

The purpose is to free up police and court resources to go after the major drug gangs, which it would certainly do.

Barney Frank and the financial crisis

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:28:00 +0000

The New York Times, September 11, 2003:

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'" said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
The Washington Post, November 7, 2003:

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the ranking Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said the administration's position is driven by concerns about the financial safety and soundness of the companies "to the exclusion of concern about housing." Committee members were ready to support legislation that would give the Treasury Department oversight of Fannie and Freddie, as the administration has sought, Frank said, not power over the companies' housing activities, which are regulated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Now he seems to have forgotten what he said back then, and the fact that he was encouraging the moral hazard created by the GSEs encouraging and buying up bad loans.

UPDATE: A friend points out this post at the Big Picture blog by Barry Ritholtz arguing that the Community Reinvestment Act and GSEs had nothing to do with the housing bubble. While I think Ritholtz makes some excellent points that demonstrate there were other factors, he doesn't really address the GSE moral hazard issue and he makes this statement that seems to me to offer a striking disconnect from reality:

"The four biggest problem areas for housing (by price decreases) are: Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; Miami, Florida, and San Diego, California. Explain exactly how these affluent, non-minority regions were impacted by the Community Reinvestment Act ?" All of those cities have very large non-affluent minority populations. I'm most familiar with Phoenix, where the housing bubble was marked by expansion of housing into South Phoenix (where I live), Gilbert, Mesa, Queen Creek, Surprise, and other outlying areas around Phoenix which have very large Hispanic populations. Also see my comment below about mortgage broker telemarketing targeting low-income areas of town with minority majorities.

He wants to place the blame on deregulation, but if you need to find a single cause, I think the Fed keeping interest rates too low is a better root cause. My own experience regarding telemarketing showed that there existed regulations that could have been applied to the sleazy telemarketers that simply weren't being enforced. When you have an enforcement problem, all the regulations in the world won't help, in fact adding more regulations is likely to increase the severity of your enforcement problem.

UPDATE (November 21, 2011): Barry Ritholtz argues persuasively that the Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the housing bubble. He also downplays the role for the GSEs, though I think they had a contributory role (which is also what the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded) to play in increasing the size of the bubble--they purchased half of the U.S. mortgage market by 2008, $5.1T in loans, including $90B-$175B/year in subprime and Alt-A between 2002 and 2006. But the above analysis overlooks other important factors including the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the 2004 SEC decision to reduce capitalization requirements on investment banks, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which allowed credit default swaps with little regulatory oversight, and inaccurate credit ratings from the Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations. Wikipedia's entry on "Subprime mortgage crisis" has a good referenced list.

cowmix (2008-10-01):

Jim.. This thread on ask.metafilter.com (which I started) is sort of on topic to your post here..

http://ask.metafilter.com/103119/Did-FannieFreddie-cause-this-mess

FutureKind CD release show

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 02:30:00 +0000

If Einzige and I were not going to be in Pasadena for the Skeptics Society conference, we would be attending the CD release show for FutureKind’s “Surround,” Friday, October 3 at the Last Exit Bar and Grill, 1425 W. Southern Ave., Tempe, AZ 85282. There’s a $5 cover charge and it’s a 21 and over show, and other bands performing are DJ Seduce, Human Mirror, Talk Fiction, and Random Karma.

Here’s FutureKind’s video for their song “Hideaway,” the first song on the new CD:

UPDATE (October 6, 2008): The show apparently went well, and I agree with the New Times reviewer that Thalia’s singing is sometimes reminiscent of Björk.

Another military religious freedom case

Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:36:00 +0000

Dustin Chalker, stationed at Ft. Riley, Kansas, has filed a lawsuit about being forced to attend Christian proselytization events in the military, including a presentation which claimed that Christianity and creationism give life meaning, while evolution and atheism remove hope. The complaint describes this event, which took place at a U.S. military base in England, delivered by Chaplain Christian Biscotti (!) and was approved by Lt. Gen. Rod Bishop (!) who spoke afterward:
Another slide titled “Contrasting Theories of Hope, Ultimate Theories Explaining Our Existence,” has two columns, the first titled “Chance,” and the second “Design,” comparing Charles Darwin, creationism, and religion are also part of a chart comparing the former Soviet Union to the United States, concluding that “Naturalism/Evolution/Atheism” leads to people being “in bondage” and having “no hope,” while theism leads to “People of Freedom” and “People of hope/destiny.” After several more slides like these, the presentation continues with a slide titled “Christian’s Message,” and a slide with an image of a man looking upwards with his hands outstretched and the caption “Please open up both of your hands to receive this powerful tool."
This lawsuit, like that of Jeremy Hall, was filed by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Chaplain Biscotti is a real person, currently stationed at the Joint Warfare Centre in Stavanger, Norway.

(Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

UPDATE (October 18, 2008): Jeremy Hall has withdrawn his lawsuit on the grounds that he will soon be out of the military and suspects the case will be dismissed for lack of standing once he’s out. Chalker’s case continues.

UPDATE (January 7, 2009): Chalker’s suit has been updated and expanded to add further examples of “the noxiously unconstitutional pattern and practice of fundamentalist
Christian oppression” in the military, including the Air Force sponsoring “Team Faith” motocross stunt shows, promoting attempts to convert Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan to Christianity, and the Army’s 2008 manual on suicide prevention, which promotes “religiosity” as a necessary component.

ApostAZ podcast #9

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:28:00 +0000

ApostAZ podcast #9 is out, and it’s something new and different–atheists Brad and Shannon in conversation and debate with evangelical Christian hip-hop artist Vocab Malone and Omri Miles.
Episode 009 Atheism and Evangelism in Phoenix! Go to atheists.meetup.com/157 for group events! What can be euphemistically termed a conversation between two non-believers, an evangelist, and a non-denominational Christian. Guests Vocab Malone and Omri Miles. How long can a civil conversation last? Brad’s brain turns to mush (even more than usual)!
Additional info from Susan Jacoby’s History of American Secularism (great book, buy it!)
There’s an interesting followup exchange between Vocab and Brad at the Phoenix Atheists Meetup Group forum.

The ApostAZ podcast is also now available through iTunes.

I’m looking forward to listening to this one, and may add some commentary here and at the Phoenix Atheists Meetup Group forum when I do.

Google to close Arizona office

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 04:12:00 +0000

Google is closing its office in Tempe, Arizona on November 21. It’s also closing offices in Denver and Dallas.

Alan Eustace, SVP of Engineering & Research, writes at Google’s blog:
At Google, engineering is everything - no great engineers, no life enhancing products, no happy users. So we’ve spent a lot of time structuring our engineering operations to make the most of the exceptional talent that’s available across America - developing local centers that give engineers the autonomy and opportunity to be truly innovative. These principles have served us well as we’ve grown, so when the model fails, it’s doubly disappointing.

We opened our Phoenix office in 2006 and hoped that it would develop to support many of our internal engineering projects, the systems that make Google, well, Google. But we’ve found that despite everyone’s best efforts, the projects our engineers have been working on in Arizona have been, and remain, highly fragmented. So after a lot of soul searching we have decided to incorporate work on these projects into teams elsewhere at Google. We will therefore be closing our Arizona office on November 21, 2008.

We’d like to thank everyone involved in this project for their energy and enthusiasm: our engineers; the engineering community in Arizona; Arizona State University; the city of Tempe; and the greater Phoenix area. We are now working with the Phoenix Googlers to transition them to other locations, or to identify other opportunities for them at Google.
I’ve been expecting to see Google start cutting back on expenses in various ways, as it seems to me that their model of business, with huge per-employee expenses, isn’t sustainable for the long term. Apparently it’s also the case that it’s not cost-effective to put separate engineering centers in many locations–they probably need a critical mass of engineers and profitable projects that they didn’t get here. This is probably good news for other high-tech companies and startups in Phoenix, as those Googlers who wish to stay in the Valley become available talent.

Comparing Obama's and McCain's economic advisors

Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:49:00 +0000

McCain’s economic advisors:
Doug Holtz-Eakin source
Holtz-Eakin is a formerly respected academic and government economist who has been reduced to making distortionary arguments to paper over the massive deficit black hole McCain’s tax cuts would create.

Arthur Laffer source
Laffer is the originator of the Laffer curve, the fringe view that claims government revenue increases when tax rates are lowered. There is zero empirical evidence this is true at current tax rates. McCain has repeatedly said that he believes this foolishness, but Holtz-Eakin has said (also repeatedly) that McCain does not.

Phil Gramm source
Gramm is a lobbyist who was vice president of one of the investment houses most heavily implicated in the mortage industry scandal. As a senator he pushed for the banking deregulation that contributed to the current crisis. See more here.

Kevin Hassett source
Hassett has been widely ridiculed for writing the book Dow 36000: The New Strategy for Profiting from the Coming Rise in the Stock Market in 1999, predicting that the Dow would hit 36,000 within five years, if not sooner.

Donald Luskin source
Luskin has been repeatedly named the Stupidest Man Alive by Brad Delong. See here for an example. I can attest based on my own interaction with him a few years back that in addition to being not the sharpest tack in the box, he is also an extremely unpleasant person.

Nancy Pfotenhauer source
Pfotenhauer is a pure distilled product of Koch Industries, an oil company which funds much of the right wing message machine. See here for details.

Carly Fiorina source
Fiorina was spectacularly fired from her previous job as CEO of HP. According to the Times,
… Republicans say Ms. Fiorina is using the McCain campaign to rebuild her image after her explosive tenure at Hewlett-Packard. They also say it is hard to see why a woman widely criticized for mismanaging one of Silicon Valley’s legendary companies is advising and representing a candidate who acknowledged last year that he did not understand the economy as well as he should.
Regarding Fiorina, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, the senior associate dean for executive programs at the Yale School of Management, says “What a blind spot this is in the McCain campaign to have elevated her stature and centrality in this way. You couldn’t pick a worse, non-imprisoned C.E.O. to be your standard-bearer.”
Obama’s economic advisors:
Jason Furman (director of economy policy) source bio
Austan Goolsbee (senior economic policy advisor), University of Chicago tax policy expert source Wikipedia website
Karen Kornbluh (policy director) source bio Wikipedia
David Cutler, Harvard health policy expert source Wikipedia website
Jeff Liebman, Harvard welfare expert source Wikipedia website
Michael Froman, Citigroup executive source bio
Daniel Tarullo, Georgetown law professor source bio
David Romer, Berkeley macroeconomist source website
Christina Romer, Berkeley economic historian source website
Richard Thaler, University of Chicago behavioral finance expert source Wikipedia

Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio
Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary source Wikipedia bio
Alan Blinder, former Vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve source Wikipedia bio website
Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute labor economist source bio
James Galbraith, University of Texas macroeconomist source Wikipedia website

Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve 1979-1987 source Wikipedia
Laura Tyson, Berkeley international economist, Bill Clinton economic adviser source Wikipedia
Robert Reich, Berkeley public policy professor, former Secretary of Labor source Wikipedia weblog
Peter Henry, Stanford international economist source website
Gene Sperling, former White House economic adviser source Wikipedia
My comment on the Laffer curve–Laffer’s basic point is obviously correct, that there are points at which raising taxes further would cause revenues to decline and points where lowering taxes further would cause revenues to increase (most obviously at a 100% tax rate), but to the best of my knowledge he never did any empirical or mathematical work to show what the Laffer curve actually looks like and what factors play into it. If you don’t know the shape of the curve or where we currently fall on it, you don’t know without testing that raising taxes will reduce revenue or lowering taxes will increase revenue. Factcheck.org looks at the actual effects of some U.S. tax cuts in this regard.

I do think that we can speculate that reducing U.S. corporate taxes (currently the highest in the OECD with the exception of Japan) could increase corporate tax revenue, given Ireland’s experience with just that happening. Multinational companies will do their best to book their profits in the countries with the lowest corporate tax rates, thus increasing the tax revenue in those countries. Of course, there are other factors, such as regulatory environment, cost of labor, risk of litigation, etc.

Sam Harris on Sarah Palin and elitism

Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:50:00 +0000

Sam Harris has a great op-ed piece at Newsweek:
The problem, as far as our political process is concerned, is that half the electorate revels in Palin’s lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country. “They think they’re better than you!” is the refrain that (highly competent and cynical) Republican strategists have set loose among the crowd, and the crowd has grown drunk on it once again. “Sarah Palin is an ordinary person!” Yes, all too ordinary.

Largest corporate bankruptcies in U.S. history

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:51:00 +0000

At Trading Markets is a story about the largest corporate bankruptcies in U.S. history, with the recent Chapter 11 filing of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. at the top of the list.

At #9 on the list is my employer, Global Crossing Ltd., about which the article says:

Hurt by a sluggish demand and declining prices for bandwidth capacity, and burdened by a heavy debt load, telecom company Global Crossing Ltd. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on January 28, 2002. At the time of filing, Global Crossing had $30 billion in assets and $12 billion in debts.

John Morris exposes his ignorance about horse fossils

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:19:00 +0000

Troy Britain gives John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research a thorough debunking regarding his article in the September 2008 issue of the ICR’s Acts & Facts, demonstrating that Morris really has no idea what he’s talking about.

Palin's Christianity

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:18:00 +0000

I’ve previously written to critique claims that Sarah Palin is a Christian reconstructionist or dominionist, or that she’s a young-earth creationist or tried to put creationism in the public schools.

I still stand behind the former argument, but I think there is now some evidence that she is a young-earth creationist and supported Mat-Su Borough School Board candidates who aimed to put creationism in the public schools, but never got a majority on the school board. There’s also now evidence that Palin is an advocate of pushing an allegedly secularized version of principles from Bill Gothard’s Institute in Basic Life Principles, which I previously wrote about here when serial killer Matthew Murray blamed them for his problems.

Palin’s Creationism
David Talbot’s article at Salon.com about Sarah Palin’s clashes with Rev. Howard Bess over his book about how churches should deal with homosexuality contained a passage that stated that she is a young-earth creationist:
Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. “She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board,” said Munger, a music composer and teacher. “I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, ‘Sarah, how can you believe in creationism – your father’s a science teacher.’ And she said, ‘We don’t have to agree on everything.’

“I pushed her on the earth’s creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she’d seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."
Munger said the same thing on his own blog:
In June 1997, both Palin and I had responsibilities at the graduation ceremony of a small group of Wasilla area home schoolers. I directed the Mat-Su College Community Band, which played music, and she gave the commencement address. It was held at her [former -jjl] church, the Wasilla Assembly of God.

Palin had recently become Wasilla mayor, beating her earliest mentor, John Stein, the then-incumbent mayor. A large part of her campaign had been to enlist fundamentalist Christian groups, and invoke evangelical buzzwords into her talks and literature.

As the ceremony concluded, I bumped into her in a hall away from other people. I congratulated her on her victory, and took her aside to ask about her faith. Among other things, she declared that she was a young earth creationist, accepting both that the world was about 6,000-plus years old, and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time.

I asked how she felt about the second coming and the end times. She responded that she fully believed that the signs of Jesus returning soon “during MY lifetime,” were obvious. “I can see that, maybe you can’t - but it guides me every day."
I spoke with Philip Munger by telephone on September 17, hoping to be able to find others who could confirm Palin’s creationist views. Unfortunately, he said that there weren’t other witnesses to his conversation, but he did give me a lot of background information about Palin’s political career. He said that the Wasilla government had been dominated by Democrats until 1994, when it shifted to Republicans and John Stein became mayor. Stein was Palin’s original political mentor, but she decided to run against Stein in 1996, under the tutelage of Alaska State Rep. Victor Kohring, Republican representative from Wasilla, who began a 3.5-year prison term for corruption in July. Munger described Kohring, a member of the Christian Businessman’s Association, as a member of the religious right. Stein, while a Republican, was vulnerable to attack as being not sufficiently conservative, due to the fact that his wife is a pro-choice Democrat who hasn’t taken his last name.

Munger told me that Palin also supported a slate of religious right candidates for the Mat-Su Borough School Board, including Cheryl Turner, who he described as a creationist. But he said that the creationists didn’t win a majority on the school board, and as a result made no attempt to push that agenda.

Munger said that he called in a question to Sarah Palin when she appeared on the Don Fagan program around October of 2006, and he asked her if her views on creationism had moderated since the Dover case. Her response indicated that her views had not changed, and that she had no idea what the Dover case was. Munger offered to explain it to her in detail if she contacted him, but she never did. He said that she didn’t say anything to explicitly endorse creationism, instead resorting to the same tactics suggested by the Discovery Institute of protecting academic freedom, allowing “both” views to be taught, teaching the controversy, etc.

My impression is that Palin is likely a young-earth creationist, but not one who knows much about it or has it high on her agenda for political change. She’s probably smart enough to see that such could be a liability for her future political career and so will avoid questions about it or answer in generalities.

Palin and Bill Gothard
Sarah Posner has a new article at Salon.com titled “Sarah Palin, faith-based mayor." This article points out that the Wasilla City Council passed a resolution in April 2000 at her direction declaring Wasilla to be a “City of Character” and a supporter of the International Association of Character Cities, run by Steven Menzel. This organization promotes a secularized version of the principles from Bill Gothard’s Institute in Basic Life Principles, which is a sort of Christianity-lite cult that promotes the prosperity gospel and a whole lot of craziness like this:
Wives who work outside the home are to be compared to harlots — Bill Gothard

HUD zero down payment mortgages

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:13:00 +0000

Craig Cantoni has pointed out the following January 19, 2004 press release from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:
BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD “ZERO DOWN PAYMENT” MORTGAGE
Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership

LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush’s ongoing effort to help American families achieve the dream of homeownership, Federal Housing Commissioner John C. Weicher today announced that HUD is proposing to offer a “zero down payment” mortgage, the most significant initiative by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade. This action would help remove the greatest barrier facing first-time homebuyers - the lack of funds for a down payment on a mortgage.

EFF sues the NSA, Bush, Cheney, Addington, etc.

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:06:00 +0000

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed Jewel v. NSA to try another tactic in stopping unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping of U.S. residents. Their previous lawsuit against AT&T, Hepting v. AT&T, is still in federal court as the EFF argues with the government over whether the telecom immunity law passed by our spineless Congress is itself constitutional or applicable to the case.

Jewel v. NSA names as defendants the National Security Agency, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and “other individuals who ordered or participated in warrantless domestic surveillance.”

Drugs in drinking water are controlled substances

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:57:00 +0000

In another amusing unintended consequence of the war on drugs, it turns out that the pharmaceuticals most likely to get disposed of into city water supplies are controlled substances. The restrictions on who has access to over 365 controlled substances are such that they can’t be disposed of via normal hazardous waste disposal methods such as incineration, due to the costs of maintaining the controls on contractors who handle and haul away drugs for disposal.

As a result, hospitals and assisted living facilities are dumping drugs like codeine, morphine, oxycodone, diazepam (e.g., Valium) and methylphenidate (e.g., Ritalin) down the drains, behind locked doors with a witness to the disposal for record-keeping purposes.

The DEA is reportedly working out some modified regulations with the assistance of the EPA.

Sarah Palin and the John Birch Society

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:49:00 +0000

Orcinus has an interesting article about Sarah Palin, prompted by the finding of a 1995 photograph of Palin at her Wasilla city council desk with an article from the March 1995 issue of the John Birch Society’s New American in front of her. Ben Smith at Politico has a more balanced piece on the same subject, which points out that there were lots of copies of that particular article sent out, and that Birchers themselves don’t appear to be particularly impressed with Palin.

Government restriction on short sales may have unintended consequences

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:47:00 +0000

A lot of my investments are in S&P 500 index funds, which, until the recent dive by financial institutions, included financial stocks as its largest sector of investment (finance is now third after energy and IT). Over the past couple years, I’ve held shares in the Prudent Bear Fund (BEARX), a mutual fund that uses a strategy of shorting various stocks, purchasing put options, and investing in gold, as well as making some short-term trades of the exchange-traded funds ProShares UltraShort S&P 500 (SDS), which goes up when the S&P 500 goes down, and ProShares UltraShort Financial (SKF), which goes up when the Dow Jones U.S. Financials Index (DJUSFI) goes down.

I had been holding some shares of SKF for a couple weeks with a 30-day limit order to sell at $142, which would give me a nice profit. When it shot up Thursday, I upped my limit, and ended up selling some of my shares at over $150, and closing out my position. The market then reversed, and SKF dropped as low as $110, so I picked up a few more shares at around $117. Friday morning, SKF dropped to $87 and started to climb back up, when all of a sudden it stuck at $93 and no more trades went through. Trading was halted.

The SEC announced a “temporary emergency action” to ban short selling in 799 stocks of financial companies for the next ten business days (until the end of the day on October 2), which may be extended for up to another twenty business days (until the end of the day on October 31, bringing us right up to the election). The UK instituted a similar ban. Because of this ban, trading in SKF was temporarily halted. The SEC seems to be under the illusion that short sellers are responsible for the stocks of financial companies falling, rather than the fact that these companies have been engaging in risky behavior and are now loaded down with bad debt.

But a short time later today, trading in SKF resumed, after ProShares announced that they cannot accept orders to create new shares in the fund, since that would require taking new short positions in financial stocks, but those who hold existing positions are still permitted to trade them.

This effectively turns SKF into a closed-end fund, making SKF shares more scarce than they otherwise would be. When I saw that SKF was again trading, I bought more shares at $90, reasoning that the financial problems are far from fixed, the proposed government action is likely to be full of holes, and with normal routes to short selling closed, more of those who wish to hedge their bets against further drops in the financial sector will turn to other alternatives such as put options (though options markets are likely to be hurt by this ban as well, since the U.S., unlike the UK, didn’t make an exception for options market makers) or shares in funds like SKF, the latter of which they will only be able to purchase from existing holders of the fund.

It’s a serious mistake to think that short selling is something solely done by vultures trying to destroy companies at risk–it’s a defensive measure against catastrophe for those who are mostly holding long-term investment positions.

An Associated Press story on the ban shows that the SEC is starting to recognize that it may cause some unintended problems:

Iraq peace: surge working, or results of ethnic cleansing?

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 15:27:00 +0000

Reuters reports that nighttime satellite photos from Sunni Arab areas of Baghdad show that the lights in those areas began to go out before the U.S. troop surge began in 2007, suggesting that population shift, rather than the surge, may have had greater responsibility for the drop in violence.

Sarah Palin's Yahoo account hacked

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:07:00 +0000

Sarah Palin has apparently been using a personal email account for State of Alaska business (perhaps following Republican precedent on how to avoid subpoenas?), and it’s been compromised.

Wikileaks has the documents.

UPDATE (September 19, 2008): The screenshots used by the attacker showed that he used ctunnel as his web proxy, and contained enough information to identify his source IP in ctunnel’s logs.

As pointed out by commenter Schtacky, it looks like they’ve identified the culprit, who used some Google research and Yahoo’s password recovery feature to change the password on the account to break in.

This shows the problem with choosing “security questions” for password recovery that have answers which are easily publicly available.

I hope that this kid’s actions don’t sabotage the corruption case against Palin that may have been supported by evidence in her Yahoo email, evidence that is now tainted by the fact that it was compromised (and subsequently deleted).

The Religious Right's Religious Right

Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:04:00 +0000

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars discusses those right-wing Christians who oppose Sarah Palin because God doesn’t want women to hold leadership positions or even vote.

He lays out some choice quotes from Covenant News, the website promoting these extreme views, and observes that this website is the home to contributors such as Gary North and Ron Paul.

Cindy McCain's drug-related crimes

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:59:00 +0000

Radley Balko at The Agitator replies to Jennifer Rubin at Commentary about why the Washington Post’s coverage of Cindy McCain’s addiction to painkillers and commission of crimes to support it is newsworthy.

Balko gives two reasons:
John and Cindy McCain have touted her addiction an example in overcoming adversity. That presents quite the contrast to McCain’s legislative history as an ardent drug warrior. People accused of crimes similar to those Cindy McCain was accused of committing usually go to prison (even when they’re innocent). Her crimes haven’t been well-reported in the media. And they show how John McCain (who, by the way, is running for president) believes in one set of rules for the friends and family of powerful politicians, and a different set of rules for everyone else.
While Cindy McCain’s addiction and theft from her children’s charity to support that addiction were lightly covered at the time, there has yet to be much coverage of it at all during this campaign. And one aspect of the case that’s been covered even less is John and Cindy McCain’s attempt to railroad Tom Gosinski, the guy who blew the whistle on Cindy McCain’s theft from her children’s charity. The Post story is one of the first to get his version of what happened.

And Balko concludes:

McCain and Palin lie about factcheck.org

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:14:00 +0000

A McCain-Palin ad cites factcheck.org to claim that Obama has made false attacks on Palin–but the attacks haven’t come from Obama. McCain and Palin are appealing to factcheck.org’s accurate content in order to lie about Obama, and factcheck.org calls them on their dishonesty.

Palin falsely claims Alaska produces 20% of U.S. energy

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:30:00 +0000

Sarah Palin said in an interview with Charlie Gibson that Alaska “produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy."

Not true.

Alaska produces 14% of the oil from U.S. wells (not 14% of oil consumed), produces 3.5% of domestically produced U.S. energy, about 2.4% of U.S. energy consumed.

McCain repeated the same falsehood to Gibson, saying “[Palin’s] been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America’s energy supply."

(Via factcheck.org.)

If they keep repeating this claim, they are liars. There’s already good evidence that they are bullshitters.

Walking with the Dinosaurs

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:37:00 +0000

Kat and I went last night to see “Walking with Dinosaurs” at the U.S. Airways Center in Phoenix. It was a visually impressive show–they did a great job on the dinosaurs, which were quite realistic in appearance and movement, with only minor distractions. The smaller dinosaurs were operated by a person inside, whose legs were partially visible since a human’s legs don’t fit into the shape of the dinosaur’s legs. The larger dinosaurs were each mounted on some kind of flat long vehicle that was colored to match the floor, but was still visible.

The music was loud and somewhat bombastic, the kind of stirring movie soundtrack music that can be sometimes irritating–but not as much so as the typical Phoenix Suns intro that regularly happens at the same location. The dinosaurs movements involved very limited interactions with each other–only occasionally so much as touching each other–which made the “battles” more of a suggestion than a depiction. No doubt this was to avoid damaging some expensive dinosaurs.

The production was narrated by an actor playing “Huxley” the paleontologist, who walked around on the floor with the dinosaurs, describing the historical context with the help of video projected onto several screens. The arena itself was encircled by inflatable plant life that “grew” and “died” at the appropriate times. Some lighting and smoke effects also contributed to the atmosphere, for fires, volcanos, and the comet theory of the K-T mass extinction. Some other props included some giant rocks which were also used to represent the continents, and a big ball of dinosaur poop (one of several kid-pleasing elements that I also appreciated).

It was definitely a bit more on the entertainment side of “edutainment” than the education side. Although the script tried to convey the timescales involved, it didn’t try very hard–some visual analogies on the video screen might have helped. It explained the difference between fossils of dead animals and trace fossils that show evidence of how they lived, but made no attempt to talk about the geological strata or how we know the enormous ages involved. It didn’t, to my mind, do much of anything to try to proactively counter young-earth creationist nonsense about the dinosaurs.

And that was a pity, because as we left the arena, we were confronted by young-earth creationists from the Arizona Origin Science Association handing out copies of Ken Ham’s booklet, “What REALLY Happened to the Dinosaurs?” I heard one gentleman come back and ask for another copy, saying “my brother[-in-law?] is an evolutionary biologist, and I want to give him one.” I hope that man’s relative takes the time to rebut it.

There are some photos and video of “Walking with Dinosaurs” at Brian Switek’s Laelaps blog, along with his description of the show.

August's Notices of Trustee's Sales

Sun, 14 Sep 2008 13:17:00 +0000

As Jim pointed out here, Maricopa County saw another record month for pre-foreclosures - though AZ Central’s count is different than mine. I can only tell you what I get from the recorder’s office (which was 7286).

<img style=“display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;” src="/images/08AugNTRs.jpg" border=“0” alt=““id=“BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5245866439526765986” />

Candidate charitable contributions

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 22:33:00 +0000

USA Today reports that the Biden family has given $3,690 to charity over the last decade, an average of $369 per year, on “modest” income that has ranged from a low of $210,797 in 1999 to a high of over $320,000 in 2005. Last year, they gave $995 on income of $319,853 (0.3%), their highest giving rate of the decade.

A 2005 study of households with incomes from $200,000 to $500,000 per year shows average charitable giving of $40,746 per year.

John McCain has given $202,000 to charity in the last two years, about 25% of his income–but of course he is married to a very wealthy woman who earned more than $6 million in 2006. Last year he gave $105,467 (half of what he and his wife donated as a couple) on income of $405,409, which would be more impressive if it weren’t just an even division of their reported expenses reported without the comparison figure of her income.

The Obamas gave $240,000 to charity last year on income of more than $4.2 million (5.7%). In 2000, they gave $2,350 to charity on income of $240,726 (1%).

Palin’s tax data hasn’t yet been released. There may be some tax problems lurking in her records.

John McCain’s personal charitable giving appears quite generous, but it’s somewhat less so considering his wife’s much higher separate income and my suspicion that she effectively subsidized his charitable giving as the chief breadwinner and provider. The Obamas were very generous last year, but not so much in 2000. The Bidens, not at all generous. This seems to lend further support to the thesis that conservatives are more generous with their own money than liberals.

My feeling is that most professionals earning six-figure incomes should be able to give 5-10% of their gross income to charitable causes without much trouble. The average figures for those earning $200,000 to $500,000 strike me as just about right.

(UPDATE, 17 May 2021): The Bidens’ 2020 tax returns show much more generous charitable contributions:

The Bidens donated $30,704 to 10 charities last year. The largest gift was $10,000 to the Beau Biden Foundation, a nonprofit focused on child abuse that is named after the president’s deceased son.
But that’s on $607,336 in income, so it’s just over 5%. Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff gave just under 1.6%:

Virginia Supreme Court strikes down anti-spam law

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:22:00 +0000

Spammer Julian Jaynes now gets off as a result of a bad decision from the Virginia Supreme Court, reversing its own previous decision from six months ago.

The court ruled that the Virginia anti-spam law’s prohibition of header falsification constitutes an unconstitutional infringement of the right to anonymous political and religious speech, suggesting that it would have been acceptable of it was limited to commercial speech.

The court’s decision was predicated on the assumption that header falsification is a necessary requirement for anonymity, but this is a faulty assumption. All that is needed for anonymity is the omission of identity information that leads back to an individual, not the falsification of headers or identity information. That can be done with remailers, proxies, and anonymously-obtained email accounts, with no header falsification required. I previously made this argument in more detail in response to the arguments given by Jaynes’ attorney in the press.

I also disagree with the court’s apparent assumption that commercial speech is deserving of less protection than religious or political speech. What makes spam a problem is its unsolicited bulk nature, not its specific content.

Foreclosures hit a record high

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:47:00 +0000

CNN reports:
Foreclosures hit another record high in August: 304,000 homes were in default and 91,000 families lost their houses.
More than 770,000 homes have been repossessed by lenders since August 2007, when the credit crunch took hold.
The report from RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosures properties, is the latest in string of bad news for housing.
Foreclosure filings of all kinds, including notices of defaults, notices of auctions and bank repossessions, grew 12% in August over July, and 27% compared with August 2007.

Palin collected per-diem from Alaska while at home

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:57:00 +0000

Yahoo reports:
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has charged her state a daily allowance, normally used for official travel, for more than 300 nights spent at her home, The Washington Post reported Tuesday.

An analysis of travel statements filed by the governor, now John McCain’s Republican running mate, shows she claimed the per diem allowance on 312 occasions when she was home in Wasilla and that she billed taxpayers $43,490 for travel by her husband and children.
Per diem payments are meant for meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business. State officials told The Post her claims — nearly $17,000 over 19 months — were permitted because her “duty station” is Juneau, the capital, and she was in Wasilla 600 miles away.

Sex education reduces abortion rates

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:08:00 +0000

This doesn’t seem terribly surprising, but Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars points out a New York Times op-ed piece that observes that the U.S. ties with Hungary for most abortions among OECD nations, even though Denmark has the most sexually active teenage girls. Denmark’s teenage birthrate is 1/6 of the U.S.’s, and its abortion rate is 1/2 of the U.S.’s. The Netherlands has a teenage birthrate 1/7 of the U.S.’s, and an abortion rate 1/7 of the U.S.’s, and its teenagers start having sex on average two years after U.S. teens. The difference is that Denmark and the Netherlands have comprehensive sex education, while the U.S. has been pushing abstinence-only education that doesn’t work, and about half of U.S. states now reject federal funding for abstinence-only sex education for that reason.

Factcheck.org on bogus Palin claims

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 04:22:00 +0000

Factcheck.org has a section up on “Sliming Palin." Check it before forwarding on emails, and reply to the authors who are spreading falsehoods.

Palin didn’t cut Alaska’s “special needs” education budget by 62% (she tripled it), she didn’t ask for any books to be banned, she was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party (though her husband was), she didn’t endorse Patrick Buchanan for president in 2000 (she wore a Buchanan button as a courtesy when Buchanan visited Wasilla, but worked for Steve Forbes’ campaign), and she hasn’t tried to put creationism in schools.

UPDATE (September 16, 2008): Apparently one of the books that Palin had inquired about how to challenge and remove from the library was a book by a local Palmer, AK pastor named Rev. Howard Bess titled, Pastor, I am Gay. It does appear that there were some particular books that caught her attention which is why she made the inquiry.

UPDATE (September 16, 2008): Philip Munger of Wasilla says that Palin is definitely a young-earth creationist:
In June 1997, both Palin and I had responsibilities at the graduation ceremony of a small group of Wasilla area home schoolers. I directed the Mat-Su College Community Band, which played music, and she gave the commencement address. It was held at her church, the Wasilla Assembly of God.

Palin had recently become Wasilla mayor, beating her earliest mentor, John Stein, the then-incumbent mayor. A large part of her campaign had been to enlist fundamentalist Christian groups, and invoke evangelical buzzwords into her talks and literature.

As the ceremony concluded, I bumped into her in a hall away from other people. I congratulated her on her victory, and took her aside to ask about her faith. Among other things, she declared that she was a young earth creationist, accepting both that the world was about 6,000-plus years old, and that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time.

I asked how she felt about the second coming and the end times. She responded that she fully believed that the signs of Jesus returning soon “during MY lifetime,” were obvious. “I can see that, maybe you can’t - but it guides me every day."
Surely there must be other witnesses besides Munger to her creationist views who can provide confirmation.

ASU WebDevil article on FFRF billboards

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:51:00 +0000

Christina Caldwell has written a thoughtful and positive piece on the FFRF billboards in Phoenix for Arizona State University’s student newspaper online.

Post-Mormon billboard in Gilbert

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:44:00 +0000

A “You are not alone” billboard promoting a group for people who have left the Mormon religion is up in Mesa, put up by Paul Hahn of www.postmormon.org.

Unlike usual anti-Mormon proselytizing, this group isn’t promoting evangelical Christianity–it’s religiously neutral, and its website includes comments about Richard Dawkins’ “Root of All Evil,” the film “Jesus Camp,” and a debate between Rev. Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens, along with criticisms of Mormonism based on DNA evidence and the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which are good rational reasons not to believe in the religion.

ApostAZ podcast #8

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:37:00 +0000

ApostAZ podcast #8 is out:
Episode 008 Atheism and Sam Kinnison!!! in Phoenix- Go to atheists.meetup.com/157 for group events! Discussion of Matthew 10:10’s Energeticism. (Matt: you have an open invite to be on the show and discuss it) Basics of Evolutionary Psychology. http://www.mixx.com/s… Billboards and Photos.
This is really #9, and #8 is the “lost” podcast, thanks to the burglary of Brad’s home and theft of his computer.

My comments on energeticism may be found at the Phoenix Atheists Meetup Group message board. I’ve got a copy of Matthew’s book but haven’t been able to get past the first chapter.

RIP Chester William Anderson

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:09:00 +0000

The Arizona Republic has published this obituary:
Chester William Anderson passed away at age 97 on August 19, 2008, following a brief illness. Beloved husband of the late Laurel R. Anderson, he is survived by three children : Kelly (Will) Momsen, Barbara Anderson and Bob (Jannie) Anderson. He was blessed with five grandchildren : Bill (Lara) Momsen, Kirsten (Rob) Carr, Rick Momsen, Laura (David) Meehan and David (Marnie) Momsen. He is further survived by six great-grandchildren. He was born in Burlington, Iowa, to Charles and Hulda Anderson on February 6, 1911 together with siblings Carl Anderson, John Robert Anderson and Mildred Anderson. He graduated from Iowa State University in 1934. After working at Standard Oil of Indiana and Ordnance Steel Foundry, he became Executive Vice-President of Associated Industries of the Quad Cities. After 7 years, his family moved to Milwaukee where he became the President of Management Resources Assoc. of Milwaukee, an organization dedicated to providing information to employers in the area of labor/management. He retired after 26 years and moved to Phoenix in 1980. During his illustrious career, he was Chairman of the Illinois Industrial Council, the Wisconsin Industrial Council and the National Industrial Council’s Industrial Relations Group. He was a Founding Board Member of the Council on a Union-Free Environment (Washington DC) and a lifetime member of the Foundation for Economic Education. He was Chairman and Board Member for the Institute for Humane Studies (Arlington, Virginia) and a lifetime Member of the Mont Pelerin Society of Economists, an international society of top economic thinkers. Among his proudest accomplishments was the creation of the Milwaukee Forum, a discussion group of business and professional leaders and educators who met with nationally known speakers on a quarterly basis. In Phoenix, he created the Economics Discussion Group in 1982 which continues to meet to this day. Other than his devotion to family, his greatest love was liberty and promoting the concept through education. With this in mind, memorial gifts to the Institute for Humane Studies (3301 Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA, 22201) are suggested in lieu of flowers. Memorial at Sunland Memorial Park September 7th at 2 PM.
I met Chet Anderson around 2001 when I joined his Economics Discussion Group, after learning of it at a reception for the Institute for Humane Studies. (I attended several IHS seminars and received IHS fellowships during grad school.) Chet was personally acquainted with many prominent figures in classical liberal and libertarian circles, including F.A. “Baldy” Harper (founder of IHS, on whose board Chet sat), Ludwig von Mises (Chet attended some of his lectures), Milton Friedman, Leonard Read (founder of the Foundation for Economic Education), and Ayn Rand (Chet once had lunch with her).

Chet always seemed positive and optimistic every time I spoke with him, and he remembered and asked about details of my life each time I met him, right up to the last meeting I saw him at a few months ago. His mind seemed clear and sharp even then, though I know he had a stroke in the weeks before he died and was unable to speak to a friend who visited him in the hospital.

At and after today’s memorial service, many people spoke of Chet’s optimism, his love for ideas and liberty, and his willingness to engage in courteous and patient discussion with anyone. He was an advocate for liberty and freedom who has done much to promote those ideas around the world, and I’ve gained much from my participation in the group he started 26 years ago.

Dirty Politician: Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY)

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:15:00 +0000

Long-time drug warrior politician Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) turns out to be a dirty politician. As Radley Balko of The Agitator puts it:
…the chair of the House Committee that writes our tax laws didn’t know that he’d been given an interest-free loan for a luxury Caribbean Villa, didn’t know that he was getting taxable income off of rentals from said villa, and didn’t know that he had a duty to report and disclose and report the $75,000 in income from said rentals that apparently slipped his notice?
Riiii-iiiight. This would be the same guy who didn’t know how he somehow was able to accumulate four rent-controlled apartments in New York City, and didn’t know about laws against using rent-controlled apartments for purposes other than a primary residence.

Ian McShane narrates McCain: Reformed Maverick

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:50:00 +0000

The Daily Show has outdone itself with this one.

UPDATE (September 8, 2008): The part about McCain crashing five planes isn’t true.

FFRF billboards are up

Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:31:00 +0000

A group of us from the Phoenix Atheists Meetup had lunch today near one of the billboards and used the occasion for a photo op. This is one of the five billboards, which, contrary to my earlier descriptions, are all of the “Imagine No Religion” design. Too bad, I would have liked to have seen the “Beware of Dogma” design up, as well as the “Keep Religion Out of Politics” slogan. (If I obtain permission, I’ll update this photo with one of the group shots, which can be seen at the Phoenix Atheists Meetup site.)

There’s some additional coverage in Ed Montini’s column at the Arizona Republic.

Cocaine plane was used by CIA

Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:08:00 +0000

The Gulfstream II jet that crashed in Mexico last year with 3.7 tons of cocaine on board was frequently used by the CIA to fly terror suspects to Guantanamo Bay, and may have also been used for “extraordinary rendition” flights to CIA prisons overseas, as well as for Bush fundraisers. Donna Blue Aircraft, the company the plane was registered to, took down its website yesterday.

(Via The Agitator.)

Bobcats taking over foreclosed homes

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:57:00 +0000

See the story at BLDGBLOG. (Thanks for the link, Reed!)

Pundits are more honest when they think they're off the air

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 02:47:00 +0000

Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy say what they really think about Sarah Palin. Why couldn’t they be honest about it on the air?

Historical Comments

Hume's Ghost (2008-09-05):

"Why couldn't they be honest about it on the air?"

Because they're partisan hacks. Which is why our "news" networks need to quit using so many spinsters and political operatives for analysis and commentary.

CNN finally does its job

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:42:00 +0000

Campbell Brown at CNN shows what a reporter is supposed to do when questioning the representative of a political candidate–insist that they actually answer the questions asked in a meaningful way. After this interview with McCain representative Tucker Bounds, McCain cancelled an interview with CNN in response to what he viewed as unreasonable behavior.

(Via Juan Cole.)

Sarah Palin, promoter of pork barrel spending

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:08:00 +0000

Before Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the town received no federal funds. As mayor, she hired the Anchorage law firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, to help the town obtain federal funds. The Wasilla account was handled by Steven W. Silver, a partner in the firm and former chief of staff to indicted-for-corruption Sen. Ted Stevens, who helped secure $67 million in federal earmarks for the town of 6,700 residents–$4,000 per person.

(Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

Palin has stood up to corruption, blowing the whistle on unethical behavior by the chairman of the Alaska Republican Party despite taking a lot of heat for it. But she’s also gotten into some trouble of her own, and it almost seems that she fell into her anti-corruption role by accident.

A description of Palin from her fellow Wasilla, Alaska resident Anne Kilkenny is well worth reading. (Kilkenny is also quoted regarding Palin in this New York Times story.) For further perspective, here’s another close-up view of Palin as she’s seen in Alaska.

UPDATE (September 4, 2008): As governor of Alaska, Palin asked for $550 million in earmarks in her first year in office, and for 31 federal earmarks totaling $198 million so far this year. Oink!

John McCain has long been a critic of earmarks. Turns out he has specifically been critical of earmarks requested by Sarah Palin.

Misinformation about Google's Chrome EULA

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:46:00 +0000

Adam Frucci at Gizmodo writes:
So, are you enjoying the snappy, clean performance of Google Chrome since downloading yesterday? If so, you might want to take a closer peek at the end user license agreement you didn’t pay any attention to when downloading and installing it. Because according to what you agreed to, Google owns everything you publish and create while using Chrome. Ah-whaaa?
This is false. The EULA doesn’t transfer ownership of anything. The provision that has everyone upset is the rather broadly worded provision 11.1:
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
Note that the very first sentence says that you retain all intellectual property rights. This gives Google the rights to do the things it already does–let other people play YouTube videos you upload, syndicate your Blogger content, store cached versions of your web pages, allow people to see versions of your web pages translated into other languages, display thumbnails of images on your web pages in Google Images search, and so forth. The last sentence appears to limit it solely for the purpose “to display, distribute and promote the Services” and not allow them to, say, use your content in order to compete with you, undermine your intellectual property rights, etc.

An earlier provision in the EULA also makes this explicit:
9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf.
So even if 11.1 is a bit too broad, there’s this provision to fall back on if you feel your intellectual property rights are being infringed.

Some commenters at Gizmodo said that they didn’t agree with this provision and therefore have uninstalled the software, but that’s not sufficient to terminate this agreement. Terminating the agreement requires you to give notice to Google in writing and close all of your accounts with them:
13.2 If you want to terminate your legal agreement with Google, you may do so by (a) notifying Google at any time and (b) closing your accounts for all of the Services which you use, where Google has made this option available to you. Your notice should be sent, in writing, to Google’s address which is set out at the beginning of these Terms.
One thing that is clear from these terms is that Google definitely wants to interpose itself between user and content in a manner similar to what Microsoft has done for years with Windows, and in a much stickier way than telecom providers are between user and content. If you have network neutrality concerns about telecom providers or had antitrust concerns about Microsoft’s bundling of the Internet Explorer web browser with Windows, you should probably have similar concerns about Google, given the way use of its browser is bundled with an EULA covering all of its services. Shouldn’t I be able to discontinue this EULA by getting rid of the browser, and not by terminating all of my accounts with Google? Will there be a lawsuit about unbundling the Google Chrome browser from the rest of its services?

UPDATE: Ars Technica reports that Google says this was an error and they will be correcting the license, which was borrowed from other Google services, apparently without careful review. It also notes that since Chrome is distributed under an open license, users can download the source code and compile it themselves without being bound by the agreement.

The major flaw in the 11.1 language is that it gives Google the right to publish content you merely “display” in the browser, even if it’s private content on a local server or restricted content from a secured website. That clearly wasn’t their intent, but that’s an implication of how it was written.

Palin Christian heritage declaration misquotes, misrepresents

Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:52:00 +0000

Last year, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declared “Christian Heritage Week” in Alaska from October 21-27, 2007, with a proclamation that misquoted and misrepresented various Founding Fathers, at least two of whom would have opposed just such a proclamation (Jefferson and Madison).

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars steps through her proclamation and corrects the misinformation.

tom (2008-09-02):

Andrew Sullivan had these up as well:

Justifying her position on the Alaskan pipeline:
"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that."

On Iraq:
for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan.

On the Pledge:
Q: Are you offended by the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
PALIN: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

I can't imagine that this is going to help McCain's numbers with independents.

Palin lies about the bridge to nowhere

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:11:00 +0000

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars shows that McCain’s VP nominee, Sarah Palin, didn’t take long to utter her first falsehood as candidate. Near the beginning of her acceptance speech, she said:
And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress – I told Congress, “Thanks, but no thanks,” on that bridge to nowhere.
(APPLAUSE)

If our state wanted a bridge, I said we’d build it ourselves.

Left-wing conspiracy theories

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:27:00 +0000

Conspiracy theorists like to make arguments of the form “A is linked to B, B is linked to C, therefore A and C are in cahoots,” where the links between each entity may be extremely tenuous.

P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula, following dogemperor at the DailyKos, maintains that “Sarah Palin’s home church is dominionist, with connections to Joel’s Army,” for which the evidence dogemperor provides is the following:
A look at the home website of Palin’s church tends to be revealing. Among other things, a particular Assemblies buzzword associated frequently with Hillsong A/G and New Zealand Assemblies churches shows up (“Destiny”, here, is a buzzword for “Joel’s Army”, and is being preferred even as the phrase “Joel’s Army” is getting enough negative spin that even the Assemblies is now having to do some rather massive spin control); cell churches are promoted (of the same sort that are linked to short-term and longterm psychological damage and are among the most coercive tactics ever documented in spiritually abusive groups). The church, like a number of other large Assemblies churches, is the center of a dominionist broadcast TV center whose programming is carried across multiple channels in Alaska.

Bank set up on Christian principles fails

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:41:00 +0000

Integrity Bank of Georgia, set up to run on Christian principles, has failed.
Integrity’s employees regularly prayed before meetings or in branch lobbies with customers, while the bank gave 10 percent of its net income to charities.
“We felt if we prayed and obeyed God’s word and did what He asked, that He would help us be successful,” the bank’s founder, Steve Skow, told the Journal-Constitution in 2005.
The executives seem to have done OK, though:
CEO Steve Skow earned $1.8 million that year, while senior lender and executive vice president Doug Ballard earned $847,222. A typical community bank CEO, banking consultants said, earn roughly $300,000 per year.
(Via Pharyngula.)

RNC protesters getting similar treatment as DNC protesters

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:39:00 +0000

P.Z. Myers reports on the behavior of police in Minneapolis, which looks similar to Denver.

Barack Obama answers the Sciencedebate 2008 questions

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:00:00 +0000

Barack Obama has supplied his answers to the fourteen questions from Sciencedebate 2008.

John McCain has said that he will also be supplying answers.

UPDATE (September 17, 2008): John McCain has also supplied his answers to the Sciencedebate 2008 questions. Click here to see their answers side-by-side.

Are the Republicans fans of Battlestar Galactica?

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:51:00 +0000

(Image from here. Hat tip to Dave Palmer on the SKEPTIC mailing list.)

Unintended effects of Helicobacter pylori eradication

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:34:00 +0000

Since the Helicobacter pylori bacterium was discovered and proven to be the cause of gastric ulcers, it has been disappearing from the developed world as it’s treated with antibiotics. But multiple studies are now showing that there can be negative side-effects from its disappearance, including acid reflux, asthma, and obesity.

H. pylori helps regulate stomach acidity, the byproduct of which is sometimes ulcers. But when it is taken out of the picture, stomach acidity can increase and cause esophageal reflux disease, a disease which has increased to match the decrease in ulcers as H. pylori has been eradicated.

The asthma mechanism is less clear, but may be from H. pylori stimulating immune response. The evidence supporting the link is that U.S. children aged 3-13 who have H. pylori are 60% less likely to have asthma than those who do not.

The obesity connection is also not definitively established, but people without H. pylori produce more grehlin (which makes you feel hungry) than those who have it.

(Via “The twists and turns of fate,” about the work of Martin Blaser, a microbiologist at New York University School of Medicine, in The Economist, August 23, 2008, pp. 68-69.)

When t-shirts, coffee tables, and screws are munitions

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:03:00 +0000

One of my prized possessions, now in a box in a closet somewhere, is a T-shirt that says on its front “This T-shirt is a munition.” Underneath it is some machine-readable barcode that encodes the RSA public-key encryption algorithm expressed in Perl. As the seller of the shirt advertised, “it’s machine washable and machine readable."

When I bought and regularly wore that shirt, taking it out of the country was a crime punishable by up to a $1 million fine and 10 years in federal prison. This is because U.S. rules under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), then enforced by the Department of Commerce, ruled that strong encryption qualified as a munition subject to export controls and requiring a special license for export. After the Dan Bernstein case was decided in 1996, computer source code printed in a book (human readable format) was not subject to export controls, but computer source code in a machine readable format, such as on my shirt, still was. So I could wear my other T-shirt with RSA Perl code on it, which had a program in the shape of a dolphin, out of the country, but not the machine readable “This T-shirt is a munition” shirt. The implication was that you could take a copy of Bruce Schneier’s Applied Cryptography out of the country without an export license, but not a disk containing the very same code fragments printed in the book. This website authored by Adam Back, written at the time, proposed some possible motives for government restrictions on cryptography.

What the ITAR regulations on cryptography did for Internet software development was prohibit web browsers and server software from implementing the strong encryption necessary to protect electronic commerce from being exported from the United States. The result was that this development work simply occurred offshore. There were no barriers to importation of the software into the U.S., only to export it out. So the software was developed and sold by companies in places like Canada, Russia, and Estonia, which had no such inane restrictions.

Finally, in 1999, the U.S. wised up and relaxed the ITAR restrictions on encryption, allowing export without a license to most countries (the exceptions being countries with links to state-sponsored terrorism).

But ITAR is still around, and still having the unintended effect of pushing business out of the United States. The current victim is commercial satellite production. In 1999, ITAR authority over satellite technology export was shifted from the Department of Commerce to the Department of State, and since that time the U.S. share of commercial satellite manufacturing has dropped from 83% to 50%. The company Alcatel Alenia Space, now known as Thales Alenia, took steps in the late nineties to eliminate all U.S.-manufactured components from its satellites, with the result that it has subsequently doubled its market share to over 20%. The European Space Agency, Canada’s Telesat, and the French company EADS Sodern, that makes satellite control and positioning systems, have all been phasing out their use of U.S.-supplied components. They’ve done this because dealing with U.S. vendors increases costs (due to regulatory compliance costs) and causes unpredictable delays in the supply of parts.

Nevada’s Bigelow Aerospace delivered an aluminum satellite stand to Russia in 2006, which Robert Bigelow described as “indistinguishable from a common coffee table.” But because it’s associated with a satellite and officially part of a satellite assembly, it is covered by ITAR and had to be guarded by two security guards at all times. Even commodity items like screws and wiring, when part of a satellite, are covered by ITAR regulations.

The purpose of ITAR is to prevent key U.S. technologies with military applications from being leaked out to other countries that might be hostile to the U.S. But the effect of its overly broad application has been to shift the development of that technology to other countries and reduce the ability of U.S. companies to compete in the commercial satellite business.

Congress should look to reform ITAR–when export controls are so badly broken as to have nearly the opposite of the intended effect, they clearly need to be relaxed.

(Satellite and ITAR info via “Earthbound,” The Economist, August 23, 2008, pp. 66-67.)

ABC News producer arrested in Denver

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:03:00 +0000

Police told ABC News producer Asa Eslocker to move off a public sidewalk, pushed him into the street, and then arrested him after telling him he was trespassing and “impeding the flow of traffic.” ABC has video at their site, which shows another police officer who needs to be fired.

Military botnets article

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:33:00 +0000

I’m quoted in Peter Buxbaum’s “Battling Botnets” article in the August 20, 2008 Military Information Technology. It didn’t really fully capture the points I made in the interview, and I don’t remember saying the statement at the end about using botnets as an offensive measure as “a nuclear option.” I said that nullrouting is a much better method of denial of service for network service providers than flooding attacks, and made a point similar to Schneier’s about military attacks on the infrastructure of another nation that the U.S. is at war with–it would be more useful to obtain access to their systems, monitor, and disrupt than to just shut off access completely, but those points weren’t reflected in the article.

I’ve written more about military use of botnets at this blog.

Obama sign stolen

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 02:30:00 +0000

We put a Barack Obama for President sign in front of our house on Sunday; it’s already gone today.

A Google search for “Obama sign stolen” shows that thefts of Obama yard signs are occurring all over the place–Midland, TX; Staunton, VA; Springfield, MO; Ivins and St. George, UT; Sartell, MN; Upper Arlington, OH; and so on. A Google search for “McCain sign stolen” shows allegations about McCain stealing a prisoner of war story, Cindy McCain stealing a recipe, and stories of thefts of Obama yard signs–but no reports of stolen McCain signs.

I suppose either our sign was stolen by an unethical Obama supporter for their own use (in which case the stolen sign should be popping up elsewhere), or by an unethical McCain supporter who has no respect for freedom of speech or private property. I suspect it’s probably the latter.

UPDATE (November 5, 2008): Here’s a story about a university instructor who wrote about his stealing a McCain/Palin sign in Minnesota–he has resigned his visiting professorship at St. Olaf College as a result. Philip Busse is described in the article as a journalist and political activist from Portland, Oregon.

Lori Lipman Brown on the Colbert Report tonight

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:25:00 +0000

Lori Lipman Brown, the nonbelievers’ lobbyist in Washington D.C., will appear on The Colbert Report tonight. She works for the Secular Coalition of America, an organization whose members include the American Humanist Association, the American Ethical Union, Atheist Alliance International, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Institute for Humanist Studies, the Internet Infidels, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, the Secular Students Alliance, and the Society for Humanistic Judaism.

UPDATE: She won’t be on tonight–maybe next week?

UPDATE (August 30, 2008): She was on last night’s show, which is online.

Rifftrax

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:10:00 +0000

Mike Nelson of Mystery Science Theater 3000 is behind Rifftrax, a website that allows you to download commentaries to play along with DVDs you watch. One of the commentaries currently available is for Ocean’s Eleven and features Mike Nelson and our friend Richard Cheese. Many of the commentaries also feature MST3K writer and the voice of Tom Servo, Kevin Murphy, and MST3K writer and the voice of Crow, Bill Corbett.

Others include Weird Al Yankovic joining Nelson on Jurassic Park, Neil Patrick Harris joining Nelson on Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, and commentaries on Alien, Cloverfield, Forbidden Zone, I Am Legend, and the creepy short educational bicycle safety film from 1963, One Got Fat. Josh Fruhlinger, the Comics Cumudgeon, joins Nelson on the Spiderman 2 commentary.

Looks like they charge $2.99 or $3.99 for the feature film commentaries, $0.99 for the shorts, which are all DRM-free.

Check them out at Rifftrax.com.

DHS responds to my FOIA request for my travel dossier

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:52:00 +0000

On September 26, 2007, I submitted a request to the Department of Homeland Security requesting copies of information relating to me in the Automated Targeting System (ATS), a system that collects information about individuals who travel internationally. Travelers are then assigned a risk score; passengers who have higher scores are subjected to a higher level of screening, despite the fact that Congress has attached restrictions to its appropriations for passenger screening stating that “None of the funds provided in this or previous appropriations Acts may be utilized to develop or test algorithms assigning risk to passengers whose names are not on government watch lists."

Traveler risk scores are maintained for 40 years and individuals are not allowed to know their scores. The system has come under criticism for sometimes including information such as what books or magazines a passenger is carrying.

I followed the process suggested by The Identity Project, which stated that DHS was supposed to respond within 30 days. It took a little longer than expected–I just received my travel dossier today. It’s fifteen pages of fairly cryptic documentation, with frequent short redactions. The redactions are each labeled with the section of 5 USC 552 which provides grounds for exemption from disclosure, (b)(2)(low), (b)(6), and (b)(7)(C). The first of those “exempts from disclosure records that are related to internal matters of a relatively trivial nature, such as internal administrative tracking,” and accounts for the majority of the redactions. The other two are for “personnel or medical files and similar files the release of which would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” and “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes that could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” I have a few of each of that type of redaction.

The documents include most–but not all–of my international air travel, including from as far back as 1984. There appear to be reports from two systems. There are four pages labeled “TECSII - PRIMARY QUERY HISTORY” and “PASSENGER ACTIVITY.” TECS II is the Treasury Enforcement Communications System II, the primary database of IBIS, the Interagency Border Inspection System. This report lists a series of records of two lines each. The first line contains my name, date of birth, date and time of the query, the agency making a query, a result column (entirely redacted under (b)(2)), a column labeled “LNE TYP” that appears to use both of the two lines and has codes such as “API,” “AIR,” and “VEH.” Finally on the first line are a completely redacted column labeled “TERM” and single-letter codes under the headings “API” and “DIM.” The second line of each record contains airline flight numbers in some cases, and the name of the departure city in one case, a field labeled “DOC:” followed by a blank or my passport number, and, under the heading “LANE,” the characters “INSP:” followed by a blank or a redacted field, probably the name of the agent making the query. At the bottom of each page of results are three or four lines that are completely redacted, probably part of a help screen or menu–the output looks like something from an IBM 3270 display terminal.

The other eleven pages of output look like IBM 3270-style output pasted into a single Word document that begins with my name and birthdate. It’s divided into several sections, each headed with a date of travel and containing what appears to be passenger name records (PNR) taken directly from SABRE. The redactions in these sections seem to be somewhat haphazard–in one place part of my corporate email address was redacted, in another a different form of my corporate email addresses was not. My American Express card number is present, as is my Hertz #1 Club Gold membership number. It includes complete itineraries for the most recent travel, including hotel booking information (including type of room and bed), airline seat assignment information, and ticket price. There’s less information for older travel, which is mostly obscure to me apart from dates and airport codes.

Next I’ll have to check out my FBI file…

UPDATE (September 9, 2008): DHS has responded to charges that it is illegal for them to be recording and keeping certain border-crossing records in ATS by moving them to another database, called BCI.

UPDATE (December 31, 2008): DHS is in violation of its obligations to U.S. citizens under the Privacy Act, and to foreign nationals in Europe under the DHS-EU agreement on access to and use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data. DHS has not been complying with requests for data in the legally required time periods, nor with all of the relevant data. Data has also been illegally copied into other databases. Not surprisingly, the DHS’s own internal review claims, even as the evidence contradicts the claim, that it is in compliance with the law.

Edward Hasbrouck has posted about the difference between American and European attitudes towards privacy and surveillance, and notes that at least one European airline, KLM, had never developed processes for complying with the law for passenger requests of records.

UPDATE (July 19, 2014): An editor at Ars Technica has just discovered that his PNR contains full credit card numbers and IP addresses. Not exactly news, at this point…

Simon Singh sued and silenced; Svetlana and Steinberg's speech surmounts suppression

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:54:00 +0000

Science writer Simon Singh (author of The Code Book on yesterday’s list of science books) is a columnist for The Guardian, for which he wrote a column critical of chiropractic titled “Beware the spinal trap.” The British Chiropractic Association sued him for the column, and it was withdrawn from the Guardian’s website. Svetlana Pertsovich has posted the offending column from Internet cache on her website in Russia, James Steinberg has posted it at his blog, and I’ve included it below.

UK libel law is still in need of reform.

Beware the spinal trap
Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all but research suggests chiropractic therapy can be lethal
Simon Singh The Guardian, Saturday April 19 2008
This is Chiropractic Awareness Week. So let’s be aware. How about some awareness that may prevent harm and help you make truly informed choices? First, you might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that, “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.
In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.
You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.
I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.
But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.
In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.
More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.
Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.
Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”
This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Professor Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.
Bearing all of this in mind, I will leave you with one message for Chiropractic Awareness Week - if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.
· Simon Singh is the co-author of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial
www.simonsingh.net

UPDATE: The part about chiropractic-induced stroke is of interest to me, as I had once heard of a case of chiropractic manipulation leading to blindness. When I mentioned it at a dinner of skeptics in Tempe, Arizona in 1987 that included James Randi and Jim Lowell of the National Council Against Health Fraud, both of them suggested that this was impossible because the optic nerves don’t come anywhere near the spine. But nobody at the table (including me) thought about the possibility of spinal manipulation inducing a stroke causing damage to the visual system. This article from a chiropractic journal discusses cases of visual loss as a result of spinal surgery as a sort of tu quoque defense of chiropractic for similar problems, citing this article:
Myers M, Hamilton S, Bogosian A, Smith C, Wagner T Visual loss as a complication of spine surgery. Spine June 15, 1997;22(12).
So perhaps my remark from 21 years ago is vindicated?
UPDATE (November 4, 2009): Simon Singh gave an overview and update on his case on June 3.

Simon Singh fought against the libel claim despite the state of UK law, and has successfully won the right to appeal in October.

UPDATE (April 16, 2010): Simon Singh won his appeal, and the BCA dropped their suit.

Science books

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:05:00 +0000

From Cocktail Party Physics by way of Stranger Fruit… bold the ones you’ve read, asterisk the ones you intend to read:
Micrographia, Robert Hooke
The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin
Never at Rest, Richard Westfall
Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman, Richard Feynman
Tesla: Man Out of Time, Margaret Cheney
The Devil’s Doctor, Philip Ball
The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Richard Rhodes
Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos, Dennis Overbye
Physics for Entertainment, Yakov Perelman
1-2-3 Infinity, George Gamow (I’ve not read this, but I’ve read Mr. Tompkins in Paperback)
The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene
Warmth Disperses, Time Passes, Hans Christian von Bayer
Alice in Quantumland, Robert Gilmore
Where Does the Weirdness Go? David Lindley
A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson
A Force of Nature, Richard Rhodes
Black Holes and Time Warps, Kip Thorne
A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking (I listened to it on tape on a drive to the Dallas CSICOP conference in 1992)
Universal Foam, Sidney Perkowitz
Vermeer’s Camera, Philip Steadman
The Code Book, Simon Singh
The Elements of Murder, John Emsley
Soul Made Flesh, Carl Zimmer (I’m currently reading this)
Time’s Arrow, Martin Amis
The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments, George Johnson
Einstein’s Dreams, Alan Lightman
Godel, Escher, Bach, Douglas Hofstadter
The Curious Life of Robert Hooke, Lisa Jardine
A Matter of Degrees, Gino Segre
The Physics of Star Trek, Lawrence Krauss
E=mc<2>, David Bodanis
Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Charles Seife
Absolute Zero: The Conquest of Cold, Tom Shachtman
A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines, Janna Levin
Warped Passages, Lisa Randall
Apollo’s Fire, Michael Sims
Flatland, Edward Abbott
Fermat’s Last Theorem, Amir Aczel
Stiff, Mary Roach
Astroturf, M.G. Lord
The Periodic Table, Primo Levi
Longitude, Dava Sobel
The First Three Minutes, Steven Weinberg
The Mummy Congress, Heather Pringle
The Accelerating Universe, Mario Livio
Math and the Mona Lisa, Bulent Atalay
This is Your Brain on Music, Daniel Levitin
The Executioner’s Current, Richard Moran
Krakatoa, Simon Winchester
Pythagorus’ Trousers, Margaret Wertheim
Neuromancer, William Gibson
The Physics of Superheroes, James Kakalios
The Strange Case of the Broad Street Pump, Sandra Hempel
Another Day in the Frontal Lobe, Katrina Firlik
Einstein’s Clocks and Poincare’s Maps, Peter Galison
The Demon-Haunted World, Carl Sagan
The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins
The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker
An Instance of the Fingerpost, Iain Pears
Consilience, E.O. Wilson
Wonderful Life, Stephen J. Gould (haven’t read this, but I’ve read all of his books of collected Natural History articles)
Teaching a Stone to Talk, Annie Dillard
Fire in the Brain, Ronald K. Siegel
The Life of a Cell, Lewis Thomas
Coming of Age in the Milky Way, Timothy Ferris
Storm World, Chris Mooney
The Carbon Age, Eric Roston
The Black Hole Wars, Leonard Susskind
Copenhagen, Michael Frayn
From the Earth to the Moon, Jules Verne
Gut Symmetries, Jeanette Winterson
Chaos, James Gleick
Innumeracy, John Allen Paulos
The Physics of NASCAR, Diandra Leslie-Pelecky
Subtle is the Lord, Abraham Pais
I’d add some Oliver Sacks and A.R. Luria (neuroscience case studies), V.S. Ramachandran’s A Brief Tour of Consciousness, Charles Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, and some philosophy of science like Larry Laudan’s Science and Relativism (nicely written in the form of a dialogue between advocates of different views), Philip Kitcher’s The Advancement of Science, Thomas Kuhn’s The Copernican Revolution, John Losee’s A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, and Ian Hacking’s Representing and Intervening. There are lots more to list, but those are a few that I’ve read. My science reading has leaned very strongly towards cognitive psychology, neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of science, which is only weakly represented on the above list, and on the creation/evolution debate, which isn’t really represented on the above list at all, except by Darwin himself.

Now John Lynch can tell me that I really need to read Origin of Species.

UPDATE (August 28, 2008):

Enhanced with P.Z. Myers’ additions:
Ascent of Man, Jacob Bronowski
Basin and Range, John McPhee
Beak of the Finch, Jonathan Weiner
Chance and Necessity, Jacques Monod
Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation, Olivia Judson (reading now)
*Endless Forms Most Beautiful, Sean Carroll
Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea, Carl Zimmer
Genome, Matt Ridley
Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond
It Ain’t Necessarily So, Richard Lewontin
On Growth and Form, D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson
Phantoms in the Brain, VS Ramachandran
The Ancestor’s Tale, Richard Dawkins
The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution, Elisabeth Lloyd
The Eighth Day of Creation, Horace Freeland Judson
The Great Devonian Controversy, Martin Rudwick
The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat, Oliver Sacks
The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould
The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment, Richard Lewontin
Time, Love, Memory, Jonathan Weiner
Voyaging and The Power of Place, Janet Browne
Woman: An Intimate Geography, Natalie Angier

Police violating rights at the Democratic National Convention?

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:31:00 +0000

P.Z. Myers has a post at Pharyngula about how the Democratic National Convention itself is prioritizing religious speakers who disagree with planks of the party platform over non-religious speakers who do not, which goes on to report allegations from an attorney that police from the Aurora, Colorado Police Department have been arresting peaceful protesters on bogus charges, apparently confiscating a compact flash card documenting police behavior, shooting pepper spray into the face of a protester who was obeying police instructions, and illegally not wearing badges or using means to obstruct their names and badge numbers.

Cops who act illegally should be fired and prosecuted, every time. They hold a position of public trust and need to be held to a higher standard than civilians, not a lower one.

UPDATE: Police claim protesters were carrying rocks. They arrested about 100 protesters. The group Recreate ‘68 says it was denied its use of a legal permit for the use of Civic Center Park, while police helped to protect and bring in Rev. Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church. About a dozen abortion protesters were arrested on Tuesday, so they weren’t being given special treatment.

In the Denver Post’s photos, I don’t see any cops without visible badges, though in only a few photos of cops with riot gear are the pictures close enough to see the numbers in white on the front of their uniforms.

Focus on the Family's prayers answered

Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:10:00 +0000

Focus on the Family told its followers to pray for rain on Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention, and as it turns out, there was some flooding. But the flooding filled the Fox skybox in the Pepsi Center with 50 to 100 gallons of water per minute for about five minutes when the fire suppression sprinkler system went off. A little bit off from the desired location in both time and space, yet somehow more appropriate.

God works in mysterious ways.

Obama speaks tomorrow evening at Invesco Field. California pastor Wiley Drake has been praying for rain every morning for the past two weeks, and is inviting Christians from around the country to join him tomorrow night on a two-hour conference call to pray for rain on Obama.

Weather.com’s forecast for Denver tomorrow is sunny with a high of 82 degrees Fahrenheit and 0% change of precipitation, though it’s partly cloudy with 10% chance of precipitation tonight.

(Hat tip to John Hummel.)

UPDATE (August 30, 2008): And now it looks like Hurricane Gustav may cause the Republican National Convention to be suspended!

Arizona Republic on FFRF billboards in Phoenix

Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:58:00 +0000

The Arizona Republic has a story up about the FFRF billboards coming to Phoenix, with quotes from a local atheist, clergy, and a legislator. The quotes from the atheist, Harold Saferstein of the Humanist Society of Greater Phoenix, and the clergyman, Bob Mitchell, senior pastor at Central United Methodist Church, are both quite reasonable. The quote from the legislator, Sen. Linda Gray, not so much. She is quoted as writing in an email that “The FFRF fails to acknowledge history which recognized the strong Christian commitment of those who attended the Constitutional Convention.” First of all, how does she know what FFRF “fails to acknowledge” unless she is very familiar with the organization, which I doubt. Second, it’s Gray who’s talking out of her hat. While most of America’s Founding Fathers were nominally Christian, this was the same Constitutional Convention that voted against opening its meetings with prayers and produced a document that contains no references to a deity except in the year before the signatures ("Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth"). It is a document which explicitly says in Article VI that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Its primary author, James Madison, was a strong advocate of strict separation of church and state who thought that even government-paid legislative chaplains were a violation of religious liberty.

Mitchell, the pastor quoted in the story, is quoted as saying “I don’t have a problem with people expressing their points of view in public. … I would prefer that there was serious tolerant dialogue that might emerge from this publicity campaign because it is much needed.” The article says he hoped that there would be no backlash against the billboards, but would not be surprised if it happened. I agree with him.

(My previous posts on the FFRF billboards coming to Phoenix are here, here, and here.)

UPDATE: The Arizona Republic fails to note that much of the money for these billboards was raised by the Phoenix Atheists Meetup Group.

Here are the specific billboard locations:
The five new billboard locations are confirmed and approved by CBS Outdoor. They are on surface streets all within 1 to 3 miles of central Phoenix. Billboards are numbered and say CBS on them.

#2501 Start Date: August 29
Cross Streets: 19th Ave & Fillmore. Located just west of the State Capital area on 19th Ave. Best viewing occurs while traveling northbound on 19th Ave just prior to Fillmore. The sign is on the west side of 19th Ave. This location is within a few blocks of the Capital Complex.

#2701 Start Date: August 29
Cross Streets: Van Buren & 15th Ave. Located just north east of the State Capital area on Van Buren. Best viewing occurs while traveling eastbound on Van Buren just prior to 15th Ave. The sign is on the south side of Van Buren and is located within a few blocks of the State Capital complex.

#2821 Start Date: August 29
Cross Streets: Indian School & 23rd St. Best viewing occurs while traveling westbound on Indian School Rd just after 23rd St. The sign is on the south side of Indian School Rd.

#2911 Start Date: August 29
Cross streets: McDowell & 14th St. Located just northwest of the downtown area on McDowell Rd. Best viewing occurs while traveling eastbound on McDowell just after 14th St. The sign is on the north side of McDowell. The Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center is within a few blocks.

#2945 Start Date: August 29
Cross Streets: McDowell & 3rd St. Best viewing occurs while traveling westbound on McDowell. The sign is on the southwest corner of McDowell and 3rd St.
UPDATE: I was interviewed today by Brian Webb of KNXV-TV ABC 15 News and by Melissa Gonzalo of KPNX NBC 12 News about the billboards, as a local member of FFRF and the Phoenix Atheists Meetup Group. Their stories should air tonight, at 5 or 6 p.m. on 15 and at 6 p.m. on 12. The NBC story should appear on their website after it airs, and both suspected that the stories would air again with footage of the actual billboards on Friday.

This story has also been covered by NPR locally, and is the subject of a very poorly worded poll on Fox News 10, which seems to think that the only two possible reactions to the billboard are not be offended because it’s free speech (not because you agree with it) or to be offended because America needs religion. P.Z. Myers has pointed Pharyngulites to the poll, so at least it has a sizable majority supporting freedom of speech.

UPDATE: The Channel 15 interview aired at 5 p.m. and I was happy with the result. (This video is two segments, one 0:41 segment that I’m not in, and a 1:36 segment where I appear from about 0:49 to 0:52.) Here’s the video I appear in:

The Channel 12 interview aired at 6 p.m., and Melissa Gonzalo did a better job–she spent more time in the interview, and her piece came out better, in my opinion (but what’s with the “Billboard Battle” tagline? What battle?). It’s here:

Tom Willis suggests labor camps for evolutionists

Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:21:00 +0000

Tom Willis, the creationist behind the “Lucy’s knee joint” claim I debunked in a Talk Origins FAQ, who in June stated that evolutionists should be “violently expelled” from the United States or denied the right to vote, now says that evolutionists should be imprisoned in labor camps.

I think Mr. Willis is either a lunatic or desperate for attention. I think he should get the latter, as a poster boy for creationist rationality.

I discussed Willis and the Lucy’s knee joint claim in the fourth ApostAZ podcast.

(Willis is not actually in Kansas, but in Missouri, where he runs “The Berry Patch.")

UPDATE: Ed Brayton has a more detailed take-down of Willis’ latest at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

McCain another Bush?

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:01:00 +0000

Jack Cafferty writes at CNN about how McCain seems to be as intellectually vacuous as George W. Bush.

Hume's Ghost (2008-08-23):

He has to be, doesn't he? The inmates are now running the asylum in the GOP and their presidential candidate has to run against reality to appease the base.

Hence the mocking of Obama when he made the accurate statement about tire inflation and care maintenance.

Obama resume-padding

Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:57:00 +0000

Abraham Katsman and Kory Bardash point out several instances of Obama inflating his resumé with bogus claims about his record in The Jerusalem Post. They argue that he is doing this because despite holding multiple noteworthy positions, he really hasn’t accomplished much of anything in any of them. He’s published not a single academic paper while Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, published nothing while Harvard Law Review President, and can’t point to any significant legislation he spearheaded in the U.S. Senate or in the Illinois State Senate.

UPDATE: John Lynch, in the comments, has, to my mind, refuted the concerns about publications (a Lecturer is not expected to publish, nor is the Harvard Law Review President), but my main concern was about the false statements. Two of the false statements are that he claimed to have “passed laws” that “extended healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected” when he didn’t vote on the bill in question, and his statement that “Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee–which is my committee–a bill to call for divestment from Iran as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon” when he’s not even on the Senate Banking Committee.

On the latter point, Obama’s campaign says he meant to say “my bill” rather than “my committee,” in which case the statement becomes somewhat more accurate, as Obama did supply some of the provisions to the bill in question. But it isn’t really Obama’s bill, despite his contributions. It’s more accurately described as Christopher Dodd and Richard Shelby’s bill.

Back from Maryland

Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:02:00 +0000

We got back from Maryland last night, after spending most of a week at Deep Creek Lake and making day trips to D.C. and Baltimore. The Deep Creek Lake time was mostly relaxing, spending some time on the lake, visiting a few sites in nearby Oakland, visiting Swallow Falls and Muddy Creek Falls, and attending the Garrett County Fair, where I viewed my first demolition derby and pig and duck races. We went to a few of the less common attractions in D.C.–the crystal skull exhibit in the basement of the National Museum of Natural History, Owney the dog at the National Postal Museum, and had an excellent lunch at the National Museum of the American Indian. In Baltimore, we visited Fort McHenry, Poe’s grave, and Fells Point.

Owney the dog traveled the world from 1888 to 1897, when, as the National Postal Museum’s website says, “Owney became ill tempered and although the exact circumstances were not satisfactorily reported, Owney died in Toledo of a bullet wound on June 11, 1897.”

Daniel Radosh's Rapture Ready

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:30:00 +0000

Daniel Radosh has a new book out titled Rapture Ready!: Adventures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture, which might be entertaining. There’s a chapter on creationism that talks about Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, and possibly the split by Creation Ministries International, since Google Books tells me my name is mentioned on p. 279.

Anybody at Scribner want to send me a review copy?

Based on the reviews at Amazon.com, it sounds like Radosh gives Christian pop culture a sympathetic and even-handed portrayal that also points out its absurdities and self-contradictions, similar to the excellent documentary Hell House.

ApostAZ podcast #7

Sun, 17 Aug 2008 17:56:00 +0000

The latest ApostAZ podcast is out:
Episode 007 Atheism and Freethought in Phoenix- Go to atheists.meetup.com/157 for group events! Monthly Meetup Epilogue. Debate Tactics and Rhetoric. Sweden Rules Against Prayer as Truth: http://www.guardian.co.uk/. Prayer and Aggression. Obama and Faith Based Initiatives. Pickett Church? http://www.atheistrev.com/ Aggression study: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120083092/abstract. Greydon Square’s Album ‘The Compton Effect’
Funny analogy from Shannon: “Prayer is a homeless dude on your couch."

Charity Navigator is another site similar to CharityWatch.

Shannon incorrectly states that McCain is a creationist. He’s not. And the Creation Museum is in Kentucky, not Tennessee.

Picketing churches on the basis of its beliefs and doctrines is a terrible idea that should be left to Fred Phelps and similar kooks. The picketing of the Church of Scientology has generally been based on its behavior, not its doctrines–to the extent the focus is on opposing criminal behavior, that’s reasonable.

Another lottery loser

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:58:00 +0000

Via the Arizona Republic:
A man who won $10 million in a California lottery game has been sentenced to more than 17 years in prison for a drunken-driving crash that killed three people.
Thomas Turnour had pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and causing injury while driving intoxicated.

The winner of a SuperLotto game in 2001 was sentenced Friday in San Bernardino.

Authorities say the 52-year-old man from Victorville was driving a pickup truck that hit a car stopped at a red light in San Bernardino three years ago. Three people inside the first car died.

Atheists' questions for candidates

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:02:00 +0000

The Phoenix Atheists Meetup Group has sent a letter (PDF) and ten questions (PDF) to John McCain, Barack Obama, and the 114 candidates for the Arizona State Senate and House of Representatives who are listed in the Citizens Clean Election Commission candidate statement booklet. Any received answers will be posted here.

The ten questions are:

1) Given a legislative voting scenario that presents you with a direct conflict between your religious beliefs/values and your duties to uphold the Constitution which do you choose and how would you make that decision?

2) What is your position regarding prayer while acting in your official capacity as an elected official and what role if any do you think prayer should play in the legislative body you wish to hold?

3) What is your position on enacting law that has religious tenets and/or dogma as its main motivation and reasoning?

4) Is it acceptable for elected officials to hold back or alter scientific reports if they conflict with their own views, and how will you balance scientific information with politics and personal beliefs in your decision-making?

5) Should the modern synthesis of Creationism known as “Intelligent Design” be taught in the public school and is it acceptable for religious ideology to interfere in science?

6) Would you allow a non theistic individual (atheist, humanist, freethinker, etc) to openly serve on your staff?

7) What is your position on a constitutional amendment to define marriage and if in favor of a constitutional amendment to define marriage are your motivations religious or secular?

8) What is your position on abstinence-only sex education?

9) What is your position on government regulation and funding of stem cell research?

10) With regards specifically to the establishment of the United States as a nation, the history of the United States, and the law of the United States do you consider our country to be a “Christian Nation”?

FFRF billboards delayed due to CBS Outdoor cowardice

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:53:00 +0000

The FFRF billboards planned for Phoenix that were supposed to be launched on August 18 have been postponed after CBS Outdoor became uncomfortable with the “Imagine No Religion” slogan. They have decided to apply an analogue of their policy requiring that billboards advertising alcohol and tobacco, which must be at least 1000 feet from any school or church.

Apparently CBS Outdoor considers atheism to be equivalent to alcohol or tobacco, unfit to be advertised near sensitive churchgoers or students.

They are probably within their rights to do this–they own the billboards–but their belief that this is a sound business decision is pretty absurd and cowardly. (I haven’t actually seen the contracts, but I suspect they are crafted in such a way to leave themselves the option to move locations or even cancel the contract if there’s a whiff of controversy that they’d prefer to avoid.)

I suspect the locations of the billboards are unlikely to make much difference about whether controversy is generated, but this change gives CBS Outdoor something they can appeal to in response to criticism–see, we tried to be sensitive to religious concerns about the expression of disagreement.

The new locations are likely to be approved on Monday, and I’ll report here what they are. I’m actually surprised that there are any billboard locations in Phoenix that aren’t within 1000 feet of a church or a school.

(Previously, previously, subsequently.)

Food tasting

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 02:12:00 +0000

Via Stranger Fruit.

1. Venison
2. Nettle tea
3. Huevos rancheros
4. Steak tartare
5. Crocodile
6. Black pudding (in Buenos Aires)
7. Cheese fondue
~~8. Carp~~ (fish allergy)
9. Borscht
10. Baba ghanoush
11. Calamari
12. Pho
13. PB&J sandwich
14. Aloo gobi
15. Hot dog from a street cart
16. Epoisses
17. Black truffle
18. Fruit wine made from something other than grapes
19. Steamed pork buns
20. Pistachio ice cream
21. Heirloom tomatoes
22. Fresh wild berries
~~23. Foie gras~~
24. Rice and beans
25. Brawn, or head cheese
26. Raw Scotch Bonnet pepper
27. Dulce de leche (in Buenos Aires)
28. Oysters
29. Baklava
30. Bagna cauda
31. Wasabi peas
32. Clam chowder in a sourdough bowl
33. Salted lassi
34. Sauerkraut
35. Root beer float
36. Cognac with a fat cigar
37. Clotted cream tea
38. Vodka jelly/Jell-O
39. Gumbo
40. Oxtail
41. Curried goat
42. Whole insects (chocolate covered ants/grasshoppers/crickets)
43. Phaal
44. Goat’s milk
45. Malt whisky from a bottle worth £60/$120 or more
46. Fugu
47. Chicken tikka masala
48. Eel
49. Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnut
50. Sea urchin
51. Prickly pear
52. Umeboshi
53. Abalone
54. Paneer
55. McDonald’s Big Mac Meal
56. Spaetzle
57. Dirty gin martini
58. Beer above 8% ABV (Elephant beer at Carlsberg Brewery in Copenhagen)
59. Poutine
60. Carob chips
61. S’mores (last night)
62. Sweetbreads
63. Kaolin
64. Currywurst
65. Durian
66. Frogs’ legs
67. Beignets, churros, elephant ears or funnel cake (Beignets at Cafe du Monde in New Orleans)
68. Haggis
69. Fried plantain
70. Chitterlings, or andouillette
71. Gazpacho
72. Caviar and blini
73. Louche absinthe
74. Gjetost, or brunost
75. Roadkill
76. Baijiu
77. Hostess Fruit Pie
78. Snail
79. Lapsang souchong
80. Bellini
81. Tom yum
82. Eggs Benedict
83. Pocky
84. Tasting menu at a three-Michelin-star restaurant
85. Kobe beef
86. Hare
87. Goulash
88. Flowers
89. Horse
90. Criollo chocolate
91. Spam
92. Soft shell crab
93. Rose harissa
94. Catfish
95. Mole poblano
96. Bagel and lox
97. Lobster Thermidor
98. Polenta
99. Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee (I’d rather try Kopi Luwak)
100. Snake Fried rattlesnake at Rustler’s Rooste

Candy cigarettes are now "quality sticks"

Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:58:00 +0000

Photograph taken at the Farmer’s Market “Candyland” near Deep Creek Lake, August 14, 2008.

They also make candy “crayons” that are packaged much like candy cigarettes, and also called “quality sticks.”

Arizona Republicans turn on themselves

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:27:00 +0000

On August 7, the Arizona Republic reported:
The race for a state Senate seat in west Mesa broke out into a wide-open brawl Wednesday, with allegations that Rep. Russell Pearce attacked his wife nearly three decades ago and Pearce’s campaign firing back that the charge is false and the height of sleazy campaigning.

A mailer sent to voters in west Mesa cited a divorce petition that LuAnne Pearce filed in 1980. In it, she charges that her husband had a violent temper, hit her and shoved her. The petition also says that two days before the filing, Pearce “grabbed the wife by the throat and threw her down."

CMI responds to AiG dispute summary

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:41:00 +0000

Creation Ministries International has updated its website to respond to the trove of documents released by Answers in Genesis. The Answers in Genesis site now includes the U.S. judge’s order to compel arbitration in the U.S. (PDF). The court’s order requires arbitration to occur in the U.S., but does not put a stop to the legal action in Australia, on the grounds that one of the documents at issue (the Deed of Copyright License or DOCL) says that the parties do “not object to the exercise of jurisdiction by [the Australian courts] on any basis” (to quote the judge’s quotation from the document). The judge describes his order as granting in part and denying in part the Answers in Genesis petition, though Answers in Genesis describes it merely as granting their petition to compel arbitration.

The CMI update has a lengthy list of “WHAT AIG IS CAREFUL NOT TO TELL YOU” that makes the point that the U.S. and Australian groups were not as separate as AiG has tried to convey, with interesting examples such as that the U.S. group had appointed a CEO/COO to report to Ken Ham as president, and Carl Wieland of the Australian group was given the task of firing this person. Another is that the letter from Wieland to the U.S. board that AiG describes as “unsolicited” was actually specifically requested by the U.S. board in response to Wieland’s criticisms that he had previously made to the Australian board (three members of which were also on the U.S. board).

AiG describes its former executive VP, Brandon Vallorani, as a dupe or co-conspirator with Carl Wieland, but doesn’t note that when he was terminated he was given a payment in return for being bound to silence, and so is unable to comment on what actually happened without breaching that agreement.

The CMI summary notes (as I mentioned, via Kevin Henke, in my previous post) that the Thallon document contradicts other testimony from Thallon about whether the Australian board was pressured to accept the October 2005 agreement: “Ironically, there is eyewitness testimony of people having heard Thallon himself claim that they acted under duress in signing, and we have in writing (written back at the time) from a leading creation scientist and professor that Thallon personally told him that Ken Ham had threatened to not buy the next issue of the magazine if they failed to sign. So Thallon is either telling the truth to this scientist, or he is telling the truth in these documents–it’s hard to see how both can be the case.” It’s also interesting to note that the Thallon document alternates between U.S. and Australian spellings of some words (e.g. “organization” and “organisation” are both used in paragraph 22), which probably indicates a document prepared by Thallon (an Australian) and one or more Americans (such as AiG’s attorneys) that was not fully reviewed carefully for consistency.

The dangers of digital drugs

Wed, 13 Aug 2008 03:47:00 +0000

Kim Komando (who at least used to be based here in Phoenix) is promoting nonsense about “digital drugs”:
But websites are targeting your children with so-called digital drugs. These are audio files designed to induce drug-like effects.

All your child needs is a music player and headphones.

Digital drugs supposedly synchronize your brain waves with the sound. Hence, they allegedly alter your mental state.

Binaural beats create a beating sound. Other noises may be included with binaural beats. This is intended to mask their unpleasant sound.

AiG/CMI: judge accepts, then withdraws mediation offer

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:56:00 +0000

The judge in the U.S. lawsuit filed by Answers in Genesis against Creation Ministries International said that he intended to rule that the groups go into arbitration in Kentucky, under the rules of the American Arbitration Association. But he rejected AiG’s demands to stop the legal proceeding in Australia or to force arbitration by Peacemakers/ICC, the organization they had selected for Christian arbitration.

After the hearing, CMI’s attorney proposed that the judge himself mediate a one-day attempt to resolve the dispute more quickly, and the judge agreed on the condition that the mediation meeting be limited to Carl Wieland, Ken Ham, and their respective attorneys. CMI agreed, posted a note to that effect on their website, and booked airfare.

AiG, however, objected to the restriction to one person, and requested that an additional person participate, on the grounds that Ken Ham is not a member of the AiG board of directors.

The judge then withdrew the mediation offer, and the case will continue in the U.S., without going to Christian arbitration.

CMI has a new web page up describing the mediation offer and speculating on the next steps. They observe that the judge has made multiple statements to the effect that the only jurisdiction mentioned in the legal documents between the groups is Australia, and point out that they have already filed an appeal on that basis regarding the judge’s decision to require arbitration in the United States.

CMI has also updated their main web page on the dispute.

Robert Neuwirth at TED

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:07:00 +0000

This is a video of a presentation at the TED conference by Robert Neuwirth, author of Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World, about how the growth of squatter cities represents the cities of the future, as a growing percentage of the world’s population will live in such cities. I find it fascinating how such extra-legal cities which tend to operate beyond the fringes of the law, are places of considerable freedom and opportunity despite their poverty. Another similar book is Ian Lambot and Greg Girard’s City of Darkness: Life in Kowloon City, about the squatter city of Kowloon Walled City on the peninsula south of Hong Kong, where squatters developed their own systems of property rights and rules in the absence of government intervention.

"In our corporate DNA"

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:43:00 +0000

Yesterday while getting my car serviced, I noticed that Toyota’s brochure about its latest vehicles says on the back that “Moving Forward is in our DNA,” and became annoyed. “X is in our corporate DNA” has become an incredibly popular marketing buzzphrase lately, and I’ve heard it said for some value of X in almost every vendor presentation I’ve heard this year. My thought yesterday was that I don’t really care if X is in the genotype if it isn’t expressed in the phenotype. If the company really wants to make the point that X is a core competency or value, saying “it’s in our DNA” isn’t really an accurate way of putting it.

So this morning I did a search to see if any biologists have commented on this buzzphrase, and was pleased to see that Keith Robison commented on it last December:
The question posed is this: what do companies asking this really mean, or more specifically what might it mean that they don’t intend (very Dilbert-esque). Presumably they are trying to make a statement about deeply embedded values, but what does it really mean to have something in your DNA? For example, do they mean to imply:
A lot of our company is unfathomable to the human mind
There’s a lot of redundancy here
Often we often repeat ourselves often repeatedly, often repeating repetitiously.
We retain bits of those who invade our corporate DNA, though with not much rhyme or reason
A lot of pieces of the organization resemble decayed portions of other pieces of our organization
Some pieces of our organization are non-functional, though they closely resemble functional pieces of related organizations
Most of our organization has no immediate impact on routine operations, or emergency ones
Most of our organization has no immediate obvious purpose, if any
Our corporate practices are not the best designable, but rather reflect an accumulation of historical accidents
Now, many of these statements may well be true about a given company, but is that what you really want to project?
This gives me some great ideas on how to respond the next time I hear a vendor use the phrase.

Focus on the Family: Pray for rain on Obama

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:35:00 +0000

The lunatics at Focus on the Family want people to pray for rain on Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. This is absurd on multiple levels–not only does nothing fail like prayer, but how on earth do they consider this to be a remotely ethical or rational thing to do?

Why not just pray that Obama doesn’t get elected? Or follow the pattern with Supreme Court justices, and pray for death?

(Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

UPDATE (August 12, 2008): Focus on the Family has pulled the video from their site, claiming that it was all just a joke, as the Rocky Mountain News reports:

Is religion a response to disease?

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 01:24:00 +0000

Corey Fincher and Randy Thornhill of the University of New Mexico have published a report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society in which they hypothesize that patterns of behavior that promote exclusivity act as a response to disease transmission, including both religion and language. They looked at the average number of religions per country and how disease-ridden each country is, and found a positive correlation between number of parasitic diseases and number of religions. The number of religions per country studied ranged from 3 to 643, with an average of 31; the number of parasitic diseases ranged from 178 to 248, with an average of 200. They also found that people in countries with more religions and diseases were less mobile–they moved shorter differences–than countries with fewer religions and diseases.

Does this mean that religion is a response to disease, prompting people to keep to themselves and be less mobile, or does it mean that religion acts similarly to disease (prompting people to behave in that same way)?

(Via The Economist, August 2, 2008, p. 83.)

Nigerian university cults

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 00:33:00 +0000

There’s an interesting article in the August 2, 2008 issue of The Economist about “Cults of violence” in Nigeria. Campus “cults” have arisen in Nigeria’s university system that are something along the lines of a cross between a fraternity and a criminal gang. These “cults” have killed 115 students and teachers between 1993 and 2003, according to the Exam Ethics Project. The first such group, the Pyrates Confraternity, was founded by Wole Soyinka, a Nobel prizewinner in literature, in 1952 at the University of Ibadan. Subsequent groups had names like the Black Axe, the Vikings Confraternity, and the Klansmen Konfraternity. Members of these groups were originally elite students who have moved on to positions of authority in Nigeria. The groups charge membership fees, but members typically make the money back by performing actions for the group, such as acting on behalf of politicians connected to the group. Such actions of late have included harassment, violence, and murder. Rivers State University banned “cultism” in 2004, but since the groups are provided with cash and weapons by politicians, the ban has had little effect.

UPDATE (December 2, 2021): This article in The Record (November 24, 2021) is of relevance: Olatunji Olaigbe, “How the pandemic pulled Nigerian university students into cybercrime."

Bad coroner to be stopped from performing Mississippi autopsies

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 15:18:00 +0000

Mississippi coroner Steven Hayne, whose incompetent and dishonest work has been exposed in numerous articles by Radley Balko at The Agitator, will be cut off from future work–but only after he completes a backlog of 400-500 autopsies in the next 90 days. That’s more than double the number of annual autopsies per year per coroner according to the National Association of Medical Examiners, and he’s typically done 1,500 per year. The NAME says a coroner shouldn’t do more than 250 a year, and will not certify any coroner who does over 350 a year.

Balko points out how inept and dishonest Mississippi’s government and newspapers have been in dealing with Hayne.

Mississippi is not a state I ever want to visit, let alone live in.

UPDATE (September 7, 2008): Radley Balko has tracked down a file of complaints about Hayne going back to the early nineties which shows, among other things, that the government in Mississippi was well aware of what Hayne was doing, and used him because he gave them the results they wanted.

UPDATE (September 10, 2008): Balko has an update to his September 7 post that corrects a statement about Dr. Emily Ward, Mississippi’s last official state medical examiner.

Lying NYPD cops

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 15:02:00 +0000

Via The Agitator, here’s video from a Critical Mass event in New York City which compares what actually happened on the scene from multiple angles to what police officers wrote in their reports. I have no sympathy for people who violate traffic laws like running red lights (which happens near the beginning of the video) or behaving like five-year-olds (which happens near the end), but this video also shows people who are supposed to be public servants violating people’s rights and lying to make arrests on false pretenses. Officers like Sgt. Timothy Horohoe need to be not just fired, but criminally prosecuted.

The video asserts that Joyce Lin (the aforementioned person acting like a five-year-old) was within her rights to not produce identification and walk away, but this may not be true depending on New York law. Nevada has a law that requires suspects to identify themselves in certain conditions, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (542 U.S. 177, 2004). If New York has a similar law, Lin was required to identify herself.

UPDATE (December 17, 2008): A Critical Mass bicyclist knocked from his bike by an NYPD cop in a similar incident in July, caught on video and viewed over 1.8 million times on YouTube has been cleared, and the cop indicted, stripped of his badge and gun, and assigned to desk duty. The NYPD officer in that case was Patrick Pogan. Sometimes flagrant police abuses do get punished, but it’s a pity they often have to be caught on video and seen widely for that to happen.

A deceptive mortgage refinance offer

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 03:20:00 +0000

I received a letter in the mail from Chase Bank offering me a fee waiver on a mortgage refinance to “lower [my] monthly payments,” “to save interest,” and to “Save up to $1,000 in waived fees."

The letter gives me two options for “a fixed-rate first mortgage tailored to fit [my] needs - and with a new low rate.” Option one is a 20-year fixed-rate mortgage at 6.13% (6.26% APR) with a payment of principal and interest that is described as giving me “monthly payment savings” of $178 and “total annual savings” of $2,132. Option two is a 10-year fixed-rate mortgage at 5.63% (5.80% APR) that is described as giving me “total interest savings” of $12,817.

There’s just one problem with this. My current mortgage is a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 5.25%. I currently make extra principal payments every month so I am paying more than what my new monthly payment would be for option two of their refinance offer, the 10-year fixed-rate mortgage.

This means that both option one and option two are losers–neither will save me a cent. If I keep doing what I’m doing now, I’ll have my mortgage paid off in nine years, paying less in interest and in total than in either option one or option two. By choosing option one I could choose to pay less per month without being penalized (except due to the higher interest rate), but I’d pay significantly more over the term of the loan–more than $50,000 more. By choosing option two, the “total interest savings” would only occur by comparison to my current loan if I were not making extra principal payments. But compared to what I’m actually doing, it again would cost a bit more (by a few thousand dollars), and I wouldn’t have the flexibility of paying less in a given month if necessary that I have now with my current loan.

In short, Chase Bank has knowingly sent me an offer with two options that will cost me more money than my current loan, given how I am currently paying it off (and have been for as long as I’ve had the loan). But they’ve tried to describe them to me as though they will save me money, when they won’t.

Don’t accept one of these offers unless you either need to (e.g., it will give you lower monthly payments and you’re struggling to make your current payments) or it will genuinely save you money in the long term (e.g., it has a lower interest rate that saves you more than any fees that may be rolled into the new loan).

CMI/AiG lawsuit update

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 02:09:00 +0000

Answers in Genesis (AiG) sent out a new letter to supporters dated July 23, 2008, and is distributing copies of court filings in the United States regarding their attempt to force Creation Ministries International (CMI) into arbitration and override the lawsuit CMI filed in Australia. An AiG supporter contacted me in email and sent me one of those documents, a motion that AiG filed in U.S. court arguing for arbitration (PDF). (Is there any significance to the fact that it is dated April 1, 2008?) He didn’t sent me the other documents, which include CMI’s reply to AiG’s motion, AiG’s response to CMI’s reply, and CMI’s argument filed with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office to oppose AiG’s attempt to register “Answers in Genesis” as a trademark there. These documents are hosted at http://66.42.196.216:50050/arbitration.htm and each PDF has the password “john17”; my copy of the AiG motion PDF, linked above, has no password.

The AiG filing argues that CMI is the organization that has behaved unreasonably, that CMI has rebuffed attempts at reconciliation, and that Carl Wieland is the one who was trying to take over AiG internationally, not Ken Ham. It argues that the arbitration clauses in the agreement that CMI has issues with–the one signed in October 2005 by the Australian organization’s directors who subsequently resigned en masse–are the key applicable clauses. They may have a good legal case, but their overall story seems to me to be at odds with a number of the facts set forth in CMI’s detailed chronology of events (PDF). In that chronology, it was CMI that first attempted to argue for arbitration, while AiG ignored their attempts. CMI rejected the specific form and location of arbitration suggested by AiG, as that proposal required keeping the October 2005 agreement in place, when the content and manner in which that agreement was put into place is at the center of the dispute, and required that the arbitration occur in the U.S.

Perhaps most significantly, AiG reneged on the verbal agreement that was reached in Hawaii, saying in writing that it is “off the table.” Instead, AiG says the parties agreed to return to Hawaii for another session if no written agreement was reached in a certain period of time–while ignoring the fact that it has made no attempt to reach such written agreement, suggesting that its verbal commitment was not genuine.

CMI has put up a new version of its web page of links to relevant documents, which includes the AiG July 23 letter from Don Landis and their response to it. Their main points of response to the Landis letter are to criticize it for omitting the following:
AiG’s rejecting or ignoring every one of the straightforward models of Christian arbitration proposed
That their wanting to have the organisation of their choice arbitrate was only after we had made it plain that if there were no settlement discussions, or Christian arbitration, we had no choice but to launch legal action due to our lawful (hence biblical, cf Romans 13) duties as directors (to have the legal snare their lawyers’ actions had placed around our ministry’s neck removed).
That our early settlement proposals involved being ready to walk away, with them being allowed to keep the overwhelming bulk of what they had seized. We did not at that stage even request that they do the right thing as far as the magazine subscribers that were deceived in the US were concerned, we just assumed that in due course their consciences would make that happen — it has not happened.
That by AiG-US seeking to force Christian arbitration to happen in the USA, rather than the countries we offered in the course of the matter (Australia, NZ, Hong Kong, Singapore) it is to their great legal and commercial advantage; including forcing us to spend a great deal more money, despite being the smaller ministry that has suffered the losses in all of this.
That the jurisdiction their infamous entrapment documents mentions is the courts of Australia, yet they sought to block accountability in those courts and Australian Christian arbitration.
That the alleged ‘agreement to arbitrate’ they rely upon has nothing to do with their unlawful actions in relation to the magazine.
Even more importantly, that a settlement agreement was reached at a formal settlement meeting in August 2007, in Hawaii, between all the parties. Though Ken Ham did not appear, although we were told he would, the verbal agreement was reached with formal representatives of both organisations, was sealed with a handshake and a gentleman’s agreement to get it all down on paper urgently and end the matter — but AiG sought to subsequently shift the goalposts and in essence reneged on their commitment. And have since officially stated in writing that the Hawaii agreement is ‘off the table’.
That they used false pretences to cause our trademark to lapse in Canada, so that theirs could get off the ground, allowing them to immediately use AiG-Canada — see next bullet point about the deceptive confusion this would cause.
That at the Hawaii meeting, there was general understanding of the reason why the AiG trademark (we have owned that trademark in Australia all along) was important to our safety, which is why they agreed in Hawaii to not use it for several years here and in Canada, for instance. It is not because of wanting to stifle ministry, it is because they had already tried to demand that we hand it over, and had started a widely publicised attempt to get Australian supporters to enlist with them instead. We have NO problem with fair competition, but the law is there to protect against deceptive use of a mark. Our documentation shows how we were forced by AiG to change our name, and if they had then come into Australia or Canada under the old name, people would have been misled into thinking that this was us. I.e. this ministry spent many years building up a reputation under the name AiG. We have said all along that once sufficient time passes, it makes perfect sense to hand over the name rights to AiG, once people realize that these are two different organisations. The same is true for Canada — if we did not act to protect the organisation that used to be called AiG there, their frequently demonstrated desire to destroy that fledgling ministry would have meant that they could do it great harm.
A major point is that they freely agreed in Hawaii to these temporary restraints on their use of the trademark in those countries.
There was supposed to be a court hearing in Australia yesterday, August 8–I haven’t heard whether that occurred and, if it did, what happened, but I will report here when I do.

UPDATE (August 10, 2008): There are now 25 documents on the Answers in Genesis site, and passwords are no longer required for most documents. I’ve only begun reviewing the documents beyond the first five.
Court Order of August 8 (Granting AiG’s petition to compel arbitration)

AiG’s memo in support of compelling arbitration
CMI’s response to AiG’s Motion
AiG’s reply to CMI’s response

CMI’s Australian lawsuit against AiG and Ken Ham
CMI’s Canadian legal opposition against AiG

Affidavit of John Thallon Thallon presents a case that Wieland wanted “democratic reform” that would give him more control of the overall organization and that the U.S. group was having issues with complaints from him, Gary Bates, and Jonathan Sarfati. This affidavit strikes me as an honest declaration of Thallon’s perceptions of the controversy (though possibly with some self-deception) and is probably a good indication of how AiG-US sees its position. It doesn’t comment on issues such as AiG-US’s reneging on the verbal agreement in Hawaii, the specific terms of the October 2005 agreement, or the way in which AiG-US was deceptive about the continuing availability of the Australian group’s publications to U.S. subscribers. There’s a funny account of how Wieland became upset by AiG-US making changes to an Australian-authored article, changing the correctly spelled “toe the line” to the incorrect “tow the line.” Thallon describes Wieland’s reaction as unreasonable, but I’m sympathetic–it’s very annoying when an editor introduces an error into an article, without checking with the author. Thallon claims in this affidavit that he was not pressured into signing the October 2005 agreement, but this is not consistent with the Briese report, which says that (a) “In the presence and hearing of the other Board directors and Paul Salmon, Thallon told Wieland the Board had no choice in the matter. If they didn’t sign, he said, they faced a ‘hostile separation’ from AiG-USA. (The Board was firmly against a separation of the ministries.)” and (b) “Subsequently, Dr John Hartnett, an associate professor and volunteer speaker for CMI, telephoned Thallon to get answers for what had happened. Thallon said words to the following effect: ‘We had no choice. If we didn’t sign, Ken Ham would not have bought the next issue of the magazine.’ (There were approximately 35,000 US subscribers to the magazine and the journal.)” (Thanks to Kevin Henke for identifying this contradiction.)
Affidavit of John E. Pence This affidavit, like the Thallon one, argues that Wieland was unhappy with Ham’s leadership of AiG-US and was asking for changes in the organizational structure that the U.S. group did not want to make. I think this declaration makes a strong case that the U.S. and Australian groups needed to go their separate ways. I like the claim that Creation magazine was seen as becoming “too technical” for U.S. readers. Pence argues that the magazine distribution issue was caused by Wieland refusing to provide proofs until after the U.S. group purchased the next issue, and they refused to do so for fear that there was something in the magazine designed to “harvest” information from U.S. subscribers, which there was–but why would it be unreasonable for them to point U.S. readers to their new website if they wanted to renew subscriptions, since they rightly suspected the U.S. group was going to cut off distribution? In Wieland’s response, he points out that he had relented and agreed to provide the proofs before payment was made. This declaration, unlike Looy’s (below), enumerates specific statements by CMI that the author considers to be false and defamatory, such as that “AiG forced CMI to sign the MOA and DOCL, and that through such documents AiG took valuable property from CMI and attempted to take control over CMI” and that “AiG discontinued purchasing and distributing Creation magazine in bad faith and for purposes of harming CMI."
Exhibits 1-8
Exhibits 9-11
Exhibits 12-15
Exhibits 16-18 These exhibits include the report from the mediator in Hawaii, and letters from AiG and CMI’s attorneys about the settlement and arbitration process. The impression I get is that CMI, more than AiG, was an obstacle to the settlement.
Exhibits 19-23 There are further documents here from AiG’s U.S. attorney and from CMI’s Australian attorney to AiG’s Australian firm–again, these make CMI look like the bigger obstacle to settlement.
Affidavit of Mark Looy
Looy accuses CMI of false and defamatory statements, but fails to identify even one such statement.
Affidavit of Walter Donald Landis Landis, chairman of the board of directors of AiG-US and lead pastor of Community Bible Church in Jackson, WY, speaks in generalities about the AiG/CMI disagreement, and makes accusations of falsehoods and defamation with little in the way of particulars to substantiate them. He says he wants to participate in any lawsuit, but due to health considerations (he had a heart bypass and prostate cancer, and has “severe anxiety concerning flying”), he can’t travel to Australia. Landis’ affidavit gives me the impression that he’s a major ass.
Declaration of Kenneth Duncan MacDonald This declaration is from an Australian attorney who has served on multiple corporate boards as to the legitimacy of the October 2005 documents, the MOA and DOCL. He argues that, given the information he has and a few assumptions he enumerates, that these are validly executed documents.
Declaration of Simon Fisher Another Australian attorney and law professor, this one hired by CMI. He enumerates deficiencies in the MOA and DOCL, and argues that they result in making several provisions of the MOA unenforceable, and putting the status of the MOA as a whole in doubt. He argues that there were transfers from CMI to AiG in the agreement without remuneration and that the board did not appear to consider “the interests of its members as a whole when entering into the MOA and DOCL.” He also responds to specific arguments of MacDonald.
Declaration of Carl Wieland This document contains point-by-point responses to the declarations of Thallon, Pence, Looy, and Landis. There’s an error in paragraph 154 where it says “Don Landis Ham”–I believe it means Landis, not Ham.
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7

CMI AiG dispute historical docs This document is a PDF of a PowerPoint presentation that has been given by AiG about the dispute, with a lot of emphasis on Carl Wieland’s statements about and impressions of Ken Ham. The presentation seems to have the underlying assumption that Wieland’s impressions of Ham couldn’t possibly be accurate. It also has a slide that indicates that AiG-US was focused on biblical doctrine while the Australian group was focused on science (p. 32, compare to p. 30). An email shows Wieland chiding Ham for endorsing a book that makes arguments that was on their list of arguments that the groups recommended not be used (p. 36). This confirms my original impression of the schism that it partly involved this issue.

Members of Christian biker gang arrested on suspicion of attempted murder

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:10:00 +0000

The Los Angeles Times reports:
Long controversial for its aggressive evangelism aimed at those with a troubled past – ex-convicts and drug addicts among them – the Anaheim-based Christian motorcycle gang known as the Set Free Soldiers found itself in deeper trouble Wednesday when its leader and half a dozen members were arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.

The arrests, which followed a double stabbing in a brawl with the Hells Angels at a Newport Beach bar July 27, was the latest brush with the law for the group of black-leather-clad bikers, which has straddled the line between Christian outreach group and outlaw motorcycle gang.
I’ll add this one to my response to Beliefnet commenter Houghton, who seem to think that we should be more concerned about P.Z. Myers-inspired atheist violence.

De-fact-o

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 17:39:00 +0000

A new peer-produced skeptical website, De-fact-o, has popped up to provide skeptical, fact-based evaluation of claims of history, politics, science, health, environment, religion, pop culture, conspiracy theories, questionable quotes, fake photos, and more. There’s a page per claim, and the claim is rated true, false, mostly false, probably false, or unknown. The site is reminiscent of (and not yet as comprehensive as) Snopes.com, but I hope to see it grow substantially with member-produced content.

The articles I’ve checked out appear to be well-done. Those who register on the site can comment on articles, vote on their accuracy, and write new ones, but unlike Wikipedia, approval from the site owners is required before new articles get posted. All articles on the site are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). I would have preferred a Creative Commons license, myself, due to some oddities of the GFDL (see the Wikipedia article on the GFDL, which is where the term is linked to from this paragraph).

FFRF billboard update

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:02:00 +0000

The FFRF billboards are going to start earlier than planned, and unfortunately the first one will be up on August 18, when I’ll be in Maryland.

Here’s the new schedule:

Billboard #2501 Start Date: August 18 – 19th Ave. and Fillmore
Billboard #2005 Start Date: August 25 – Jefferson and 13th St.
Billboard #2911 Start Date: August 25 – McDowell and 14th St.
Billboard #1103 Start Date: September 1 – 3rd Ave. and Van Buren
Billboard #1245 Start Date: September 8 – 7th St. and Coolidge

Each billboard will be up for one month, so the billboards will be up from August 18 to October 8 instead of from September 1-October 1.

(Previously.)

Facing the Fire

Sat, 09 Aug 2008 00:48:00 +0000

I’ve received my copies of the Creation Ministries International DVD, “Facing the Fire," a documentary about the 1988 Gish-Plimer debate in Australia that I was an interview subject for. I don’t think I was misrepresented, though the documentary doesn’t use everything I said (not that I expected it to).

It is one-sided in that it doesn’t critique Gish in any way, even though there is plenty of criticism to be made about Gish’s presentation as well as Plimer’s.

The documentary ends by pointing you to CMI’s website–I’ll point you to the Talk.Origins website.

UPDATE: This web page at the Talk.Origins website points out that Plimer was correct in his criticisms of Gish’s booklet. The ICR did finally update and correct that booklet around 1994, meaning they continued to sell a booklet which made false claims for nearly a decade after they knew that to be the case.

UPDATE (January 1, 2009): You can see the “Facing the Fire” video yourself here.

The Case Against Bruce Ivins

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:11:00 +0000

The Smoking Gun has a collection of documents about the government’s case against suicidal government bioweapons researcher Bruce Ivins that is fascinating. Apparently he engaged in an “edit war” on the Wikipedia entry for the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority (which my mother belonged to). He regularly posted negative information there, and became angry when it was deleted. He claimed that KKG had labeled him an “enemy” and issued a “fatwah” against him, and he broke into a KKG sorority house to steal a KKG handbook during his postdoc fellowship at UNC Chapel Hill.

The documents also show ties between Ivins and the American Family Affiliation, a conservative Christian group known for threatening boycotts against companies that do things like support gay rights, and with pro-life groups.

He was a regular user of pseudonyms and multiple email addresses.

The documents show that he was clearly a very disturbed individual.

(Previously.)

UPDATE (August 9, 2008): Ivins’ coworker Meryl Nass lays out the case for reasonable doubt about Ivins’ involvement at her blog.

Hume’s Ghost points out in the comments that the anthrax attacks were used to help justify the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that the anthrax apparently originated there. One of the Glenn Greenwald articles Hume’s Ghost alludes to, about false claims that the anthrax contained bentonite which tied it to Iraq, may be found here. A nice quote from that article:

Lying for Jesus

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:18:00 +0000

Radley Balko points out an article on the Answers in Genesis website (dating to before its split with Creation Ministries International) by CMI head Carl Wieland and Don Batten interviewing Christian “physicist of medicine” Saami Shaibani, and observes that this individual is a phony who has lied about his credentials and academic affiliation when testifying as an expert witness in several trials. He claimed to be a clinical associate professor at Temple University, when he was not.

This is not the first time that creationist organizations have promoted individuals with phony credentials (see Dmitri Kouznetsov), and I’m sure it won’t be the last. Will AiG and CMI point out that they’ve been duped again?

I pointed out issues with Saami Shaibani to CMI in October 2003, to which they responded that they were satisfied that he has the degrees he claimed–though they agreed to some concern about his claiming a false affiliation. I sent them multiple sources including this CourtTV link and three other newspaper links that are now dead links.

Shaibani gets some terrible ratings as a teacher for his alleged repeated assertions that the United States sucks and England is wonderful.

SWAT team kills mayor's dogs

Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:07:00 +0000

In yet another absurd drug raid, a Prince George’s County special operations team busted down the doors of the home of Cheye Calvo, mayor of Berwyn Heights, Maryland, and shot his two dogs dead. This case was part of a scheme where drugs were being sent to homes of innocent people and then intercepted. Maryland does not allow no-knock warrants, but the authorities who entered Calvo’s home did not knock and refused to show a warrant when asked for one. The police expressed regret, but no apologies, for killing the mayor’s dogs.

The militarization of U.S. police, their completely inappropriate tactics in drug raids, and their repeated killing of dogs all need to stop.

Radley Balko at The Agitator has documented countless cases of such abusive actions, yet police are almost never held accountable for their actions. Perhaps in this case, since it involves a city mayor, someone will be held accountable. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

UPDATE (August 10, 2008): The police in this case claimed that they don’t have a standard practice of shooting dogs, but Balko shows that this case is far from unique in that respect.

Calvo has spoken publicly about this raid and the fact that it is far from unique, except that in this case it was against the home of a mayor.

There's a reason you've never heard of "bus rage."

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 02:58:00 +0000

Bad timing for this ad campaign. I suppose Greyhound will be looking for a new ad agency?

Einzige (2008-08-07):

Holy Christ!

What would inspire a person to such heights of sheer insanity?

What's the new ad campaign going to be?

"Greyhound. We drive you insane."

Eamon Knight (2008-08-08):

Einzige:
That campaign was already running. Greyhound seems to be pulling the posters as fast as they can find them.

Now PETA's new campaign, OTOH....

Rod Dreher and Francis Beckwith misrepresent P.Z. Myers

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 22:17:00 +0000

Rod Dreher wrote a column on the Beliefnet blog titled “P.Z. Myers hates Christians exclusively," in ignorance of the fact that his desecration of a consecrated host also included pages from the Koran and from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. I think it’s fair to criticize Myers for being too easy on the Muslims who have reacted with violence for the Mohammed cartoons, but to say that he “hates Christians exclusively” is a gross misrepresentation of his views.

I’ve responded to a couple of comments at the blog, which is full of comments from blinkered hypocrites who fail to recognize the beams in their own eyes:

Houghton writes (July 14, 2008 3:08 PM): “Those who think of themselves as “brights” will now start behaving in increasingly nakedly aggressive ways in America and the rest of the West. There won’t be a need to “spiritualize” at that point, because the snarling rage and violent attacks we’ll witness will be quite open for all to see."

But it’s not Myers who has promoted violence or criminal activity, it’s the Catholics who have been sending him death threats and threats of violence against his children, yet where is your condemnation of that?

A “Fr. J”, posting at Pharyngula, made a similar remark to the above, and tried to claim that the recent attempted attack on a Christian radio station on College Station, PA was by an atheist–when in fact the man was a mentally ill Christian off his meds. And the FBI’s primary suspect for the 2001 anthrax attacks who just killed himself was a Catholic. Back in 2006, a conservative Christian was arrested in Los Angeles for sending threats and fake anthrax.

Francis Beckwith commented (July 15, 2008 11:36 AM): “According to PZ, Catholic outrage is unwarranted, but Muslim outrage is, though the latter hurt their cause because they resort to violence. Muslims are portrayed as victims, albeit irrational and misguided, who harm their cause by overreacting. Catholics are told by PZ to remain completely silent and speak only when spoken to as they sit in the back of the secular bus."

Where has P.Z. Myers criticized Catholics for being outraged, as opposed to criticizing them for issuing death threats, threatening the lives of his children, trying to get him fired from his job, trying to get Webster Cook and his friend expelled from the University of Central Florida, and for saying things that are idiotic, like the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy’s laughably absurd statement about the meaning of the First Amendment. You should give that statement a read.

Bush pressured FBI to blame anthrax on al Qaeda

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:40:00 +0000

White House officials pressured the FBI to blame the 2001 anthrax attacks on al Qaeda, even after it was already known that the anthrax was a strain that came from U.S. Army laboratories, according to a retired senior FBI official.

Just another example of Bush administration deception.

Historical Comments

Hume's Ghost (2008-08-06):

Seen this yet?

The bit about Suskind's research assistant getting detained is interesting. After his first book about Bush, the book's main subject Paul O'Neal was investigated for breaking the law (he was cleared.) I forgot to make note of it in my post, but we do already know that this administration has stepped up its surveillance effforts of journalists when it comes to pursuing leaks - which is precisely what Suskind is good at getting ... as indicated by the absolute jaw-dropper in the link.

I also watched Suskind on Olbermann this evening. Two of his sources have come out saying they didn't tell Suskind what they told him, but he kind of laughed that off because he says he has the taped conversations.

RIP Shelby, 1997-2008

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:21:00 +0000

Shelby was a puppy from my sister’s dog Sheba, a Queensland Heeler/Border Collie mix. We don’t know who the father was, but Shelby had a black tongue and seemed to have some Chow in her. She was born on February 7, 1997, and I adopted her a few months later. She was a smart dog–I took her to obedience training at six months, and she picked up the basics and retained them her whole life, though often when she wanted a treat she would go through the whole routine instead of responding to the specific command given. She had a strong herding instinct, and acted to police the behavior of other dogs.

In her early years her constant companion was my Shih-Tzu, Blossom, who I adopted from Shih-Tzu rescue in late 1996. Blossom was the top dog despite her smaller size, and the two of them would frequently wrestle and play. Shelby loved to go for walks or runs–I think she would be happy to run continuously until she dropped from exhaustion, given the opportunity. My father adopted her brother, Fox, and we’d occasionally take the two of them to hike on the trails at Squaw Peak. She had serious separation anxiety for the first few years, and I’d often come home from work to find the couch cushions on the floor with stuffing ripped out of them. I used to leave the doggie door open back then, and I remember one time I came home to find the backyard strewn with tiny fragments of foam from the inside of Blossom’s bed. It took me a couple days to get them all picked up. Fortunately, she grew out of this habit and the only messes she made in subsequent years were when she learned to knock over the kitchen garbage cans or when some food items like a loaf of bread were left to close to the edge of the counter.

In August of 2001 I moved to a new house with a very large backyard and a fence around the entire property, including a gated driveway. I had a doggie door put in, and again used to leave it open. On August 11, I spent the night away from home, with the doggie door open, and on my way home received a call on my cell phone from a woman who said she had found my dog in the road in front of my house and had put her in a plastic bag by the gate. When I got home I found that there was a missing iron bar on the front gate that made a hole that Blossom had gotten through, and just outside of the gate was Shelby’s collar. Shelby had apparently tried to get through the hole to follow Blossom, but was unable to fit, and pulled her collar off in the process–I found her waiting for me inside the house. From that point on, we’ve never left the doggie door open when we’re not home. I also fixed the hole in the front gate and added additional fencing to separate the front and back yards–a defense-in-depth strategy that has occasionally still been tested by some foster dogs who were particularly small or efficient at digging under fences and gates and finding points of failure that I’ve fixed by burying bricks. Fortunately, no other dog has met Blossom’s fate through an escape.

Shelby was somewhat particular about what dogs she’d get along with, which limited our options when we started fostering rescue dogs. Kat’s dog, a very large German short-haired pointer named Oscar, stayed at her parents’ house because Shelby didn’t get along with him. Oscar ended up suffering from a degenerative neurological condition which deprived him of the use of his back legs, and he had to use a cart to go on walks. His condition deteriorated and he was euthanized in November 2007.

In December 2001 I adopted Otto, a rescue dog, who became Shelby’s new closest companion and regular morning wrestling partner. In August 2002, Kat found an Australian cattle dog outside her work place, which we took to the pound, notified RESCUE about, and ended up fostering and very quickly adopting. She typically didn’t get along with females or with dogs her size or larger, so we’ve mostly fostered smaller male dogs.

Shelby started to have trouble with arthritis in her back legs in 2005, and would have trouble getting up and going up stairs after walks, so we put her on medication, which was extremely effective. She would occasionally show some signs of weakness or pain in her legs after a long walk, but she’d quickly recover and be ready to go again.

On April 21, we awoke to hear her breathing heavily and whining downstairs. X-rays showed that her bowel was full of fecal matter, and an enema provided her with relief. Her white blood cell count was slightly low, so we treated her with a cycle of antibiotics to fight any infection, and she seemed fine after that. This last Saturday night, August 2, I let the dogs out at midnight to go to the bathroom, and they all came back inside for a treat, and everything seemed fine. But at about four a.m., it seemed like a repeat of April 21. Shelby was breathing rapidly and shallowly, whining, and didn’t want to get up. She was having periodic spasms of her abdomen, and seemed like she couldn’t get comfortable. We took her in to the vet, where her X-rays showed some fecal material in her bowel, but nothing like April 21. Her blood work showed a low white blood cell count again, and also a low platelet count. The doctor suggested that there was something else going on now, that could include tick fever, an autoimmune disorder, or internal bleeding. They had no one at the hospital overnight, so we took her home Sunday and were under instructions to immediately take her to a 24-hour emergency clinic if she showed any signs of bruising under the skin, petechiae on her gums, or blood from her nose, or if she showed difficulty breathing or otherwise seemed to be in distress. She devoured the canned food we bought for her at the vet when we got her home, and I slept downstairs with her.

I ended up waking up several times during the night. Sometimes I found her peacefully asleep, other times she was sitting up and acting uncomfortable, but she didn’t seem as bad as she had the night before. She refused to drink any water I gave her. Monday morning we decided to take her in again, and since she still hadn’t had a bowel movement, we asked the vet to give her an enema. Kat also observed that her abdomen appeared to be somewhat distended. The enema was successful, and when I spoke to a vet tech later in the day, she said Shelby seemed comfortable, but said the doctor wanted to take some more X-rays, and I gave my approval. At about 4 p.m. in the afternoon, Kat called the vet for status, and he said that the new X-rays appeared to show evidence of internal bleeding, and he had found that the fluid causing her distended abdomen was blood. He asked us to please come and take her to another emergency clinic that could do an ultrasound to locate the cause of the bleeding and take appropriate action. We got to the vet around 4:30 p.m. and it seemed like we had to wait forever to consult with the doctor and get her out of there. The doctor told us her prognosis was not good–most likely the cause would be found to be a cancerous tumor of some kind. It was after 5 p.m. when we left for the emergency clinic, just in time for rush hour traffic.

We arrived at the emergency clinic at about 5:45 p.m., filled out paperwork, and met with Brian, an emergency veterinary doctor. Brian told us the same thing as the other doctor–that her prognosis, given her age and likely cause, was not good. He said that his recommended action was to perform an ultrasound, and if the cause appeared to be a single tumor, to operate and try to save her in hopes that it’s benign. On the other hand, if there were multiple tumors, he advised that surgery would not significantly prolong her life and would probably reduce its quality. We agreed with his recommendation, and Shelby went in the back for her ultrasound.

It was probably around 7 p.m. when we got the news that Shelby had tumors in multiple lobes of her liver, as well as some possible metastasis to her lungs.

We spent some time with Shelby, giving her attention and letting her know she was a good dog. She spent some time laying on her side and resting, but she would frequently whine as we touched her. But she was also alert enough to sit up, to wag her tail, and to walk around when asked. We made the decision to go ahead and euthanize, given her distress and prognosis.

The doctor’s first attempt to administer “Sleepaway”-brand sodium pentobarbitol to a vein in Shelby’s back leg met with resistance, so he decided it was best to set up an IV, which required Shelby going back into a back room. She didn’t want to go with the vet tech, she sat down and pulled against her collar. Finally, when Kat went with her, she cooperated.

She came back to the room with her IV in place on her front right paw, and laid down on the blanket that was put down for her. We petted her and I rubbed her head with my hands and told her she was a good dog. The doctor slowly administered the drug, and she let out a big last breath with a sigh and dropped her head into my hands. The doctor reported that she was asleep, with a faint heartbeat. A few moments later, at about 7:55 p.m., she was gone.

Her absence is painful. The sound of her collar clinking on the water bowl as she drinks. Her standing closely behind Kat as she cuts vegetables waiting for a piece of carrot, broccoli, or lettuce. The sound of her 55-pound body hitting the wood of the hallway floor outside my home office as she lays down waits for me to return to the living room. Her vicious-sounding wrestling with Otto in the mornings. Her putting her head on my knee for attention (or, more often, for food). Her barking at Einzige (while wagging her tail) every time he comes to visit. Whenever Kat or I would go on a trip for work, she’d wait expectantly by the door each evening hoping that we would return.

She was a loyal, intelligent, loving friend, and we’ll miss her terribly.

I’ve put up a few pictures from her life in a public Flickr set.

Is online journal publication shrinking the long tail?

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:16:00 +0000

Chris Anderson’s book, The Long Tail, showed how the Internet has made it possible for business models that focus on small niche markets rather than mass markets to be successful. While a bricks-and-mortar bookstore will typically have at most a couple hundred thousand titles and make most of its money from bestsellers, Amazon.com can list millions of titles and makes a quarter to a third of its revenue from the “long tail” of books that are not in the top 100,000 sellers.

One might think that putting science journals online would mean that more obscure articles would get greater readership, but a study by James Evans published in Science argues that as more journals are published online, fewer articles are being cited, and those that are tend to be more recently published. While the ability to search online by keywords means that an author of a scientific paper is unlikely to overlook any published paper containing those keywords, it also means that authors are less likely to look at other articles published in the same issues or run into articles that may be related in the big picture but don’t contain the selected keywords. Evans found that for each additional year of back issues available online, the average age of articles cited in that journal fell by a month. He predicts that for the average journal, adding five years of back issues online results in a drop in the number of articles cited per year from 600 to 200.

The concern here is similar to the concern about online social networks that become narrowly focused–that people are missing exposure to ideas that they might have previously come across, now that they can select more specifically the items they want. I’m not sure how seriously to take this concern. In my own case, I don’t feel like the Internet is causing me to overspecialize, rather it’s providing me with access to all sorts of information I wouldn’t previously have run into. I don’t feel like the Internet is in danger of subdividing into sections of compartmentalized information the way that Bill Bishop’s book, The Big Sort, suggests people are forming physical like-minded clusters of neighborhoods. I wonder if Evans would have found different results if, instead of looking at journal citations, he looked at the role being played by electronic publications such as blogs and mailing lists, where I suspect there is increasing interdisciplinary cross-pollination.

(Via The Economist, July 19, 2008, p. 89.)

July's Pre-foreclosure Numbers

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 17:23:00 +0000

I bought my first house 10 years ago, in July, 1998. Prior to the purchase I was living in a nearby apartment complex, paying $435/month for a 2-bedroom, 1 bath. I (over)paid $86,500 for the house, putting 3% down, so my monthly payments, at roughly $600, were ~35% higher than my rent–a reasonable premium to me, considering I’d suddenly be living and building equity in “my own place."

Today, zillow.com says the house is worth about $192,000, and monthly payments at 3% down would come to just under $1300/month. By comparison, you can still rent that 2 bedroom apartment for around $600. Doing the same math again, I don’t think I’d come to the conclusion that the “ownership premium” is really worth it. Would you?

You might be wondering what my little story has to do with July’s notices of trustee’s sales–which, at 6412, as you can see from the graph, were lower than June’s. Bush’s housing bailout bill recently became law, which may mean that we have just passed the peak for home foreclosures–and soon we may even see a stop to falling home prices. Great news for current home owners, but, as my personal anecdote suggests, not-so-great news for housing affordability in general. The bailout essentially is a subsidy to current home owners at the expense of future home owners.

Because it will prop up current prices beyond where they would have naturally fallen, housing affordability will remain low, encouraging the spawning of all sorts of new government programs to help address “the affordability gap” (or some such wealth-transfer justificationist nonsense)–making money cheaper than it actually is, which will in turn encourage sellers to raise their prices still further while at the same time creating homeowners out of people who probably aren’t fiscally responsible enough to be ones. Is this sounding familiar, yet?

As a non-homeowner who is making twice what he made in 1998 but would have an extremely hard time justifying paying $1300/month to own a crappy house, I would have preferred if Congress could’ve just left well enough alone.

Bowl-a-Rama success

Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:33:00 +0000

Yesterday we participated in the 6th Annual PACC911 Bowl-a-Rama on Arizona RESCUE’s dog team. I bowled in the cat team’s lane and brought down their average score, helping the dog team to another win–apparently Nintendo Wii bowling doesn’t help train for the real thing. The event had a morning and afternoon session; RESCUE was in the morning session from 10-12:30. RESCUE came in second place for “loudest cheer,” which added another $50 There were about 60 groups participating in the morning session which raised a total of about $122,000–of which RESCUE alone raised $42,000! Thanks to everyone who supported our efforts and to Lisa and Einzige for coming out to the event to cheer us on!

ApostAZ podcast #6

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:32:00 +0000

ApostAZ podcast #6 is up:
Episode 006 Atheism and Freethought in Phoenix- Go to atheists.meetup.com/157 for group events! Jim Lippard teases three cool books. “Squared” from Greydon Square’s ‘The Compton Effect’. Evolution Laments God of the Gaps. Saying Naughty Words. Bad reasons to be an atheist. Outro from ‘Dream’ Greydon Square’s Album ‘The Compton Effect’
Comments: The podcast gets better each time. I disagree with the idea that everyone who is an agnostic is just trying to be politically correct, or is fence-sitting out of non-rational reasons. John Wilkins and Paul Draper are two examples of philosophers who are agnostic because they have rational reasons for thinking that there is some balance between arguments for and against the existence of gods, that there aren’t methods for weighing such arguments, or that there isn’t sufficient evidence to conclude that gods exist or do not exist.

New Yorker article on magic

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 15:16:00 +0000

Via Podblack Cat, I read Adam Gopnik’s fascinating account of magic as practiced by Jamy Ian Swiss, David Blaine, and with a few remarks from Teller and a visit to David Copperfield’s private museum of magic. Gopnik discusses the history and psychology of magic, and the only false note I encountered was at the end, where he writes:
The magicians have the boys for a moment, between their escape from their fathers and their pursuit of girls. After that, they become sexual, outwardly so, and learn that women (or other men) cannot be impressed by tricks of any kind: if they are watching at all, they are as interested as they are ever going to be, and tricks are of no help. You cannot woo anyone with magic; the magic that you have consciously mastered is the least interesting magic you have.
That’s a statement that seems to suggest that the general public can’t be fooled by slick politicians using Machiavellian methods, that there’s no such thing as effective marketing techniques, and that the methods of pick-up artists don’t really work. But you really can fool all of the people some of the time.

Large Hadron Collider rap

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:37:00 +0000

Science writer Kate McAlpine (aka Alpinekat) has put out a YouTube video of “Large Hadron Rap.” The LHC begins operation with a test on August 9, and the first protons are expected to circle the entire track in early September. The New York Times has the background on the LHC and the rap video.

(Via Podblack Cat.)

UPDATE (August 10, 2008): The Economist has a good article on what the Large Hadron Collider has the potential to discover–not just the Higgs boson, but supersymmetric particles with names like neutralinos (making up dark matter), and creating tiny short-lived black holes that will generate Hawking radiation and possibly win Hawking a Nobel prize.

World's largest horseshoe crab promotes creationism through motorcycle jump

Sat, 02 Aug 2008 02:45:00 +0000

Baltimore’s Columbus Center Maritime Museum had the world’s largest horseshoe crab model built for them–it is 68 feet long, 28 feet long, and has a 13-foot-high domed ceiling (apparently you can go inside it). The museum was in need of revenue, so it sold the giant horseshoe crab to the Answers in Genesis Creation Museum as it was under construction. AiG realized that the crab was too large to fit in their museum, and so they gave it to the Freedom Worship Church in Blanchester, Ohio. That church put the crab into a “scripture garden” and a “fossil courtyard,” where it is used to argue for creationism on the grounds that the horseshoe crab has not evolved over time and exhibits evidence of design as “a true gift from God, with its blood being used as a clotting agent for disease in scientific research.” And now it is going to be jumped over with a motorcycle for a fundraising event called “Crabfest,” by Evel Knievel’s former bodyguard, Gene Sullivan.

How could anyone fail to be convinced by that?

(Via the Wilmington News Journal, Ohio.)

Prosecution target for anthrax attacks commits suicide

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:42:00 +0000

Upon learning that he was about to be the target of a prosecution for the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people, U.S. government biodefense researcher Bruce Ivins killed himself on Tuesday with an overdose of Tylenol with codeine.

Ivins became a suspect after it was discovered that he had failed to report anthrax contaminations at his lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, in 2002. In late 2008, he was ordered to stay away from a social worker who had counseled him, Jean Duley, who would have testified against him at his trial. In Duley’s application for a protective order, she said that Ivins had stalked her and threatened to kill her.

Ivins worked at the same lab where a prior “person of interest” in the case, Stephen Hatfill, also worked. Hatfill was cleared of involvement with the attacks and won a $5.8 million settlement from the Justice Department after he sued for harassment and privacy act violations. Hatfill also won a $10 million libel judgment against Vanity Fair and Reader’s Digest for an article by Donald Foster which claimed that Hatfill’s writings and travels connected him to the anthrax attacks.

Ivins’ attorney claims that he was innocent, but if that were the case, wouldn’t his response have been more like Hatfill’s? Perhaps, perhaps not. Private investigator and former CNN reporter Pat Clawson, who was also a spokesperson for Hatfill,
said on Friday that news organizations and the public should be “deeply skeptical” about any notion that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer unless and until solid evidence is brought forth.
“Everybody is jumping to the conclusion that because this guy committed suicide, he must be the anthrax killer,” Mr. Clawson said. “That is a lousy premise. The pressure of these F.B.I. investigations on individuals is phenomenal, and it is quite likely that this guy cracked under that pressure but had nothing to do with the killings.”

Tough questions for McCain and Obama

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:47:00 +0000

Ed Brayton gives a summary of Radley Balko’s list of tough questions for the candidates. It’s a pity that our mass media is unlikely to ask any of them. (Yet kudos to Fox News for publishing Radley Balko’s columns asking them–they seem to be a whole lot better on the web than they are on television.) Brayton quotes the questions for McCain about how serious he is about cutting corporate pork when he personally profits from it (the laws that mandate alcohol be sold through distributors like Hensley & Co, where his wife got her fortune) and how he reconciles his support for the drug war with the fact that his wife was permitted to avoid any criminal penalties for her prescription drug problems. For Obama, he selected as favorites how Obama plans to pay for his proposed civilian national security force, how he reconciles his support for the drug war with his own past use of marijuana and cocaine, and why he supported the farm bill and supports ethanol subsidies.

I think Ed clearly picked out the best questions Balko asked of McCain, but here are a couple other questions for Obama that I particularly liked:
In a speech to Cuban-Americans in Miami, you called the Cuban trade embargo “an important inducement for change,” a 180-degree shift from your prior position. The trade embargo has been in place for 46 years. Did denying an entire generation of Cubans access to American goods, culture, and ideas induce any actual change? Wasn’t the real effect just to keep Cubans poor and isolated? In communist countries like Vietnam and China, trade with the U.S. has ushered in economic reform, and vastly improved the standard of living. Why wouldn’t it be the same if we were to start trading with Cuba?

In addition to the drugs, Cuba, and school voucher issues, you have also changed or revised your position in recent months on the war in Iraq, government eavesdropping and immunity for the telecom companies, and holding employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. Under some circumstances, changing or revising one’s position can show admirable introspection — the ability to revise prior conceptions with new information. Some of your new positions are more conservative. Some are more liberal. But they do seem to have one thing in common: Should we be concerned that your shifts have been to those positions that give more power and influence to government? Are there any areas where you’d actually roll back the federal government?
Balko asked a question of McCain about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, also known as McCain-Feingold), which I think did serious damage to the First Amendment and protects incumbent politicians by prohibiting any corporation (including nonprofits) or by an unincorporated entity using any corporate funds from running ads critical or supportive of a candidate within 30 days of a primary or within 60 days of a general election. I agree McCain should be asked tough questions about his apparent disrespect for political speech, but I didn’t particularly care for the specific question Balko came up with.

Expert tells China visitors to encrypt data as U.S. announces policy of laptop seizure

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:16:00 +0000

I saw two articles this morning which I think invite comparison. First, Phil Dunkelberger, CEO of PGP Corporation, says people visiting China should take laptops with no data, or encrypt what data they have:
Travelers carrying smart cell phones, blackberries or laptop computers could unwittingly be offering up sensitive personal or business information to officials who monitor state-controlled telecommunications carriers, Dunkelberger said.

He said that without data encryption, executives could have business plans or designs pilfered, while journalists’ lists of contacts could be exposed, putting sources at risk.

Foolish man attempts to rob liquor store

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:18:00 +0000

Kat’s trip to work this morning was delayed by road closures due to the aftermath of a foiled attempt to hold up a neighborhood liquor store, Minute Liquors, owned and run by a Bulgarian immigrant couple of our acquaintance. The gunman who chose their store to rob made a slight miscalculation, since the store is directly across 16th St. from a Department of Public Safety facility. The robber came out of the store to face about a dozen officers, who were at the facility preparing for training when they were informed of a robbery in progress across the street. The armed robber was shot in the abdomen and taken to the hospital.

A librarian responds to a parental challenge

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:05:00 +0000

A parent complained about Sarah Brannen’s book, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, about same-sex marriage, that was in the children’s book section in the Douglas County Library system in Colorado. Librarian Jamie Larue wrote an excellent, kind, and thoughtful response to the library patron about why the library is not going to move or remove the book.

FFRF billboards are coming to Phoenix

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:09:00 +0000

It’s official, the contracts have been signed and paid for–the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s billboards will be coming to Phoenix. There will be five of them, all in central Phoenix, and both of the FFRF’s designs will be represented. There’s the “Imagine No Religion” billboard, pictured here in Denver, and another design that says “Beware of Dogma."

The billboards will appear starting September 1, and I’ll post some photos once they’re up. The billboard locations will be:
#1103 Cross streets: 3rd Ave & Van Buren. Located on 3rd Ave just north of Van Buren. Best viewing occurs while traveling northbound on 3rd Ave approaching Van Buren. At this intersection look forward and right. The sign is setback from a parking lot which makes for clear viewing and efficient picture taking. The Arizona State Capital, Phoenix City Hall, FOX News, and the Arizona Republic are all within a few blocks.

#1245 Cross streets: 7th St & Coolidge. Located just north of the downtown area on 7th Street. Best viewing occurs while traveling southbound on 7th Ave just south of Camelback Rd but just prior to Coolidge. The sign is on the east side of 7th Street.

#2005 Cross Streets: Jefferson & 13th St. Located just east of the downtown area and Chase Field on Jefferson Street. Best viewing occurs while traveling eastbound on Jefferson just after 13th Street. The sign is on the south side of Jefferson Street.

#2501 Cross Streets: 19th Ave & Fillmore. Located just west of the State Capital area on 19th Ave. Best viewing occurs while traveling northbound on 19th Ave just prior to Fillmore. The sign is on the west side of 19th Ave. This location is within a few blocks of the Capital Complex.

#2911 Cross streets: McDowell & 14th St. Located just northwest of the downtown area on McDowell Rd. Best viewing occurs while traveling eastbound on McDowell just after 14th St. The sign is on the north side of McDowell. The Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center is within a few blocks.
When these billboards have gone up in other locations, they’ve usually generated some protests and complaints, as well as competing billboards, such as this one in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania which accused atheists of hating America. That misses the whole point–the point is to let nonbelievers know that they are not alone, and to put them in touch with the FFRF and other local groups of people with similar opinions about the supernatural. One can certainly express disagreement with the sentiment (or the likelihood of a world without religion–I think it’s unlikely that religion will disappear from the world as long as there are social groups of human beings on it), but a response that claims that atheists hate America or are engaged in persecution is to mistake reality for a caricature like the one depicted in Robby Berry’s “Life in Our Anti-Christian America."

Funding for these billboards was a joint project of the FFRF and various Meetup groups led by some folks from the Phoenix Atheists Meetup group, which is now up to 411 members. There are plans for a followup billboard, for which funds are still being raised, which will advertise a website promoting a diverse set of groups of atheists, agnostics, humanists, brights, and freethinkers.

Dr. Jay Gordon's bogus anti-vaccine arguments

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:19:00 +0000

Orac at Respectful Insolence critiques Dr. Jay Gordon’s argument that breastfeeding and eating less cheese is a better way to prevent communicable diseases than vaccination.

Dubious Documents of American History

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:37:00 +0000

At Rational Rant is an excellent three-part critique of a document that’s been floating around the Internet which claims to support the case that America was intended by its founders to be a Christian nation. In fact, the document is a mish-mash of fabricated quotations and misinformation. Rational Rant has gone to the trouble of digging up the details and even comparing four different versions of the document.

“Dubious Documents”: part one, part two, part three

Randy Pausch's "last lecture"

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:15:00 +0000

He actually did give at least one more lecture after this at another university, but this was his last lecture at CMU, given on September 18, 2007 for a series originally titled “The Last Lecture.” Pausch was born October 23, 1960 and died today, July 25, 2008. You can read his story at his CMU web page, at least once the traffic dies down.

This lecture is on achieving your childhood dreams, most of which he did, and on enabling the childhood dreams of others. Pausch was the founder of the Alice Project, which is a 3D programming environment for teaching students.

UPDATE (July 26, 2008): I’m getting lots of traffic to this post from people searching for Randy Pausch’s name and the word “atheist,” apparently from people trying to find out if he was an atheist. His CMU web page thanks his church, so he belonged to one, whatever his religious beliefs may have been. He didn’t say anything in his lecture to indicate what they were. As an atheist, it doesn’t matter to me so much what he believed, as opposed to how he lived. That is in sharp contrast to several Christian sites which have condemned him for being a nonbeliever (which they don’t know to be the case) or for failing to evangelize. These people strike me as angry believers looking for reasons to criticize someone who led a good life. One Christian writer criticized Pausch’s talk by attempting to paraphrase it as “I lived a meaningless life following meaningless rules, so should you.” The same writer says, “Yes, he lived a nice and successful life, but so what? Who cares? He will be forgotten as were many people before and after him. His impact on the world would soon disappear. Whatever he achieved in research will soon become useless.” What nonsense! So what? Those who knew him and worked with him disagree. He will eventually be forgotten, as we all will, but it will always be the case that he did live and he did make a mark on the people around him and his time was not wasted. And he will be no more harmed by his nonexistence after his death than he was by his nonexistence before he was born.

I question the motivation of those who argue critically of those who have lived happy and productive lives, arguing that so much better are the lives of those who live miserable, angry, critical, and destructive lives, just so long as they accept Jesus before they die. Surely the universe they want to believe in is an unjust and immoral one.

Update on CMI-AiG lawsuits

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:36:00 +0000

Creation Ministries International has updated its website about its legal battles with Answers in Genesis of Kentucky. The latest addition reports that in April, AiG served CMI with a lawsuit in the United States trying to stop the legal action in Australia–even though one of the two contracts AiG is trying to enforce specifies the law of the Australian state of Victoria as the governing law and forum. CMI will be defending itself in the U.S. against the new action.

Shootings at South Mountain Community College

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:48:00 +0000

Kat saw multiple police cars on her way home and now we hear a bunch of helicopter action nearby, and it appears there has been a shooting incident at South Mountain Community College, with three victims and a suspect in custody.

UPDATE (5:08 p.m.): The shooting apparently took place at the campus Technology Center around 4 p.m., and the campus was quickly locked down, but the suspect had already left. The suspect was arrested at around 23rd Ave. and Grove, near his home. The news is reporting four victims admitted to the Maricopa Medical Center, two men aged 17 and 19, one 20-year-old woman, and one possible additional victim not confirmed. At least one male victim was aware and speaking as he was admitted, and the woman spoke with her father, Otis Williams, by cell phone after she was shot.

One news report claims the suspect was known on campus, and that was apparently why he was quickly apprehended.

Students are now being permitted to leave campus. Classes for the rest of today and tomorrow are cancelled.

UPDATE (5:22 p.m.): Apparently the suspect, a black male driving a white truck, drove home where his father persuaded himself to give himself up to police, which he did. Police and fire department officials were on site at the campus within about five minutes after the first reports of a shooting (both police and fire stations are quite close by).

UPDATE (6:04 p.m.): The ages of victims have been changed–the woman, a pharmacy student, from 22 to 20, and the 25-year-old male to 19. The 17-year-old has been identified as Christopher Taylor, by his brother Jay. A student reports that the shooter was one of two men who had been fighting in the computer center. The 19-year-old victim is reported in critical condition, while the other two victims are in stable condition. (Yet CNN reports that the woman was shot in the abdomen while the other two victims were shot in the leg. It describes the males as aged 17 and 25.)

The alleged fourth victim apparently didn’t exist, and was incorrectly reported by one of the news reporters on the basis of watching people being brought in to the hospital. Or perhaps there was a 25-year-old shot in the leg and a 19-year-old who received more serious injuries?

UPDATE (8:24 p.m.): CBS News 5 reports that there was a long-running dispute between the shooter and one of the victims, and police say that the shooting was gang-related.

UPDATE (July 25, 2008): The shooter has been identified as 22-year-old Rodney Smith, a former SCC student and known as a regular at the computer lab, who came to campus to pick a fight with 19-year-old Isaac Deshay Smith, who was shot in the leg and was still in critical condition last night. The other two victims caught in the crossfire were 20-year-old Charee Williams, who was shot in the hip, and 17-year-old Christopher Lee Taylor, who was also shot in the leg. Five family members and friends of Rodney Smith were also taken into custody last night for interfering with the investigation and disobeying police officers. The most recent report does not mention gangs, but only a long-standing feud between the two Smiths.

UPDATE (July 26, 2008): Rodney Smith has apologized to his “innocent victims” in court, and it has been reported that Isaac Deshay Smith and two others were involved in a fight last year in which Rodney Smith was punched and kicked while lying on the ground and his jaw broken in two places.

P.Z. Myers has desecrated a cracker

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:28:00 +0000

P.Z. Myers has eloquently described what he did, after a bit of history from 1215 to the present. There’s so much well-described in his article that I resist the urge to quote from it at all–go read the whole thing, “The Great Desecration," at Pharyngula.

UPDATE: Bill Donohue has used the occasion to issue yet another apoplectic press release.

UPDATE (July 30, 2008): The Confraternity of Catholic Clergy has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the First Amendment in their condemnation of Myers’ action. They seem to think it means that you can’t make fun of a religion unless you’re a member of it, and that everybody has to be a member of some religion.

Klingenschmitt: Intellectually dishonest or merely lazy?

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:10:00 +0000

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars reports on his recent exchanges on a religion law mailing list with former Navy chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt, in which Klingensmitt repeatedly makes false statements and attacks straw men.

UPDATE: After reading more about Klingenschmitt, I’m going with dishonest.

RBH (2008-07-24):

Klingenschmitt: Intellectually dishonest or merely lazy?

False dichotomy. You neglected the most likely alternative: "crazy."

Lippard (2008-07-24):

I'll be happy to accept that additional disjunct.

Medical marijuana in California

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:06:00 +0000

There’s an interesting article in the July 23, 2008 The New Yorker by David Samuels, “Dr. Kush: How medical marijuana is transforming the pot industry." It describes the current state of medical marijuana business in California, where the operators of small dispensaries, which are fully compliant with state law but not federal, are not prosecuted despite occasional fed harassment. That harassment will no doubt continue until either Raich v. Ashcroft gets overturned (it was a terrible Supreme Court decision) or the feds decide to decriminalize marijuana themselves, one of which I expect to happen in the next decade.

Oldest complete manuscript of Bible to be available online

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:49:00 +0000

The Codex Sinaiticus, a fourth-century biblical manuscript that includes the oldest complete new Testament and a partial Old Testament in Greek (the Septuagint), will be available online at http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/ beginning tomorrow, July 24. The site is currently live with a few page images from the manuscript, which was written over 1600 years ago (between 330-350 C.E.). Tomorrow, you will be able to look at images of the pages, see the Greek text in a window next to it, and translation into another language in a window below that–English, German, Russian, or Greek (presumably modern Greek).

Mexican suicide aid

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:46:00 +0000

The New York Times reported Monday about Mexican pet shops selling pentobarbital, which is being purchased by international visitors for euthanasia purposes. The pet shops sell it for pet euthanasia, and were apparently surprised to hear that their recent sales have been for use on humans.

Car dealer strategies

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:35:00 +0000

A few years ago, people were using their homes as ATMs to purchase all sorts of consumer goods including cars. More recently, desperate home sellers were offering to throw in a “free” car with the purchase of a house. Now at least one auto dealer is offering to pay your mortgage.

This morning I heard a commercial for one of the local Phoenix Nissan dealers (one that receives frequent complaints from people who appear to not pay very close attention to what they are purchasing). The ad offers to make your mortgage payments for the rest of the year when you buy a car from them, even if your mortgage is as much as $2,000, without changing the sale price of the car. I suspect that means without lowering the sale price of the car below the point of profit.

It doesn’t strike me as a sensible way to avoid foreclosure.

Nice article on Camp Inquiry

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:29:00 +0000

There’s a good article on Camp Inquiry in the Buffalo News:
Deep in the Holland woods, D.J. Grothe wowed a group of kids at summer camp with a series of magic tricks. Seemingly impermeable steel rings were combined and separated again; rubber bands were melded into each other; coins vanished and returned in the unlikeliest of places.

Then, Grothe, national field director for the Council for Secular Humanism, did something even more amazing: He gave away the trick, detailing exactly how anyone can do magic.

It was another day at Camp Inquiry, where instead of swapping ghost tales or learning Bible stories, children take a critical look at claims of magic, the supernatural and even religion.

The camp’s mission: Help young people “confront the challenges of living a nontheistic [or] secular lifestyle in a world dominated by religious belief and pseudoscience."

The unusual camp, now in its third year, brings together curious children from across the country to hone their skills as skeptics and critical thinkers.

Twenty-seven campers spent the past week following in the footsteps of Charles Darwin, digging up fossils and learning how to face moral dilemmas.
See the full article here. I’m glad to see it’s not just a camp for atheists, but is open to theistic freethinkers as well:
Organizers don’t specifically address faith or religion in their planned programming, which also includes a variety of art, music and leisure activities.

But the topics arise frequently in casual discussions among campers. Some profess to be atheists, others refer to themselves as secular humanists, and a few say they believe in a higher power.
Much better than Jesus Camp.

UPDATE: I originally referred to Camp Inquiry as Camp Quest, a different set of camps with similar aims. Thanks, Carol, for the correction.

UPDATE (August 9, 2008): NPR has also done a good story on Camp Inquiry.

Skeptics Society 2008 conference

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:06:00 +0000

The Skeptics Society has officially announced its 2008 conference, and the topic is not the one that was first suggested, war, terrorism, and security. Instead, this year’s conference is on “Origins: The Big Questions,” and is co-sponsored by the Templeton Foundation.

The conference will be held at Caltech on October 3-4, and the speaker lineup includes Sean Carroll (the Caltech theoretical physicist, not to be confused with Sean B. Carroll, the University of Wisconsin at Madison professor of molecular biology and genetics), Paul Davies, Stuart Kauffman, Christof Koch, Kenneth Miller, Nancey Murphy, Donald Prothero, Hugh Ross, Victor Stenger, Leonard Susskind, Michael Shermer, Philip Clayton, and Mr. Deity.

It’s an interesting mix of speakers for the subject matter, and I suspect I will attend, but I’d really rather go to a conference that brought critical thinking to the subjects of war, terrorism, and security.

Best run city in the world?

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:54:00 +0000

A month or so ago, we got a mailing from the City of Phoenix, which bills itself as the “best run city in the world” on the basis of an award it won in 1993, telling us that our garbage and recycling pick up days would be changing. You can see that mailing here (PDF); the announcement is on the right hand side of the first page. The flyer states that pickup days will change the week of July 14, but notice that it doesn’t say when or how they are changing. Instead, it says “Watch your mail for additional information.” It didn’t say to call in, and it didn’t say to check the city’s website. In fact, it says “Residents impacted by these changes will be notified through multiple mailings identifying the specific changes to their homes.” That turned out to be false.

A week or so later, a second mailing came from the city. It also didn’t say how the pickup days were changing, and it also said to watch for a further notification in the mail. It didn’t say to call in, and it didn’t say to check the city’s website.

No further notification came. Everyone in my neighborhood apparently continued to put out recycling and garbage bins on the same days, and they didn’t get picked up. Kat called today, and the person answering the phone for the City of Phoenix waste disposal said that they did no specific mailings, rather, they expected people to “get curious” and either look online or call them.

Well, we did indeed “get curious” as to why our garbage wasn’t picked up, so I guess their expectation was valid. My initial assumption was that we had a new garbageman who didn’t know my house was on his route, since I’ve had to call a few dozen times in the past about garbage and recycling not being picked up for that reason.

I’ve put out the recycling bin for pickup tomorrow–next to the full garbage bin that will be sitting out there until next week. So far, none of my neighbors have done the same.

Phoenix foreclosures spreading

Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:46:00 +0000

The Arizona Republic is catching up with reality:
Foreclosures across metro Phoenix number 16,647 for the first half of the year compared with 9,966 during all of 2007 and 1,070 in 2006.
…
“It has become more of an equity problem than a subprime problem,” said Tom Ruff, a real-estate analyst with Information Market.
…
Notice of trustee sales, or pre-foreclosures, also continue to climb. There were 35,111 pre-foreclosures filed in Maricopa County through July. That compares with 30,166 for all of 2007.
The article also notes that the median resale price for a home in Phoenix is now $210,000, down 30% from the peak in 2006.

More people are speculating about reaching a bottom. That would be nice, but we’ve still not seen a peak on preforeclosures, which set another record in June (6929, vs. 6416 in May). For comparison, the total sales volume in June was 5748 (and 5656 in May), according to the Arizona Realtor’s Association. (These stats via Einzige, thanks!)

Did Diebold tamper with Georgia's 2002 elections?

Sun, 20 Jul 2008 10:40:00 +0000

Former McCain advisor and security researcher Stephen Spoonamore suggested at a press conference on Thursday that Diebold tampered with Georgia’s 2002 elections for Governor and Senator, in which Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss defeated incumbent Democrat Sen. Max Cleland. Spoonamore was given a copy of a patch applied to Diebold machines in two strongly Democratic counties, DeKalb and Fulton, by Diebold CEO Bob Urosevich, allegedly in order to fix a clock-related problem. Spoonamore found that the patch did nothing to correct the clock problem, and contained two copies of the same program, but was unable to determine exactly what it did without access to the Diebold hardware. He has supplied a copy of the patch, which he obtained from a whistleblower in the Georgia Secretary of State’s office, to the Department of Justice.

Netroots and telecom

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:31:00 +0000

There’s a telecom panel at the Netroots Nation conference today on the subject of “Big Telecom: An Emerging Threat to Our Democracy?” The implied answer is yes, and it appears that every participant on the panel will be making that case. Here’s the description of the panel:
Massive telecom companies control virtually all of our voice and internet communications these days—and new evidence shows a near-total lack of commitment to our democracy. AT&T has proposed filtering all content traveling on its network. Verizon tried initially to block NARAL’s pro-choice text messages. Most telecom companies are fighting net neutrality. Can democracy survive an assault by those who control the tubes?
The panel members don’t include anyone with any experience managing or operating an actual telecom network, but instead includes two people who have repeatedly demonstrated not only an ignorance of telecom law, technology, and policy, but who have misrepresented facts and failed to engage with the arguments of their critics, Matt Stoller and Timothy Karr (see posts on this blog in the “net neutrality” category). The closest person to a representative of a telecom is Michael Kieschnick of Working Assets, a company that is a reseller of long distance and wireless service on Sprint’s network.

I agree with many of their positions–I don’t think ISPs should be allowed to block websites on the basis of disagreement with content. I think ISPs should be transparent about their network management processes and filtering. Where I disagree with them is that they advocate that the FCC step in to regulate the Internet in a way that it has never had authority to do so before, and demand that network operators not be allowed to implement classes of service with different rates of charges, or even usage caps. Art Brodsky expresses the point which has also been made by Robb Topolsky of Public Knowledge, Timothy Karr of Free Press, and Matt Stoller:
In the name of “network management,” some companies want to throttle down the use of legal applications, like BitTorrent which may, coincidentally, provide competition in entertainment programming. They want to impose usage caps across the board on all customers which would stifle innovation and curb the use of video (there’s that anti-competitive meme again) without actually solving the problem of the so-called “bandwidth hogs.” The way caps are being discussed now, they would only lead to higher prices and less usage for an industry that already charges more for less than most broadband providers around the world. Parts of our broadband industry may be the only sector in the world that wants to cut down the amount of its product it wants customers to use.
Brodsky’s last sentence is clearly false–broadband is like a fixed-price all-you-can-eat buffet. All businesses want to maximize their profits by maximizing revenue and minimizing costs. When bandwidth is sold at a fixed cost in unlimited amounts, where a small number of users are consuming the majority of the service, it’s in the business’s interest to restrict those users or charge them more for what they consume in order to satisfy the rest in a cost-effective manner. The options are few–you can either restrict the “bandwidth hogs” in some way, charge them more so that they pay for what they use, or raise the price for everyone. These guys seem to advocate the latter approach, while I’m in favor of allowing all the options to be used in a competitive market. Where I disagree with Comcast’s approach in issuing RST packets to block BitTorrent traffic is not that they did it, but that they were not transparent about what they were doing (and apparently didn’t quite get it quite right–it should not have completely broken BitTorrent, but only slowed it down).

Brodsky’s suggestion that Comcast has an interest in blocking BitTorrent because it provides competition in the entertainment space is absurd–they have an interest in blocking it because it’s a very popular application which itself exploits Internet protocols in a way not anticipated by the designers in order to consume more bandwidth, getting around the congestion controls in TCP/IP by using multiple TCP streams. If BitTorrent traffic wasn’t filling up the majority of Comcast’s bandwidth, they’d have no interest in it, except when the MPAA and RIAA issue them subpoenas about their users infringing copyrights.

If the government prohibits the use of differential classes of service (which is already heavily used by private companies to give priority to applications within their enterprise which have requirements for low latency and jitter, such as real-time streaming audio and video, including Voice over IP) and requires that congestion be dealt with by building out infrastructure sufficiently that there will never be congestion no matter how many users max out their connectivity with BitTorrent, that will reduce competition by culling smaller companies out of the picture and making market entry more difficult. In any environment where a provider’s upstream capacity is less than the sum of the capacity to every customer (and that’s everywhere, today, and always has been), all-you-can-eat bandwidth is like a commons. The more that is available, the more the heavy users will consume, to the detriment of each other and the light users. Without setting caps and having tiered pricing or implementing technology that prioritizes packets and drops from the heavy users and from less-realtime-sensitive applications first (like BitTorrent), there are no incentives against consuming everything that is available.

I also think it’s a huge mistake to have the FCC start regulating the Internet. FCC chairman Kevin Martin would no doubt love to place indecency standards and filtering requirements on Internet content. Once you open the door to FCC regulation of the Internet, that becomes more likely. And the FCC has been completely ineffectual at dealing with existing abuses like fraudulent telemarketing, illegal prerecord calls to residences and cell phones, caller ID spoofing, etc., already covered by statute and regulation. I’d rather see clear statutes that include private rights of action than entrust control of the Internet to the FCC. The FCC is a slow-moving bureaucracy, and AT&T and Verizon have the deepest pockets, the most lawyers, and the most personnel who have shuffled back and forth between government (including the NSA) and industry. That gives AT&T and Verizon the tactical advantage, and leads to less competition rather than more.

Which brings me to the warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity issues, which Cindy Cohn of the EFF no doubt addressed on the Netroots Nation panel. I suspect I have little if any disagreement with her. I’ve long been a supporter of the EFF, as are many people involved in the management of ISPs. I strongly oppose telecom immunity for warrantless wiretapping, a complete abdication of Congress’ responsibility to support the U.S. Constitution. But this shows the power of AT&T and Verizon. Not only did they get what they wanted, but the very infrastructure which was built to do this massive interception of traffic for the NSA and for law enforcement interception under the CALEA laws was built for them with assistance from government funds. All telecoms have to be compliant with CALEA (now including VoIP and broadband Internet providers), but the big incumbents who were most capable of affording it on their own got it at the lowest costs, while their competition was required to build it out at their own expense even if it never gets used.

But there are legitimate uses for deep packet inspection, for understanding the nature of the traffic on a network for management purposes, including tracking down security and abuse issues. Since it is in the hands of the end user to use encryption to protect sensitive content, I think use of DPI by network providers is reasonable for the purposes of providing better service in the same way that it’s reasonable for a voice provider to intercept traffic for quality measurement purposes. It’s also reasonable for interception to occur for “lawful intercept,” but it should always require a court order (i.e., both executive and judicial branch approval) on reasonable grounds. The difficulty of obtaining wiretaps depicted in the television program “The Wire” is how it should be.

I’ve written a lot on these issues, much which can be found in this blog’s Network Neutrality Index.

If any reader of this blog happens to have attended the Netroots Nation telecom panel or comes across a description of its content, please point me to it, as I’d like to see what was said. I don’t have high hopes for the accuracy or reasonability of statements from Stoller and Karr, but I could be surprised, and the other panelists probably had interesting and important things to say.

(See my Blogger profile for the disclosure of my employment by Global Crossing, which is currently listed by Renesys as the #3 network provider on the Internet in terms of number of customers, ahead of AT&T and Verizon, behind Sprint and Level 3.)

UPDATE: The “Big Telecom” panel was live-blogged (dead, unarchived link: http://openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=C865142FFB85E14AAD27045B9A342B15?diaryId=7032"). Stoller’s anecdote about the Bill of Rights on metal is referring to Dean Cameron’s “security edition” of the Bill of Rights, which was also promoted by Penn Jillette.

San Francisco's city network held hostage

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:57:00 +0000

The mainstream media has reported the arrest of the City of San Francisco’s network administrator, being held on $5 million bond, as though he had secretly taken control of the city’s network and servers and held them hostage, and implies that he has access to data stored on servers on the network. The reality, however, appears to be somewhat different.

Paul Venezia at InfoWorld has dug a little deeper, and found that Terry Childs, a Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert (CCIE, Cisco’s top certification), was responsible for managing San Francisco’s “FiberWAN” MPLS network, which he, though not the top network architect, built and managed himself. He has always been the only one with access, which he protected vigorously for fear that no one else around him was competent to do so. His paranoia seems to me excessive and misplaced–the risk of no one else having access is itself a single point of failure, and the fact that he originally refused to write remote configuration to flash, meaning that in the event of power failure the devices would not come back up and function properly without intervention, shows him to be a bit off.

Childs never “tampered” with any system or network device to take it hostage, he simply maintained control of what he built and refused to give others access to it. He never has had control of any servers or databases apart from the ones directly involved in managing the network, such as the authentication servers for the network. So the talk of data being stored on the network including “officials’ e-mails, city payroll files, confidential law enforcement documents and jail bookings” appears to be irrelevant. Nothing has been done to prevent anyone from accessing any of those things or to gain unauthorized access to them; the network is still up and functioning normally, and Childs didn’t have any special access to or manage or control the host-level access to the servers with that data. Now, he was probably able to intercept data transmitted on the network (necessary for troubleshooting), but if sensitive data was only accessed via encrypted sessions, even that risk wouldn’t exist.

Childs’ problem appears to be that he was overprotective, untrusting of the competence of his peers and management (perhaps with some justification), and placed technological purity and security over business requirements. Not unusual features for people with a very high level of technical skill.

Check out Venezia’s article–it looks to me like he’s got the goods on this story.

UPDATE (July 23, 2008): Childs gave up the passwords to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, after a secret visit arranged by his attorney, Erin Crane, with the mayor. Childs’ attorney’s statements are consistent with Venezia’s article:

Another reason to hope Obama wins the election

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 04:43:00 +0000

Stephen Baldwin says he will leave the country if Obama wins. But will he stay away for at least four years?

Of course, he’s just mocking his brother Alec’s statement that he would leave the country if Bush were elected in 2000, which he didn’t follow through on, either.

ApostAZ podcast -- Apostamini #1

Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:23:00 +0000

The latest ApostAZ podcast is available, and it’s an “Apostamini”–a short one. This one has a short commentary from me about The Amazing Meeting 6.

Contents:
Apostamini 001 Atheism and Freethought in Phoenix- “Squared” from Greydon Square’s ‘The Compton Effect’. Ingersoll’s Vow. Amanda :). Pope George Carlin. Jim Lippard illustrates the cool points of TAM6 in Las Vegas (http://www.discord.org/). Greydon Square, “Dream” from ‘The Compton Effect’ album.

Moon transits earth

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:11:00 +0000

As seen from the Deep Impact probe, 31 million miles away.

(Via Bad Astronomy, where you can find more information and some related videos.)

Rock, Brock, and the Savings Shock

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:43:00 +0000

Via Long or Short Capital comes a children’s story authored by FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. The blog gives two versions of the story, first from the Amazon description of the book:
Rock and Brock may be twins, but they are as different as two twins can be. One day, their grandpa offers them a plan-for ten straight weeks on Saturday he will give them each one dollar for doing their chores. But there is a catch! Each dollar they save, he will match.
Rock is excited-there are all sorts of things he can buy for one dollar. So each week he spends his money on something different-a toy moose head, green hair goo, white peppermint wax fangs. But while Rock is spending his money, Brock is saving his. And each week when Rock gets just one dollar, Brock’s savings get matched. By summer’s end, Brock has five hundred and twelve dollars, while Rock has none. When Rock sees what his brother has saved, he realizes he has made a mistake. But Brock shows him that it is never too late to start saving.

Man arrested for photographing cop

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:45:00 +0000

Scott Conover was arrested by a Johnson County, TN sheriff’s deputy for taking his picture during a traffic stop–not his own, someone else’s. He drove up to a stop in progress, slowed down, took a picture with his iPhone, and kept going. Officer Kenneth Lane went after him, pulled him over, falsely claimed that taking a picture of him was illegal and that he had to turn it over, and then arrested the guy, using two sets of handcuffs. The charge: “disorderly conduct, unlawful photographing, and pointing a laser at law enforcement officers”–all three of which were bogus.

More information, including a link to the officer’s barely literate report, written four days after the fact, at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

UPDATE (August 9, 2008): Turns out there’s more to the story, and it makes the cops look even worse. Conover was taking a picture of what was part of an ongoing campaign of harassment against him, by going after the patrons of his bar. In this particular case, Conover knew that the driver of the car was a woman who was acting as designated driver for her husband, and only the husband had been drinking, and so he followed to take pictures to document what was going on. And this harassment of his patrons began after Conover was a witness to deputies beating up a man outside of his establishment, and he made a statement supporting that man. Conover had also previously sued the sheriff’s department and settled for an undisclosed sum.

Colorado initiative to define personhood as beginning at conception

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 02:45:00 +0000

Colorado voters will get to vote in November on a proposition that defines personhood as beginning at conception. This will have the implication that in vitro fertilization involves murder, as the process standardly involves the disposal of fertilized eggs. As right-to-lifers are also often advocates of IVF, this places them into a bit of a quandary. In my opinion, this should even have the implication that all frozen embryos need to be brought to term–it’s surely wrong to freeze people and prevent them from living their lives without their consent.

Presidential Prayer Team asks your support for biblical marriage

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:37:00 +0000

The Presidential Prayer Team has called for supporters to “Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God’s Word and His standards will be honored by our government."

A piece of unattributed email has been going around in support of this proposition, with the following suggested Constitutional amendment to put that into effect:
Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
For some reason Len Munsil’s Center for Arizona Policy organization hasn’t pushed this amendment in Arizona, instead preferring the unbiblical idea, not even widely recognized yet at the time of Charlemagne, that marriage should only be between one man and one woman.

Lippard-related crime update

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 01:32:00 +0000

Tredell County deputies have confiscated 175 marijuana plants from a barn on Lippard Farm Road in Statesville, NC. No arrests have been made in that case, but “charges are pending."

Come on, North Carolina. If you can grow tobacco, why not marijuana?

Ed Brayton on David Kupelian's latest foolishness

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 22:49:00 +0000

Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has a nice takedown of David Kupelian’s article at the WorldNutDaily bemoaning how atheists are being allowed to publish books in these Christian United States. Ed shows that Kupelian has no idea what he’s talking about when he writes about Christianity in American history.

Obama the Lightworker

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 21:16:00 +0000

Mark Morford at the San Francisco Chronicle wrote, back on June 6:
Barack Obama isn’t really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.
…
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
Sorry, but this is crazy talk–and crazy talk of the sort that the religious right will grab a hold of, translate “Lightworker” into “Light bearer” into “Lucifer,” and decide that Obama’s the Antichrist.

Morford writes that he doesn’t literally believe this, and warns up front that:
Warning: If you are a rigid pragmatist/literalist, itchingly evangelical, a scowler, a doubter, a burned-out former ’60s radical with no hope left, or are otherwise unable or unwilling to parse alternative New Age speak, click away right now, because you ain’t gonna like this one little bit.
But even on a non-literal level, I don’t like it. The job of the president is to lead the executive branch of the government, not to be national daddy, mommy, or Messiah. Obama clearly has a lot of charisma and speaks very well, which is something that can be used positively or negatively–and more often than not it’s the latter.

Network World covers biscuit cult death threat and firing

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:51:00 +0000

Network World has a good summary of the story of the firing of Melanie Kroll’s firing by 1-800-Flowers. Kroll was fired after her husband Chuck sent a death threat to P.Z. Myers using her corporate email account, saying that if he didn’t quit his job by the first of the month, he would “get [his] brains beat in.” Chuck Kroll, presumably a conservative Catholic, issued this threat because Myers blogged in support of University of Central Florida student Webster Cook, who took a consecrated host from a Catholic church in Orlando, Florida. Cook was accused of a hate crime equivalent to kidnapping by Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. After receiving threats, Cook returned the magic cracker. Cult members believe the wafer has been literally transformed into the body of Jesus, while also retaining the properties of a cracker. This is not to be confused with Scientology, which believes that we are infested with the bodies of murdered space aliens, though both views seem to be on a par with respect to their reasonableness and quality of supporting evidence.

UPDATE (July 16, 2008): Melanie Kroll has been active in the comments at Greg Laden’s blog, where she claims she was not connected to her company VPN when the email was sent. This is patently false, since otherwise her computer would not have been able to send the email through the company mail server from an RFC 1918 private IP address, which it did. It seems that she, like her husband, is incapable of taking responsibility for her own errors. She also writes this, by way of explanation for husband’s behavior:
My husband went on to the drudge report site that he reads and clicked on a link and came across that man pz’s notice and responded as he always does when he is upset. Was his text extreme yes it was, would he follow through, never.
So he always sends email to the authors of people who write things that make him upset, threatening to beat their brains in if they don’t quit their jobs by the end of the month? That sounds like a very serious personal problem.

Analysts say 150 U.S. banks will fail in next 18 months

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:03:00 +0000

The New York Times says that some banking analysts (two of which are mentioned by name) predict that “as many as 150 out of the 7,500 banks nationwide could fail over the next 12 to 18 months.” If that were to happen, that would likely exhaust the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC, which will be spending $4 to $8 billion to cover the insured deposits of failed IndyMac bank. The Deposit Insurance Fund had about $52.4 billion at the end of 2007.

The worst case scenarios I’ve seen frequently discussed are hyperinflation and a Greater Depression. The way to survive the former would be to keep funds in more-stable foreign currencies and gold; for the latter it would be better to stay in cash and bonds (so long as none of the bonds default). A diversified set of investments is still your best bet, in my opinion.

UPDATE (September 12, 2008): The Economist (August 30, 2008) reports that the FDIC has 117 banks on its watch list, compared to 90 at the end of March, and reports that the drawdown on the Deposit Insurance Fund for IndyMac is sufficient to trigger a required funds “restoration” plan within the next 90 days.

Luskin's latest howler

Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:35:00 +0000

Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute, writing at the Evolution News & Views blog (which accurately describes itself with its motto that begins “The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site”), has outdone himself again.

Regarding a paper by Neil Shubin about Tiktaalik, Luskin complains that Shubin makes a comparison to the wrist bones of tetrapods, but never identifies any by name:
When discussing Tiktaalik’s “wrist,” Shubin says he “invites direct comparisons” between Tiktaalik’s fin and a true tetrapod limb. Surely this paper must have a diagram comparing the “wrist”-bones of Tiktaalik to a true tetrapod wrist, showing which bones correspond. So again I searched the paper. And again he provides no such diagram comparing the two. So we are left to decipher his jargon-filled written comparison in the following sentence by sentence analysis:

Cops and DUI

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:47:00 +0000

If you’re the wife of a criminal defense attorney, you can get arrested for DUI even if you’ve not had a single drink. (This one was right here in Mesa, Arizona.)

If you’re a cop, the expectation is that you won’t get arrested for DUI even if you crash your car because you’re so drunk you can’t remember what year it is. Because if a cop arrests a cop for DUI, things get ugly.

Guillermo Gonzalez' new school

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:27:00 +0000

Guillermo Gonzalez, one of the proclaimed victims of oppression and infringement of his academic freedom in the film “Expelled,” has taken a job at Grove City College, a Christian liberal arts college in Pennsylvania. The school has been under censure by the American Association of University Professors since 1963 for its failure to respect academic freedom. A report by the AAUP Investigative Committee concluded “the absence of due process [in the dismissal of professors at Grove City] raises…doubts regarding the academic security of any persons who may hold appointment at Grove City College under existing administrative practice. These doubts are of an order of magnitude which obliges us to report them to the academic profession at large."

More at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Bowl-A-Rama!!

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:15:00 +0000

There’s a saying in the non-profit world that people don’t donate to organizations, they donate to the individuals that represent them. Let me introduce you to two wonderful representatives of RESCUE:
Otto was saved from the euthanasia list in December 2001.

Fred was saved in August 2002.

Bush July 4 speech censors Jefferson

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 16:58:00 +0000

President George W. Bush gave a speech at Monticello on July 4 that said, quoting Jefferson:
On the 50th anniversary of Americas independence, Thomas Jefferson passed away. But before leaving this world, he explained that the principles of the Declaration of Independence were universal. In one of the final letters of his life, he wrote, May it be to the world, what I believe it will be to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.
Here’s what Jefferson actually wrote:
May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.
As Wonkette aptly notes, “Yeah dude, looks like you forgot the good part.” (Though Wonkette incorrectly attributes the Constitution to Jefferson along with the Declaration of Independence.)

(Thanks to Scott Peterson on the SKEPTIC list.)

UPDATE (July 16, 2008): Roger Kimball has responded to this issue, and Ed Brayton points out what he’s gotten right and what he’s gotten wrong about Jefferson’s views on religion. (Contrary to Dawkins and Hitchens, Jefferson was no atheist, nor even a deist. He referred to himself as a Unitarian, and Brayton calls him a “theistic rationalist.”)

Wacky cult wants magic biscuit back

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 01:50:00 +0000

Webster Cook smuggled a magic biscuit out of the service of a lunatic cult, in order to show a friend what it was like. Members of the cult issued death threats, the local spokespeople for the cult suggested that he was in danger of eternal damnation and called it a “hate crime,” and completely insane national spokespeople claimed that he had committed the moral equivalent of kidnapping.

Details at Pharyngula. This sounds like something that could have fit in Bill Maher’s “Religulous."

(Hat tip to Wowbagger for the title.)

UPDATE (July 10, 2008): The Pharyngula post linked to above has resulted in Bill Donohue of the Catholic League taking notice and calling for P.Z. Myers to be fired. That in turn has resulted in P.Z. Myers receiving 39 pieces of hate mail so far today, of which 34 have demanded that he be fired and four have included death threats. 25 have suggested that, instead of desecrating a cracker, Myers should desecrate a Koran–showing that those individuals don’t think the tolerance they demand for themselves applies to other religions. (Sounds like our commenter Jenn!)

UPDATE (July 11, 2008): The Catholic League has issued another press release, which contains this insanity:
As a result of the hysteria that Myers’ ilk have promoted, at least one public official is taking it seriously. Thomas E. Foley is chairman of Virginia’s First Congressional District Republican Committee, a delegate to the Republican National Convention and one of two Republican at large nominees for Virginia’s Electoral College. His concern is for the safety of Catholics attending this year’s Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Myers’ backyard. Accordingly, Foley has asked the top GOP brass to provide additional security while in the Twin Cities so that Catholics can worship without fear of violence. Given the vitriol we have experienced for simply exercising our First Amendment right to freedom of speech, we support Foley’s request.
It’s the Catholics who have been comparing taking instead of eating a cracker to kidnapping and hate speech, and issuing death threats against someone who suggested doing the same. But now the Republican National Convention, being held 150 miles away from Myers’ home, needs extra security because of his proximity? Lunacy.

Myers has also published the email he’s received. Some of the alleged death threats don’t, I think, pass legal muster as such, but I think this one does:
You are really fucked now. Lock your doors at night, and check under your car before you turn the ignition key.
This one doesn’t quite make it:
IF Catholics had half the testosterone of muzzies, the answer would be simple. Holy hollowpoint. But alas, I expect they will whimper and grovel as usual.
UPDATE (July 12, 2008): Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars weighs in. Andrew Sullivan, after taking Myers to task, publishes dissenting opinions that make better arguments than his. Ed Brayton responds to Sullivan. P.Z. Myers catches Catholic sock puppets commenting on his blog. John Wilkins writes an insightful comment on “Desecration, blasphemy in public, and manners."

UPDATE (July 13, 2008): P.Z. Myers has received more nasty email, which he has posted with full headers. If the first one is not actually from Melanie Kroll at 1800flowers.com, I’d say she has a compromised machine, and it’s a clear death threat. The second is from Steve C. Montemurro, a 41-year-old conservative Catholic from Hastings on Hudson, NY, and it appears to be more of a wish for Myers’ death than a threat.

UPDATE (July 16. 2008): Turns out the email from Melanie Kroll’s machine was the result of a compromise of sorts–it was from her husband, Chuck Kroll, and she lost her job as a result of it. Makes sense–she shouldn’t have allowed her husband to use her computer to access her work resources at all, let alone to send death threats. Details at Pharyngula.

UPDATE (July 18, 2008): Network World has coverage of Melanie Kroll’s firing. The Science Museum of Minnesota will be closed down during the Republican National Convention as part of the security measures for the Xcel Energy Center, across the street. As P.Z. Myers observes, there’s a metaphor in that.

UPDATE (July 26, 2008): Webster Cook has been impeached and removed from his position in student government at the University of Central Florida, and both he and his friend Benjamin Collard have been charged with misconduct, disruptive conduct, and giving false identification and had a hold put on their ability to sign up for classes. The school is buckling under to pressure from Bill Donohue and the Catholic League to persecute these students on trumped up charges. P.Z. Myers suggests writing to the UCF president; I suggest the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education get involved.

P.Z. Myers has posted another selection of crazy Catholic hate mail he’s received. Do these people genuinely think they are doing the Lord’s work?

Spread falsehoods about evolution, become a pastor

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 04:03:00 +0000

I just came across Doug LaPointe’s “Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution” which is noteworthy for being wrong in every point, including the bogus argument about “Lucy”’s knee joint which I refuted in a Talk Origins FAQ. LaPointe wrote his article of nonsense while a student at the Calvary Academy, a Christian school in Lakewood, NJ. It is responded to point-by-point by “A Critical Look at Doug LaPointe’s ‘Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution,’" which includes reference to my FAQ in part 2. (I can’t vouch for the rest of the response, as I haven’t reviewed it in detail, and I see that it misspells “hominid” repeatedly in part 2, but a quick scan looks like the author has otherwise done a decent job.)

So what is LaPointe up to today? He’s a pastor at the First Presbyterian Church of Stuart, FL, and still proudly advertises that he is the author of “Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution.” A naive person would think that a man of God would correct his mistakes. A cynic would think that a man of God makes a living from spreading falsehoods.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:41:00 +0000

That’s the title of Vincent Bugliosi’s latest book, which just reached #14 on the New York Times bestseller list on Sunday despite having virtually no mainstream media attention. It has sold 130,000 copies, but ABC Radio refused to allow an advertisement for the book on the Don Imus show, and both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report declined to show any interest in having Bugliosi on as a guest.

The book sets out a legal case for a criminal prosecution of George W. Bush as being criminally responsible for the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Bugliosi, the former Los Angeles County prosecutor with a perfect record of murder prosecutions, including the prosecution of Charles Manson which he recounted in his book Helter Skelter 30 years ago, most recently authored the book Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a massive 1,612-page book that responds in detail to conspiracy theorists. That book is being made into a 10-hour miniseries by Tom Hanks for HBO. A shorter book, drawn from the content of Reclaiming History, has been published under the title Four Days in November.

The Amazing Spoonbending Video

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:26:00 +0000

The spoonscience.com website and YouTube now has the video of the world record for largest simultaneous spoonbending activity (816 spoons) that took place at TAM6 under the guidance of Richard Wiseman and following the tutelage of Teller. Be sure to check out the second video at spoonscience.com on “The Science of Spoonbending.” (Looks like the Podblack blog has video of Teller’s lesson on spoonbending.)

Orson Welles meets H.G. Wells

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:45:00 +0000

A short conversation between Orson Welles and H.G. Wells (MP3) aired live on KTSA radio in San Antonio on October 28, 1940. The main subjects are the Welles’ radio production of Wells’ “War of the Worlds,” from two years prior, the accuracy of Wells’ science fiction, and a Wells-incited plug for Welles’ “Citizen Kane."

(Via Alan Dean Foster’s remembrance of Arthur C. Clarke in the July/August 2008 Skeptical Inquirer.)

ApostAZ podcast #5

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:34:00 +0000

The fifth ApostAZ podcast (MP3) is out:
Episode 005 Atheism and Freethought in Phoenix- “Every Sperm is Sacred” from Monty Python’s ‘The Meaning of Life’. Group Events. Phoenix, Billboards! Suckics hone in on Autism. Astromnology. Us vs Them? Phelps Hallucinations. Gay marriage, still an issue, still a tax money black-hole! Greydon Square, “Dream” from ‘The Compton Effect’ album.
I didn’t get my contribution in on time, but I’ll have a science and skepticism segment in episode 006.

My comments on this episode:

While McCain opposes gay marriage and pays lip service to the idea of same-sex civil unions, Obama also opposes gay marriage (though says he’d like to repeal DOMA and institute a federal law supporting same-sex civil unions, even in front of audiences that oppose gay rights, so he is somewhat better than McCain on that issue). They also both support faith-based government programs–neither is a strict separationist on church and state. (But again, I think Obama is slightly better than McCain on that subject in terms of what he says–at least he opposes giving federal funding to groups that discriminate or proselytize, though it’s unclear he’ll take action to stop it.)

On abortion, there can certainly be secular moral arguments for restrictions on late-term abortion, just as there can be secular moral arguments against infanticide. Arguments that abortion involves killing a person, a being with a right to life, need to come to terms with Judith Jarvis-Thomson’s violinist argument, which argues that even if a fetus has a right to life, it doesn’t have the right to be supported by its mother’s body if the mother did not consent. This has further implication that if the fetus could be transplanted or removed and survive on its own (e.g., it’s already reached the point of viability, which is the standard applied by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade), then that’s immoral and criminalizable. But it also implies, it seems to me, that there is a reasonable range of actions which could constitute consent to supporting a fetus–such as voluntarily engaging in sex without contraception, which any reasonable person should know has a reasonably high probability of producing a child.

My own view is that abortion is immoral to the point of justifying legal prohibition in any case where (a) there’s such at least tacit consent to carry a child and (b) the fetus has reached a point of brain development where there’s a reasonable case to be made for personhood. I’m not convinced that (b) ever happens in reality, since I think there’s a strong argument that personhood requires a capacity for self-awareness, which doesn’t seem to occur until about six months after birth, but I can certainly conceive of empirical evidence that would change my mind about when that point is reached. There may be other cases where abortion is immoral, e.g., intentionally waiting until late in the pregnancy, and then terminating for a trivial reason of convenience.

On the Biblical justification for opposition to medical treatment: Jehovah’s Witnesses oppose blood transfusions on the grounds of Old Testament prohibitions on consuming blood (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11-14, and Acts 15:20, 29), even though those all refer to consuming animal blood and have nothing to do with transfusions of human blood. Christian Scientists oppose medical treatment not on the basis of anything in the Bible, but based on the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy. Their view is that everything good and holy is spiritual, while everything physical or material is evil, yet is also illusory or at least a distortion of the spiritual world. This has some resemblance to Buddhist views of “maya,” and also to the early Christian heresy known as Docetism, which was the view that Jesus’ humanity was an illusion, because the physical cannot be holy. Thus, under this view, engaging in physical repair (medicine) of what is an illusory distortion of the underlying spiritual reality is not only a waste of time, but sinful–the only real repair possible is spiritual, through prayer. (And further, illness itself is of the physical, and thus illusory.)

The ApostAZ website is here.

The country shrink's other points, and my response

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:43:00 +0000

The country shrink, whose point #2 from his post on “some psychological aspects of atheists” I critiqued in my previous post, also listed six other alleged characteristics of atheists. These were:
1). They tend to take the moral high ground. They look down on believers as simplistic, uneducated, stupid, weak, intolerant, gun toting, racists, and simple minded dolts.

2). [Responded to in my previous post.]

3). There is something in their lives that they are afraid they would have to give up if they believed in God. It’s usually some pattern that brings them pleasure in a way that they feel believers might label as immoral. They are typically not conscious of this.

Atheism and the difference between consistency and entailment

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:14:00 +0000

A Christian rural psychologist has posted on his blog about “some psychological aspects of atheism," where he claims that:

[Atheists] tend to not be able to understand that their position means “anything goes,” with respect to morality. If there is no God, then there is no objective thing as morality. It’s all subjective… They always find some way to justify the fact that they practice at least some moral principles. Whether they think it’s biologically ingrained through millions of years of evolution or morality is simply “adaptive in allowing the species to survive.” Most often; however, they have never even considered the logical consequences of atheism and morality.
He also engages in some armchair theorizing about atheism being caused by absent fathers, being intolerant, etc., all without any reference to empirical evidence. (And given the recent Pew Forum survey results where one in five self-reported "atheists" say that they believe in God or a higher power, I think any study of atheists needs to make sure that it's dealing with people who actually know what the word means.)

But the quoted passage is completely off-base. Atheism is a denial of the existence of gods. That entails the falsity of divine command theory as a basis for morality, but not much else. Most philosophers have rejected divine command theory as an adequate basis for morality since Plato wrote the "Euthyphro" and asked the critical question, "is the pious [or right] loved by the gods because it is pious [right], or is it pious [right] because it is loved by the gods"? Either fork of the dilemma leads to bad consequences--if the former, then there must be some other ground for moral rightness than because the gods will it to be so, and so the gods themselves are unnecessary. If the latter, then the gods could make acts that we consider to be clearly immoral into right actions according to whim. The latter seems more consistent with the morality of the Bible, since God is depicted therein as commanding murderous acts including the killing of women and children, but it is simply a "might makes right" philosophy of morality. But I think the former is clearly the right horn of the dilemma to grasp--morality is not something which requires gods.

Now, there are certainly atheist philosophers who have argued that atheism precludes more than the divine command theory. The atheist philosopher J.L. Mackie, in his book Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, argues against morality being objective properties of the world on the basis of their "queerness." And I think he is probably right at least to the extent that moral properties are not human-independent properties. My view is that there are certain basic values, held by most human beings and evolutionary in origin, essential to social organization and beneficial to our survival and thriving, which objectively entail moral consequences for us, composed as we are and in the environment (physical and social) we find ourselves in.

But my view is not important for confronting the claim of the quoted passage. All atheism means is the denial of the existence of gods. It is not a complete worldview, it is simply a single component in an infinite number of possible consistent worldviews. An atheist can, like J. M. E. McTaggart, believe in reincarnation and immortality. An atheist can believe in the paranormal, in ghosts, in supernatural beings other than gods. An atheist can be a nihilist, a relativist, a utilitarian, a contractarian, an existentialist. An atheist can be a conservative, a liberal, a socialist, an anarchist, a monarchist, a libertarian, a Marxist, or hold any other possible view of political philosophy that doesn't entail the existence of gods. All of these views are consistent with atheism, meaning simply that no contradiction is produced by the combination of the views.

Amorality and nihilism are consistent with atheism--it is certainly possible for an atheist to hold that there are no moral truths, that there is no difference between right and wrong. But mere consistency is not the same as entailment--it does not follow that if you are an atheist, it logically follows or is necessary to hold such views. Yet that's what the quoted author is falsely claiming to be the case.

Note that amorality and nihilism are also consistent with theism--and in my opinion, both are possible for theists whichever horn of the Euthyphro dilemma is grasped. If the ground of what is morally right is something independent of the gods that does not exist, even while gods do, then that's an amoral theism. And if all there is to morality is what the gods will it to be, that makes morality dependent upon the values of the gods--if the gods choose to be amoral or nihilists, then again there's amoral theism.

The Christian psychologist goes on to write (citing this very blog for the quote):

Now, I have only seen or read about one logically consistent atheist…..Jeffrey Dahmer. There have been philosophers, I know, who have come to this logical conclusion. But I’m talking about someone who logically practiced what he believed.

“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…” (1)
So said Dahmer.
The "what's the point" question is easy to answer--there are clearly consequences for us to our own behavior regardless of any accountability to God. Sane, rational people desire to live good and happy lives, rather than follow the example of Dahmer. Even leaving God out of the picture, where is the slightest appeal in following Dahmer as a model of rational living? I see none.

But the position this psychologist takes opens up an obvious question that he doesn't notice--God isn't accountable to anyone. Why should God be good, instead of acting maliciously, callously, and evilly, in the absence of any accountability to anyone? According to this psychologist, the answer should be that God should rationally act as an omnipotent Jeffrey Dahmer. Having no greater God to hold him responsible, he should not be bound to any code of morality, his word should be valueless, and every action based on the whims of the moment without regard to any future consequences.

That should be considered a reductio ad absurdum of his position. Either there are rational reasons to not act like Jeffrey Dahmer independently of being held accountable to a higher being, or God behaves irrationally by not acting like Jeffrey Dahmer. (Or perhaps, given the content of the Old Testament, God does act like Jeffrey Dahmer.)

UPDATE: I've engaged in further argument with the psychologist in the comments of his blog, as have others.

UPDATE: After a few back-and-forth exchanges, I don't think the psychologist means to talk about logical consequences of beliefs. I think probably the best reconstruction of his actual argument is something like this:

1. Human beings find it psychologically necessary to believe in an objective external source of morality. (In order to be happy, function well psychologically, etc.)
2. Atheism doesn't provide such a source by itself.
3. Those whose worldview is composed entirely of atheism, without augmenting it with some objective external source of morality, have no psychological reasons to act in moral ways.

This is a much more plausible argument. He says something very much like (3), and goes on to say something to the effect that none of these substitutes are sufficient, and his reason seems to be along the lines that people's choices for these substitutes are arbitrary or that they are not externally imposed. But his reasoning is faulty--the fact that people choose for themselves doesn't mean that their choices are arbitrary (they can have good reasons), and external imposition seems to be irrelevant. Presumably he would agree that someone who converts to Christianity as an adult can have all of the psychological benefits he's claiming for theism. And what of the thousands of other religions, sects, and interpretations that can be acquired from one's parents or others? His argument doesn't have any way of singling out Christianity (or any particular version thereof) as special in this regard. It seems to me that it really comes down to an argument about the social and psychological benefits of adopting the beliefs of one's culture that most people accept--though I'm sure he doesn't want to accept the cultural relativism that seems to me to be implied by his position.

UPDATE: The "Country Shrink" has resorted to "let's agree to disagree" without even attempting to respond to the criticism of his claim that morality requires theism, nor has he responded to my attempted reformulation. Instead, he has asked whether my impressions of atheists differ from him--claiming the moral high ground, intellectual superiority, etc., to which I responded that I see that as most prevalent among atheists who were previously evangelical Christians, and that he's likely attributing causes to the wrong place. I don't think it's caused by atheism as much as by reaction to Christianity.

UPDATE (July 6, 2008): The "Country Shrink" has made a followup post in which he takes a stab of sorts at addressing some of the philosophical arguments I made, but mostly by engaging in argument from ignorance and attempting to shift the burden of proof to me, even though he is the one maintaining that it is impossible for there to be any objective meta-ethical framework without gods. He also asserts (rather than argues) that incompatibilism is the correct position in the free will debate and that consciousness cannot be explained naturalistically. I don't discern any actual arguments for either of those positions other than failure of imagination.

Hume's Ghost (2008-07-04):

Jeffrey Dahmer is an interesting choice, considering he was raised in a fundamentalist home. Him being a sociopath is another reason that he's a particularly poor choice, especially for a psychologist who would presumably have the training to understand why choosing a sociopath would not make the point he seeks to make.

Sylvia Browne's prediction record

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 17:10:00 +0000

Jeremy the Skeptic has been tracking Sylvia Browne’s record of success on her predictions. Once again, the evidence of psychic ability seems to be absent.

Jeremy’s got two posts, one with her predictions for 2007, and one with a mid-year update on her predictions for 2008.

Historical Comments

Anonymous (2009-01-14):

Well, there are lots of celebrity psychics out there that gives readings that seems odd and most of them doesn't really come true, not even close, but I think that what is important with this sort of things is on how we as individuals will interpret those readings and use them on our daily lives

9/11 - The Third Tower

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:40:00 +0000

BBC’s “The Conspiracy Files” investigative report on the collapse of WTC 7 will air on Sunday, July 6. They have some promotional videos on the web, including an explanation of their reporter’s statement that WTC 7 had collapsed before it did.

The conspiracy theorists claim that it had to be a controlled demolition, because WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and was virtually untouched. But the latter claim is false–WTC 7 was heavily damaged by the collapse of the twin towers, with a giant hole in the southwest corner about 20 stories high. There were raging fires in a building full of diesel fuel and backup generators.

The BBC investigation will no doubt report in more detail on the facts that the conspiracy theorists like to pretend don’t exist.

Robert Lancaster observes Sylvia Browne first-hand

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:29:00 +0000

Robert Lancaster of StopSylviaBrowne.com was able to attend one of her “performances” at the Excalibur Hotel and Casino after The Amazing Meeting, and his description of the event is fascinating. He, his wife, and another skeptic were each able to ask a question–she batted 0/2 for the two personal questions, and Lancaster himself asked where she obtained her Master’s degree in English literature. She was then foolish enough to call him back to the microphone in an apparent attempt to cause a scene, which only served to advertise his website to the entire audience.

What I found most interesting about his account of the show was his description of his conversations with other attendees after it was over. Browne’s alleged psychic powers were apparently failing her at this event.

UPDATE (July 12, 2008): Sylvia Browne’s shows at the Excalibur, originally scheduled to run through August, have been cancelled. Due to unforeseen circumstances, no doubt.

Guantanamo interrogation class based on Chinese Communist torture techniques

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:39:00 +0000

When in 2002 military trainers came to Guantanamo Bay to teach a course on interrogation techniques, they included a chart of the effects of prospective techniques. That chart came from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War on U.S. soldiers to extract false confessions. The study, by Albert D. Biderman, was titled “Communist Attempts to Elicit False Confessions From Air Force Prisoners of War."

UPDATE (July 8, 2008): Ed Brayton comments on how McCain’s torture using these very techniques led to a false confession–so why do we believe that torture will lead to true confessions?

The Amazing Meeting 6 summarized, part five

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:37:00 +0000

This is part five of my summary of The Amazing Meeting 6 (intro, part one, part two, part three, part four).

Continuing my descriptions of Sunday’s paper presentations…

Lee Graham on “Artificial Creatures, Real Evolution”: Lee Graham, a Ph.D. student in computer science and member of the Ottawa Skeptics, gave a fascinating presentation about his 3D virtual creature evolution program (3DVCE), which he said was inspired by and based on 1994 work by Karl Sims of Thinking Machines Corporation on “Evolved Virtual Creatures." He developed software to evolve simulated creatures. The simulated creatures have perceptual sensors that detect surface inclines, contact, and proprioception (position of body parts), he measured fitness in terms of distance traveled, jump height, etc., and then engaged in selection of parents and reproduction based on that fitness, producing new offspring with both mutations and crossover (mixing of genes from the parents). While it is far from a complete model of evolution–lacking such features as food and environmental threats such as predators–it is sufficient to show that new complexity can evolve.

He showed a video of various creatures that evolved in the world, such as an interesting worm-like creature he called an “end-over-end worm," and then asked where does the complexity and information come from? There’s the fitness function, the choice of primitive components, and the environment, each of which have counterparts in reality. But the real answer is from the process of variation plus selection. The development of complexity simply does not require top-down design.

Christopher French on anomalistic psychology: French, founder of the Anomalistic Psychology Research Unit at Goldsmiths College, University of London, gave a talk that was supposed to be about his own research, but there was a mixup with presentations and it was an earlier version of his talk. APRU does research, teaching, and public education on anomalistic psychology, a field that I believe was first named by Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones’ book, Anomalistic Psychology: A Study of Magical Thinking (the second edition from 1989 now sells for $129.45, I wonder what my first edition is worth?).

Tim Farley of whatstheharm.net on “Building Internet Tools for Skeptics”: Tim Farley gave an excellent talk about developing new technological tools using the web in order to promote skepticism and critical thinking. His talk used a minimalist approach on his presentation, with slides containing individual words and phrases about each point he discussed (a technique promoted by Larry Lessig and known as the “Lessig Method” or the “Takahashi Method”). Farley spoke about the battle on the Internet between information and misinformation. Skeptics are using blogs, social networks, social linking, and search engines (e.g., Google bombing), but these methods are ad hoc and tend to promote preaching to the choir. We need to extend our reach and be more systematic, making use of new Web 2.0 methods for community, specialization, programmability, and mashups. Farley suggested the following steps to apply Web 2.0 to skepticism: work smarter, not harder–use services like Yahoo Pipes to filter RSS feeds to present on web pages. Specialize–find and fill a niche. Open up your data, so that others can make use of it in their web pages. Mash up data–combine geocoded data with Google Maps, for example. Appeal to people who are neutral.

He’s working on creating a filter that searches just believer sites, which will allow the ability to search the entire web minus the believer sites. whatstheharm.net is a collection of victim reports, and a useful rhetorical tool for answering the question when people ask, “What’s the harm in believing X?"

He suggested that all sites should publish their data using RSS, use iCal for calendar information, and use microformats like hReview so that you can show approval or disapproval of the things you link to.

Farley strongly advocated the use of geocoding and geoRSS, as well as KML (like RSS for maps, used by Google Earth) in order to put links on maps. He gave the example of the Church of Scientology in Boston on Beacon Street, where there are links to YouTube videos of protests in the intersection near the facility on Google Earth.

He gave the examples of disbeliefnet.com, promoting Bill Maher’s new film “Religulous,” which has a section called The Heretic Press which uses Yahoo Pipes to automatically pull in crazy religious stories.

Farley’s new site of tools for skeptics is called skeptools.com, and you can find a version of his presentation there. Check it out.

Brian Dunning of the “Skeptoid” podcast, on “The Skeptologists”: Brian Dunning, executive producer of “The Skeptologists,” showed the whole pilot episode, which had some over-the-top music. He brought on stage his fellow executive producer and director Ryan Johnson, and they described the show. Where most pilots are kept secret, they are making theirs widely known in order to promote skeptical interest. He took questions from the audience, one of the most interesting was, “Do you have any plans to show things that turn out to be true?” Unfortunately, the answer was no, though that they will try to show real science for things “that have some similarity to the bogus claims.” This makes it more of a preconceived debunking show rather than promotion of science and critical thinking.

Conclusion
At the end of the conference, Hal Bidlack suggested that next year’s TAM may have a panel discussion on who’s been sued and for what, along with a lawyer, on steps to take to avoid lawsuits.

There may have been a bit more after that, but things were a bit behind schedule and I had to rush off to catch a shuttle to the airport, so that was the end of the conference for me.

Christopher Hitchens gets waterboarded

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:14:00 +0000

Christopher Hitchens decided to experience waterboarding first-hand at the hands of experts, and he did so twice. He vividly describes the experience in Vanity Fair, which also has video.

David Byrne's singing robot

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 04:00:00 +0000

David Byrne has collaborated with David Hanson, the guy who made the Philip K. Dick robot at NextFest in 2005, to make a robot named Julio that sings, for a show titled “Machines and Souls: Digital Art” at the Museo de Arta Reina Sofia in Madrid.

Byrne writes:
I love where this is going. It brings to mind an image of someone sitting in a comfortable chair, maybe with friends, and maybe they’re having drinks—and at the same time Jentsch posits that layered over or under this image is the profoundly creepy, the deeply strange and disturbing. We’re in the land of David Lynch and Hitchcock. ET landing in the familiar U.S. suburbs could be viewed this way, or the various living dead and vampire movies.
More recently Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori proposed the existence of something called the uncanny valley. This “valley” is an area of emotional uncertainty and often revulsion experienced by an observer when a robot or computer animation (for example) approaches being human, is almost believable, but not quite.

The Amazing Meeting 6 summarized, part four

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0000

This is part four of my summary of The Amazing Meeting 6 (intro, part one, part two, part three, part five).

Phil Plait
Astronomer Phil Plait of the Bad Astronomy blog began by saying that the Internet is “a system for rapidly distributing sewage,” but also for distributing astronomy. His talk went through the solar system from Mercury to KBO 2004 XR 190 a/k/a “Buffy,” with interesting photographs and facts about various planets and moons along the way.

Mercury: The 2004 MESSENGER probe took photographs of the Caloris basin, the single biggest feature on Mercury, originally thought to be 1300 km in diameter but revised upward to 1550 km based on those photos. Because Mercury spins twice for every three times it revolves around the sun, this basin is directly under the sun, every other orbit. It’s a gigantic impact crater that’s 3.8 to 3.9 billion years old.

Venus: The hottest planet, a hell hole about the size of earth and with about the same amount of carbon and just a little bit closer to the sun, but it suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect. It’s been photographed by the Russian Venera probes from 1962 to 1982 and by Magellan in 1990.

Earth: Plait spoke of an HD movie of Earth shrinking into the distance as MESSENGER departed.

Phobos: This moon of Mars has a giant crater–had it been hit by anything bigger, Phobos would have disintegrated. Phobos is apparently a captured asteroid, which orbits backward from other moons in the solar system. Unlike Earth’s moon, it is gradually getting closer to Mars, and will collide with it in about the next 50 million years, causing an impact greater than the asteroid that created the Yucatan basin.

Jupiter’s acne: The Great Red Spot (Cassini, named after Jean-Dominique Cassini, who first observed it in 1655), a 400-year-old hurricane, has now been joined in 2000 by another little spot. The new spot was white but has now turned red and is known as Oval BA (or Red Jr.)–it is as large as the Earth.

Iapetus: This moon of Saturn has one light hemisphere and one dark, and was recently discovered to have a 20 km high ridge almost perfectly around its equator. (I remarked that it looks like a Death Star.)

Uranus: It’s tipped 98 degrees on its side in its orbit, likely as a result of an impact from something very large, perhaps Earth-sized.

Neptune: The other blue planet, it contains lots of methane and emanates 1.6 times the heat it receives from the Sun. It has 2,200 kph winds. Where is that energy coming from?

Pluto: It’s not a planet, so we don’t care about it.

KBO 2004 XR 190 a/k/a “Buffy”: This is an odd trans-Neptunian object–where almost all objects in the solar system have very elliptical orbits, it is an object 8.5 billion km from the Sun–twice the distance from the Sun of Neptune–yet its orbit is circular.

Plait concluded by noting that he hasn’t even talked about the Sun, Milleomeda (what the galaxy will be after Andromeda and the Milky Way collide), or countless other things that we don’t understand. But this lack of understanding doesn’t mean we know nothing. “The universe is cool enough without making up crap about it. That’s why I’m a skeptic."

Adam Savage
Adam Savage of “Mythbusters” brought a box of about 1,000 ping pong balls which were used to raise a boat from the bottom of Monterey Bay, and gave them out to members of the audience, and signed his autograph on many of them. He then gave a talk entitled “My Maltese Falcon,” about his obsession with recreating a precise replica of one of the two lead sculptures from the movie of the same name. He did extensive research into its measurements, even paying to purchase used auction catalogs from Christie’s to examine photographs. Joseph Warner gave one of the two lead ones to Joseph Conrad, one which Humphrey Bogart dropped and put a dent in. He sculpted one based on photographs, sprayed it with 75 coats of auto primer, then buffed and sanded it. He freeze framed every still from the original film in a scene where the statue was rotated. Someone offered to cast it in bronze for him, and he had two made–but the casting process caused it to lose size, and so his bronze model is 3/4” shorter in height at the beak, with the result that he hates it. At a conference he met the man who purchased William Conrad’s lead statue, which he hopes to be able to scan and use to make the most accurate replica ever, which he’ll report back on next year.

He showed a couple of world premiere viral videos–one in which he and Jamie simultaneously solved Rubik’s cubes, one while blindfolded and the other with his feet. The footage was actually reversed–they started with solved cubes and then just messed them up. In a second video, he inhaled some helium and spoke with a high voice, then inhaled some sulfur hexafluoride (which he informed us is very expensive) and spoke with a deep voice, and everyone laughed. He said that someone (a producer?) thought that the cube video was cool, but that the balloon stunt was obviously faked.

He took questions and answers from the audience; a few highlights were that they want to do a full 60 minute show on the JFK assassination, Discovery has said no to “21 grams” (do we lose weight when we die), the Cheney shooting, vinyl vs. CD, and speaker cable vs. coat hanger.

His segment concluded with some footage of “explosion porn” from the show.

Matthew Chapman
Matthew Chapman, great-great grandson of Charles Darwin, screenwriter (“The Runaway Jury” and nine other films), and author (Trials of the Monkey and 40 Days and 40 Nights, the latter of which, about the Dover trial, I am currently reading), spoke about three things: Science Debate 2008, his love of America, and “Darwin, creationism, etc.” He began with his love of America, noting that he had grown up in the 1950s and 1960s, raised by parents who read the New Yorker and were fans of Woody Allen, Mort Sahl, and Lenny Bruce, and so he always wanted to be an American. He moved to the U.S. to get into the film business, and went to L.A. A woman he knew to be educated asked him what his sign was–he thought she was kidding, but she was not. Ever since he has been fascinated with Americans’ fondness for pseudoscience. He was invited to a “shack” (of the $5 million variety) in Malibu to see someone channel “Basha,” and he couldn’t help but laugh out loud. A woman present asked the channeler, “I have a potential development deal at Warner Brothers. What is Basha’s advice?"

When he expressed indignation at such expressions of irrationality, he was told, “Oh, you’re so rational” or “you’re so British.” He felt alone until he came across the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and he promptly purchased and read every back issue. (I had a similar experience in my life–I read Skeptical Inquirer while still a religious believer, and also ended up purchasing and reading every back issue from cover to cover.) He became enraged by Scientology, UFOs, spontaneous human combustion, crystals, telepathy, Shirley MacLaine (who he’s met), Nostradamus, pyramid power, etc. etc. While in an elevator with James Randi at an event in UCLA, he asked Randi if he’d heard of some Brazilian paranormalist (a psychic surgeon?), and Randi responded by pulling a pen out of his ear.

Despite the far more voluminous “loony bullshit” in the U.S. than in Europe, he still loves it here, and became an American citizen.

He next spoke about creationism. His book Trials of the Monkey was about his visit to Dayton, Tennessee to learn about the Scopes Trial, and he found that the people there today are much the same as they were back then. His newer book, 40 Days and 40 Nights, was written during and after his observation of the entirety of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, which he witnessed from the jury box (where the press sat, since it was a non-jury trial). Through the Dover trial, he learned that it is possible to make science interesting to non-scientists.

Finally, he talked about Science Debate 2008. As the political debate season began, he watched all the debates, expecting to see questions about ozone, ocean health, climate change, etc., but only saw questions about lapel pins, religion, etc. There were more questions about UFOs than about global warming. He suggested the idea of a debate on science at the Atheist Alliance confernece, and Chris Mooney, who he had met earlier, got on board, along with his fellow Intersection Science Blogger Sheril Kirshenbaum. Soon thereafter, John Rennie of Scientific American became a backer, and Lawrence Krauss of The Physics of Star Trek (Chapman inadvertently said “Star Wars”) also joined. They ended up starting an organization and collecting over 50,000 signatures, including the support of 51 colleges, 5 museums, 10 magazines, 112 science organizations, 14 Congresspeople, 7 presidential science advisors, 143 CEOs of science and technology companies, 28 Nobelists, 102 college and university presidents, PBS, Nova, the Franklin Institute, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and even Newt Gingrich. A Harris poll says that 85% of voters would like to see a science debate.

But so far, all of the candidates have said no or failed to respond at all. Chapman said that McCain was the most polite in saying no, and seemed to leave the door open.

They’ve now developed 14 questions and are preparing a new invitation to be sent to Obama and McCain.

Chapman then took questions, and someone asked if there was any opposition from scientists on the grounds that this is politicizing science. Chapman said he’s had negative reactions from about three scientists, one of whom was present at this conference.

After Chapman’s talk, I had a chance to speak with him briefly (he noticed the NCSE Grand Canyon trip T-shirt I was wearing, and commented on what great people Genie Scott and Nick Matzke are), as well as with his wife, Denise, who was also present at the conference. Denise Chapman, a Brazilian who has acted in television and film (including “Kiss of the Spider Woman” and Woody Allen’s “Radio Days”), is the daughter of composer and musician Humberto Teixeira, started Baiao music and was the composer of the popular Brazilian song “Asa Branca” (“White Wing”). She was pleased to hear that some friends of mine named their African grey parrot “Asa Cinza” (“Grey Wing”) in honor of that song. She has been working on a documentary film about her father that will be premiering later this month at MoMA.

Richard Wiseman
British psychologist Richard Wiseman spoke a little bit about his book Quirkology, presented a few optical illusions, and commented about his obtaining a videotape of Indian “God-man” Sai Baba in which he was caught engaging in sleight of hand, which he then showed to us. (Sai Baba was debunked well in a book by Dale Beyerstein titled Sai Baba’s Miracles: An Overview, which describes some other instances of Sai Baba being caught in trickery.

He then showed his now-famous viral video of the “colour changing card trick," and followed it up showing a video of how it was made (it took many takes to get it right; he showed some amusing failures). This video, which has had over 2.5 million views, demonstrates the phenomena of “change blindness,” and they’ve used eye-tracking to study viewers of the video to see if they are not looking in the right place or simply failing to register the changes, and it seems to be the latter. This video has apparently now inspired a routine in Penn & Teller’s show.

This was followed up by a spoon-bending lesson from an expert–Teller. Teller explained that there is a method, the trick that deceives the eye, and there is misdirection, the trick that deceives the mind. The spoon-bending trick is based on a pre-stressed spoon, but to allay suspicion he only does the trick about once every five times he creates a pre-stressed spoon, because he waits for an opportunity to swap the spoon with a neighbor, and then only does the trick if the conversation happens to turn in a direction that makes it seem appropriate. He told the story of how Danny Hillis (of Connection Machine and Long Now Foundation fame) was invited to a posh party at the home of Courtney Ross (widow of Steve Ross, CEO of Time Warner). At dinner, the conversation turned to Rupert Sheldrake. Hillis had pre-stressed his neighbor’s spoon, and put his own spoon on a plate so that the waiter took it away. Hillis borrowed his neighbor’s spoon and did the trick, bending and breaking the spoon and dropping it into his wine. His hostess said, “I can’t believe you did that.” He made a comment to the effect that it was a trick, and she said, “No, I can’t believe you did that.” She was horrified that he had destroyed one of a fixed number of identical place settings by some famous designer which she had painstakingly collected over the years. And that, said Teller, made it funny.

Wiseman then came back and said that we would now make the world’s largest spoonbending video for YouTube. We were given one run-through of the simple script, and then did it on video, all 900 of us (though there were only 800 pre-stressed spoons, so the 100 in the back had to mime). The video will make its debut at www.spoonscience.com (which as of this moment still says “coming soon”).

Panel discussion on the limits of skepticism
Goldacre, Daniel Loxton, Radford, Savage, Novella, Hrab, Randi, Banachek, and Saunders assembled on stage for this panel discussion, which I don’t recall actually addressing a subject that I’d characterize as the limits of skepticism. Instead, it seemed to be pretty much a free-for-all Q&A about skepticism.

At one point, someone spoke of “winning the war” against irrationality, and Banachek said he preferred to think in terms of making a mark rather than winning a war.

Randi commented on the famous quotation attributed to him by Dennis Rawlins’ “sTARBABY” that “I always have an out,” suggesting that his then-$10,000 and now $1 million reward for the successful demonstration of a paranormal event is not fair. He stated that this quotation was out-of-context, and that what he actually said was “I always have an out–I’m right.” Dennis Rawlins, however, says that this is untrue, and that Randi has only recently started appending “I’m right” to this quotation. In 2000, when Matt Kriebel made his “sTARBABY mini-FAQ," Randi had a different explanation, stating that the “out” was about his stage act rather than his challenge.

Adam Savage observed that at the last TAM he mentioned that he was an atheist, and now that’s appeared on his Wiki page.

In answer to a question about what’s the worst thing you’ve ever been called, Richard Saunders said he had been accused of being “a mouseketeer of evil."

Savage made the statement that “You might think the world has color before critical thinking, but when you start thinking critically, it goes to HD."

It was mentioned that skeptical materials are appearing in other languages–“Mythbusters” is now in 145 countries and 9 languages, and Benjamin Radford is editor of the Spanish-language skeptical magazine, Pensar, along with the Skeptical Inquirer.

Sunday conference papers
The final session of the conference, Sunday morning until noon, was for presentation of conference papers.

John Janks on the Marfa Lights: I regret that I missed this, since I published two papers on the Marfa lights in The Arizona Skeptic when I was editor, but I made the mistake of assuming the session would begin at 9 a.m. like previous days–nope, it was 8:30 a.m.

Don Nyberg on “What Every Student Needs to Hear from Every Science Teacher”: Nyberg, a physics professor who apparently plays a mean game of poker, said that he attacks pseudoscience, and especially “religious pseudoscience,” in his classroom. Unfortunately, his talk didn’t bother to define what he meant by this term, and his talk was a series of arguments by assertion, arguments from authority, and ad hominem that I thought was embarrassingly badly argued. He seemed to be arguing that anyone with a degree in science who expressed support for religion should have their degrees revoked, which prompted the moderator Ray Hall to ask Nyberg whether he thought that biologist Kenneth Miller, whose testimony helped produce the proper outcome in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, should have his degrees revoked. Nyberg responded that yes, he should, if he’s promoting his religious beliefs in the science classroom (a qualifier which hadn’t been included in his earlier statement). I’d like to obtain a copy of Nyberg’s actual materials to review, to see how they compare to his talk.

Steve Cuno: The head of an “evidence-based marketing company,” he gave an excellent talk about myths in marketing. Such myths include:
We control your mind.
Creativity is magi.
No one reads long ads.
Awareness creates sales.
Focus groups are predictive.
Sales went up because of ads.
He gave some examples associated with each of these, and described some of the tests that his company had performed to test marketing campaigns to find what causes responses to direct mailings and what leads to conversions to sales. He suggested the classic book Tested Advertising Methods, and pointed out that he has his own book coming out in December, with an intro by Michael Shermer, titled Prove It Before You Promote It.

One of the questions asked was “is Seth Godin full of shit?” Cuno tactfully said that no doubt some of what Godin says is speculative.

Tracy King: She gave a talk on “The Most Popular Science Video in the World - How to Make Your Message Famous.” She talked about Wiseman’s “colour changing card trick” video, which got 80,000 views in the first two weeks and 2 million views by 18 weeks, and has now been seen by 80 million people on South American Globo TV, used in classrooms, and recreated by students.

She looked at other science videos that have been viral hits, such as the Diet Coke and Mentos videos, the first of which was uploaded in 2006 by Fritz Grobe, a juggler, and Stephen Voltz, a lawyer. They chose Diet Coke for its strong brand, and when it became a viral hit they received funding from Mentos to make more, and ultimately got a sponsorship deal from Coca Cola.

King pointed out that a lot of viral techniques are now illegal in the UK–you must be explicit about being paid to produce videos, for example.

She talked about the bogus popcorn/mobile phone video, which is one that would be in violation of the UK law today. It was created in multiple versions–English (where they’re drinking orange juice), French (where they’re drinking beer), and Japanese (where they have miso soup). These videos were made for Cardo Systems, a bluetooth headset manufacturer, and are clearly designed to encourage the idea that cell phones are dangerous to hold near your head. (Someone should make a viral video about bluetooth headsets.)

So what makes a successful viral video? There is no formula, but there are common themes–humor, surprise, fear/scaremongering, emotion, skill, embarrassment. One thing she didn’t mention which I think was a factor in the success of the “colour changing card trick” video is that there were already multiple videos spreading widely with the exact same name, where the focus really was on that card trick. The Wiseman video was an interesting twist on what was already spreading virally, with the element of surprise and humor at the end. In essence, that video caught the wave of the other card trick videos, and then took it much farther. When I first saw the Wiseman video, I thought I was just seeing another version of that same trick.

And why do we pass on viral videos?
Reflected glory.
Being the first to know.
Being part of a crowd with similar tastes.
Being part of a shared cultural experience.
(Participating in the formation of) the language of your generation.
She mentioned Ray Comfort’s “The Atheist’s Nightmare” as something which has effectively spread virally, but didn’t exactly get the desired message across.

She ended by encouraging everyone to make videos promoting skepticism and critical thinking, and offered the following suggestions:
Identify what your message is–don’t be preachy or superior, which is a turnoff.
Determine what your objectives are–to build website traffic, tell friend, etc.? If you don’t have a call to action, your message may be lost.
Find a creative concept–it may be explicit, subtle, or obscure.
Make the video.
Promote the video–it’s not going to circulate itself, and professional seeding (e.g., making use of a company like hers that has relationships with bloggers, forum participants, etc. to promote things in a subtle, unobtrusive, and unspammy way).
And finally, she explicitly listed: don’t spam.
She ended by saying that while she can’t recommend or encourage a “Jackass” approach to skepticism, it’s something she’d certainly like to see.

On to TAM6 summary, part five.