Movies

Although the “Expelled” RSVP page mysteriously dropped all upcoming screenings after the media coverage of P.Z. Myers being barred from a screening in Minnesota, a few cities have appeared on the list again and Phoenix is one of them. This could be a chance to see the film without giving its dishonest producers any money–I’ve signed up. (Free is the only way I’ll bother to see this film.) The site now explains the cancelled screenings as follows: Due to unavoidable changes in the travel plans of the producers of “Expelled”, several of our screenings have been canceled or are being rescheduled to a new date or time.While that may be true, I wonder if it’s merely an excuse to drop all of the existing registrants and do more stringent screening of who is allowed to be admitted. ...

Julia Sweeney writes at her blog: Ben Stein once did a Groundling show, an improv show, that I was a part of. I found him to be spectacularly ill-informed and narcissistic and weirdly devoted to his schtick and worst of all, hacky. He didn’t listen to his fellow performers and played everything outward to his friends in the audience who laughed (fake, forced) at every single thing he did. When he became known as a “thinker” – when his public persona became the “smart guy” I was astounded. So this type of film does not come as any surprise.(Hat tip to James Redekop on the SKEPTIC list.)

Allen MacNeill, who teaches introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University, reports that he and Will Provine were also interviewed by “Expelled” producer Mark Mathis under false pretenses last year. Unlike P.Z. Myers, Dawkins, and Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, however, his interview was not used in the film. (Corrected: Provine was used in the film. Provine argues that evolution is evidence in support of atheism, which is probably why he was used in the movie.) Why not? Because they invite ID proponents to give presentations in their classrooms. Yet Mathis claimed that he was setting out to present an even-handed presentation, not propaganda. Personally, I think it’s quite reasonable to talk about ID and creationism in college-level courses, provided that you actually evaluate their arguments. I occasionally included some creationist readings in critical thinking courses I taught at the University of Arizona, as exercises for spotting fallacies. ...

P.Z. Myers of Pharyngula, who is actually featured in the dishonest Ben Stein intelligent design propaganda movie “Expelled,” was denied admittance to a screening and asked to leave the premises. His guest, however, was permitted to attend, and was apparently, quite astonishingly, unrecognized–Richard Dawkins. (Myers provides a few more details here.) The New York Times contacted “Expelled” producer Mark Mathis about it, and he claimed that Dawkins was intentionally allowed in and insinuating that Myers would cause trouble at the screening. (Anyone who has met Myers in person knows this is ridiculous.) Here’s video of P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins describing their respective experiences. Jeffrey Overstreet gives what appears to be the spin that will be used to respond to this event, based on the clearly mistaken description of Myers’ removal from student Stuart Blessman: I just happened to be standing directly in line behind Dawkins’ academic colleague. Management of the movie theatre saw a man apparently hustling and bothering several invited attendees, apparently trying to disrupt the viewing or sneak in. Management then approached the man, asked him if he had a ticket, and when he confirmed that he didn’t, they then escorted him off the premises. Nowhere was one of the film’s producers to be found, and the man certainly didn’t identify himself. If a producer had been nearby, it’s possible that he would have been admitted, but the theatre’s management didn’t want to take any chances.Myers points out: ...

The March 2008 issue of Fortean Times has an interesting article by Rupert Sheldrake titled “Richard Dawkins calls.” In it, he describes his meeting with Dawkins for the filming of a segment originally planned to be part of Enemies of Reason, broadcast in August 2007. Apparently very little was filmed and nothing was used of the meeting. Sheldrake was to be interviewed as a defender of scientific evidence for telepathy, which Sheldrake has studied with empirical research, and written and published papers about. (Sheldrake is perhaps best known for his theory of morphogenetic fields, which he wrote about in his book A New Science of Life, which a reviewer for Nature called “the best candidate for burning there has been in years.” He believes that the more an idea is used, the easier it becomes for others to think of–along the lines of the “hundredth monkey” phenomenon which was a myth originated by Lyall Watson and promulgated by Ken Keyes, Jr., and debunked by philosopher Ron Amundson.) According to Sheldrake, he was promised that “this documentary, at Channel 4’s insistence, will be an entirely more balanced affair than The Root of All Evil? was” and that “We are very keen for it to be a discussion between two scientists, about scientific modes of enquiry." But when the meeting occurred, it quickly came to an end because, according to Sheldrake, Dawkins said “I don’t want to discuss evidence. … There isn’t time. … It’s too complicated. And that’s not what this programme is about.” (A charitable and likely accurate reading of what “that” refers to is specifically evidence for telepathy, though Sheldrake seems to suggest Dawkins means evidence of any kind.) Sheldrake reports that Russell Barnes, the director, also “confirmed that he was not interested in evidence either.” (Again, probably referring specifically to evidence for telepathy, rather than evidence in general.) Sheldrake responded that “If you’re treating telepathy as an irrational belief, surely evidence about whether it exists or not is essential for the discussion. If telepathy occurs, it’s not irrational to believe in it. I thought that’s what we were going to talk about. I made it clear from the outset that I wasn’t interested in taking part in another low-grade debunking exercise.” To which he reports that Dawkins responded, “It’s not a low-grade debunking exercise. It’s a high-grade debunking exercise.” I don’t see how anyone can reasonably disagree with Sheldrake’s statement. Sheldrake told them he had received assurances that this would be “a balanced scientific discussion about the evidence,” and when Barnes asked to see the emails in question, he showed them. Sheldrake writes, “He read them with obvious dismay, and said the assurances she had given me were wrong. The team packed up and left." UPDATE (April 25, 2008): Rupert Sheldrake has posted “Richard Dawkins comes to call” on his website, which looks to be more-or-less the same as the FT article. William Dembski has pointed to this article as evidence that Richard Dawkins has done the same kind of duping that he has complained about when the producers of “Expelled” did it to him, but I don’t think they’re quite the same in a number of respects. While Dawkins was (to his discredit) uninterested in the scientific evidence underlying telepathy that Sheldrake wanted to discuss, footage from Sheldrake wasn’t used in the final documentary. The case would have been parallel if Dawkins had pretended to be interested in the scientific evidence, completed the interview, and then used the footage in such a way as to criticize and ridicule Sheldrake. And it would have been parallel to how P.Z. Myers’ footage was used in “Expelled” only if Dawkins had conversed with Sheldrake about the scientific evidence for telepathy and then used excerpts from it in a film on another topic that hadn’t been mentioned. (Myers wasn’t asked questions about intelligent design, only about the relationship between religion and science.) UPDATE (June 8, 2008): P.Z. Myers has weighed in on this controversy at Pharyngula, arguing that Sheldrake’s evidence (which hasn’t been discussed, so far as I can see) doesn’t count as evidence because of a lack of a plausible mechanism. I disagree that lack of a mechanism means that anomalous data doesn’t count as evidence–it is reason to reject a proposed explanation, but it’s not a reason to deny that there is anomalous data. UPDATE (June 15, 2008): Sheldrake responds to Myers: [W]ith such a farrago of prejudice, ignorance and arrogance, it’s hard to know where to begin. It doesn’t really seem worth replying to people who aren’t interested in the facts but simply in venting their rage. ...

The National Center for Science Education has put up a website, ExpelledExposed.com, to respond to the dishonest intelligent design movie featuring Ben Stein, Expelled. The current content is links to news coverage and reviews of the movie, but I expect the site will become more interesting when the movie is actually released on April 18. geo (2008-03-09): It should be noted for the benefit of fair minded readers here that...every one of the allegations made on the "EXPOSED" site are...false. Not merely inaccurate, but intentionally so.Fortunately, the film EXPELLED will serve as its own refutation of these allegattions. The lies will in fact corroborate the main point of the film, which is a chronicle of the depths to which Big Science will sink, when it is questioned in the harsh light of day.geo ...

And they both appear to be pretty accurate, informed about the dishonesty of the movie’s producers. One is by Dan Whipple in Colorado Confidential, the other by Roger Moore in the Orlando Sentinel. Historical Comments olvlzl (2008-02-03): Sounds sleazy, using Myers under false pretenses. Sort of like Francis Collins got used a while back, not that the neo-atheists were all that willing to be understanding when it happened to him. A better way to fight ID might be the one that some materialists had trouble thinking their way through when I proposed it last week, science can't deal with "a designer" since it is made to only deal with the material universe and can't address the supernatural. Of course,though they would gain a logically strong arguement for keeping religion out of science, they would lose the entire basis of popular neo-atheism. I guess that could indicate which one is more important for them to keep. Anthony McCarthy formerly styling himself as olvlzl ...

In January 2008 the film “Untraceable," starring Diane Lane, will be released. It looks awful. The premise is that a serial killer is killing people live on the Internet, via an “untraceable website” that is connected to contraptions that kill his victims as more people visit the site. The whole concept of an “untraceable website” or the idea that such a thing would be unstoppable by ISPs and law enforcement is absurd–the immediate upstream provider of the site would merely need to null route the IP address(es) where the website is hosted, and traffic stops. They’d also be able to quickly identify the customer who owns the server in question. Even if that server was compromised and being used to reverse proxy or redirect traffic to other servers, it would still be a relatively simple matter to track that backwards, though it would be somewhat more difficult than stopping the traffic. Even if the domain name pointed to a new server on a compromised host every second, it would still be possible to contact the domain name registrar and get the domain name shut down. If users can get to it, it can be seen how and what they’re getting to, even if that’s only the front end in a chain of successive proxies. If it has a domain name, that provides another path to shutting off access. UPDATE (January 2, 2008): I came across the script online while searching for information about the writers. Let’s just say that my opinion above is not nearly negative enough. In the first 16 pages are at least six or seven scenes that really bring on the stupid. For example, FBI Agent Jennifer Marsh, who works in the FBI’s cyber division, is monitoring machines that are being compromised by hackers (honeypots, essentially, though the script doesn’t use the word). One of her machines gets compromised and she sees that it copies her files including fake financial information. It then accesses eBay to use a stolen credit card to purchase a watch. In reality, the stolen financial information wouldn’t be likely to be used from the same machine, it would be sold to another player in the underground economy. Marsh then types commands to look for the IP address of the connecting host–but if they’ve already got honeypots or honeynets in operation, that should already be logged. She then does the usual CSI-style conversion of an IP address into a name and address without issuing a subpoena to an ISP, and discovers that it’s a home belonging to a 56-year-old woman. She immediately concludes that the actual criminal must be a neighbor using her wireless connection, despite the fact that she has no evidence that the woman has a wireless access point and isn’t just another victim with a compromised machine being used as a proxy. Without doing any more verification, she arranges to get a warrant to knock the door of the neighbor down, and it turns out to be a teenage kid. On p. 16 appears this nice quote: “She types several commands into a unix shell. Trace routing algorithms begin to run. A different screen shows possible IP addresses. The list begins growing, from ten to hundreds to thousands…. Marsh shakes her head at the futility.” There are multiple methods of performing traceroutes and even of adding fake hops to a traceroute, but traceroute is unnecessary to find out the IP address of a website–it’s only useful for finding the path traffic takes to get to that website, e.g., for finding the upstream provider. But getting a list of upstream providers is better done by looking at routing tables rather than doing traceroutes, anyway. The real investigative steps would be to look at the DNS information for the domain, get the IP address or addresses from the authoritative name server (and check to see if those are changing with a short TTL), then find the upstream providers. Funniest exchange I’ve seen so far in the script (p. 26) is this marvel of self-contradiction: [FBI agent] GRIFFIN: I traced it to a Georgetown sophomore named Andrew Kinross. But then I looked closer and saw the post didn’t actually originate from his computer. MARSH: Our guy got into his computer and posted it from there. GRIFFIN: That would be my guess. MARSH: So let’s go after the originating computer’s IP. And so far, I’ve not mentioned how the hacker mastermind hacks into the FBI agent’s car (which features the fictional “NorthStar” instead “OnStar”)–in the preview, the hacker apparently is able to control the steering of her car. I suspect drive-by-wire steering will come soon in the future of the automobile, but I don’t believe it exists today. (Turns out the preview gives a misleading impression of what the script says is happening–the hacker doesn’t actually control the steering, but remotely shuts off the car’s electrical systems and power steering.) ...

Young-earth creationist and Discovery Institute Fellow John Mark Reynolds has written a pair of articles arguing that Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling’s outing of her character Dumbledore as gay doesn’t make him so, since the text is silent on the issue. I actually think he makes a reasonable argument, except that he heads in a personally dangerous direction when he writes: What if Rowling writes a guide to her characters in which she gives new “back story” to the characters? ...

(Thanks, Jami!) Danny Boy, FCD (2007-10-01): *blush*My, that is kinda intense. I never noticed the level of profanity in Casino before, maybe I'm too used to Joe Pesci's mobster routine. Lippard (2007-10-03): Or maybe it's the contrast with Bert and Ernie that makes it stand out...