Rationality

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): ...

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.” ...

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). ...

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 PrincipleThe Truth-Seeking PrincipleThe Clarity PrincipleThe Burden of Proof PrincipleThe Principle of CharityThe Relevance PrincipleThe Acceptability PrincipleThe Sufficiency PrincipleThe Rebuttal PrincipleThe Resolution PrincipleThe Suspension of Judgement PrincipleThe Reconsideration PrincipleFleck’s AddendumCheck out Evolving Thoughts for discussion of each of these principles. ...

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. ...

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.

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. ...

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: ...

“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. ...

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.