Skepticblog

In my continuing series of tying up loose ends and presenting the solutions to mysteries introduced in past entries and apparently forgotten, this week we’re going to answer the question that I know you’ve all been losing sleep over. Which way does Moroni (the statue atop most Mormon temples) point his trumpet?

Many of you took up arms, in the form of compasses, and went to battle. Teams of skeptics descended upon Mormon temples and took careful sightings of Moroni, intent on discovering the secret hidden from outsiders. You see, there’s been a subculture of conspiracy surrounding the direction Moroni points among church members and church outsiders for some time. It must have some deep, dark meaning. (continue reading…)

Last night, April 28, 2009, I debated Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana from Reasons to Believe (RTB), an evangelical Christian organization whose mission it is to give people “reasons to believe” beyond the usual faith-based reasons. In this case, it is to scour the annals of scientific discovery in search of findings that seem to gel well with biblical passages; and even if they don’t seem to fit, these gentlemen are adroit at massaging both the research and the scriptures such that in the end they will fit come hell or high water.

I blogged about my previous debate with the RTB boys before, so I won’t repeat their arguments and my rebuttals here, but this was most definitely a larger venue and audience — the basketball arena at the University of Texas at Austin with over 3,000 in attendance — so I made sure that my presentation was especially poignant and lively (first and foremost, I believe, a public speaker must be interesting, have something to say, and say it in a manner that gets people to pay attention and remember). For example, I nailed Ross right off the bat on his claim that the RTB “day-age” model of creation is correct when he said that the use of the Hebrew word “yom” in Genesis means “epoch” (and therefore no matter what scientists discover about the age of the origins of life, the Earth, and the universe, they can say “see, our model predicted that correctly”). (continue reading…)

In America, people who claim vaccines cause autism are a major health threat. Some of these folks are just parents, people concerned about their kids, people desperately looking for a cause for a devastating illness. Others are vocal advocates of nonsense, saying things that are proven beyond reasonable doubt to be untrue.

The end result? Kids, including infants, are getting sick, and some of them are dying. Never, ever forget that, no matter how loudly these people yell, and no matter what garbage they spout (including, inevitably, in the comments that will follow this very post). Babies are dying.
(continue reading…)

There are numerous ways in which thought processes go astray, leading us to false conclusions, even persistent delusions. Skepticism, as an intellectual endeavor, is the study of these mental pitfalls, for a thorough understanding of them is the best way to avoid them.

Science itself is a set of methods for avoiding or minimizing errors in observation, memory, and analysis. Our instincts cannot be trusted, so we need to keep them in check with objective outcome measures, systematic observation, and rigid control of variables. In fact bias has a way of creeping into any observation and exerting powerful if subtle effects, leading to the need to completely blind scientific experiments. Good scientists have learned not to trust even themselves.

One of the most common and insidious bits of cognitive self-deception is the process of anomaly hunting. A true anomaly is something that cannot be explained by our current model of nature – it doesn’t fit into existing theories. Anomalies are therefore very useful to scientific inquiry because they point to new knowledge, the potential to deepen or extend existing theories.

(continue reading…)

“A technology now exists that will allow you to communicate directly with the dead. Gone are the days of psychics passing along messages from beyond. Now we have the ability to hear the voices of those who have passed and communicate, in real time, through a highly specialized device. The results speak for themselves.”

Uh huh. Yeah right. (continue reading…)

I’m sitting here looking at two websites side-by-side. One is for the San Diego Science Festival, the other is for the World Science Festival, which takes place in New York City. I’m struck by how differently the two festivals approach the idea of a festival, and that they appear to have completely different audiences in mind.

Is it good that they use different approaches? Does it benefit the reach of science? I guess I’m wondering who they really end up reaching and how that benefits science literacy and understanding, especially among the uninitiated?

So, let’s compare… (continue reading…)

It seems I’ve been getting ahead of myself here, posting all sorts of mysteries and puzzles, and never getting around to giving the answers. I pledge to tie up all the loose ends before continuing down this reckless path.

So, first on the hit list, is the UFO Mystery that I posted last week. I gave enough facts that I thought you’d probably be able to figure it out, and figure it out you did. (If you haven’t read it yet, check it out now, and then come back here for the spoiler.) (continue reading…)

As an astronomer, my familiarity with the details of biological evolution are about on par with that of an interested layman (though being trained scientifically helps with that understanding, adding insight to the process of the scientific endeavor). I’m familiar with the concepts of descent with modification, genetic mutations, natural pressures for adaptations, and the like. I’m less familiar with other aspects, like allele frequencies, how specifically pressures can change adaptations, and what transitional fossils are in the record, but I can probably hold my own against your run-of-the-mill creationist.

That’s why I loved the book Why Evolution is True by biologist Jerry Coyne. This is a clear, easy-to-understand work that shows you — with no compromising and no backing down — that evolution has occurred, the evidence is overwhelming, and that no other explanation for what we see around us makes sense.

(continue reading…)

Brian Dunning discusses his Skeptoid Podcast

For those of you that missed it, the Skeptoid 150th podcast party was great! I was lucky enough to attend as an honored guest, and I wanted to share some of the event highlights with you.

First off a bit of background. If you don’t know what I’m talking about or you don’t know what Skeptoid is, then shame on you! Stop reading this trivial blog and go straight to skeptoid.com and subscribe and support this great project by fellow Skeptologist, Brian Dunning.

Brian celebrated the recording of his 150th podcast episode this weekend in grand style by throwing a gala affair at the posh University Club on the UC Irvine campus. Our group of somewhere around 80 (I’m guessing) of his friends, family, and fans were able to rub elbows with fellow skeptics, TV celebrities and of course Brian Dunning himself.

(continue reading…)

Imagine that it is the year 1900 and you are tasked with solving the following problems:

• To build and maintain roads adequate for use of conveyances, their operators, and passengers.
• To increase the average span of life by 30 years.
• To convey instantly the sound of a voice speaking at one place to any other point or any number of points around the world.
• To convey instantly the visual replica of an action, such as a presidential inauguration, to men and women in their living rooms all over America.
• To develop a medical preventive against death from pneumonia.
• To transport physically a person from Los Angeles to New York in less than four hours.
• To build a horseless carriage of the qualities and capabilities described in the latest advertising folder of any automobile manufacturer.

This thought experiment was proposed in 1954 — the year I was born — by an entrepreneur named John C. Sparks in a short essay entitled “If Men Were Free to Try.” Sparks noted that of these seven problems, the first one would have been the easiest to solve, since there were already roads on which to improve, while the other six would have seemed like the wildest of science fiction. (continue reading…)