Atheist Bilboard: Predict xtian reaction!

And to think, I live south of these folks, and I bet that the locals in this area would get even more irate! And is so fucking predictable! I love the way the author of this particular blog starts off with a parody of the situation. Anyway, here is the write up. Oh, the amusement and irony!

Atheist Billboard Outrages Alabama Christians

Once again, loving Christians are demonstrating just how much more tolerant and respectful they than the militant atheists in their midst. Atheists in Alabama have erected a billboard declaring religion to be the cause for all evils and demanding that it be stamped out while religious believers, despite disagreeing with and objecting to the message, are firmly defending the rights of atheists to express their views just like all other citizens.

No, I'm just kidding — atheists merely put out the mild idea of imagining the absence of religion and Christians are howling with outrage. One company refused to rent them billboard space and, after finding a place for their sign, the atheists are receiving lots of complaints. This is pretty much how it always goes: atheists express something fairly mild and innocuous and Christians throw a fit.

The Psychology of Cranks

I just had a friend point me to a write up that had me rolling. Thank you IVAN3MAN for making my evening particularly entertaining. And I thought that I would share the write up. Why? Well, the psychology of cranks can be applied to a lot of irrational beliefs us humans have. As a matter of fact, us humans really suck at decision making unless we are made aware of the pitfalls of our own brains. As discussed in this article linked from Scientific American. But I think it applies well on matters that have enslaved human minds for millennium (i.e. religion). Of course, to point out to the deluded and misinformed only makes them more secure,because being wrong is somehow an admission to fallibility that is beyond them. I am reminded of a study, where people who rate themselves at the extreme height of competence in a field, are generally rated very lowly by their peers. People are blind to their own weaknesses and failings. Sure, there is something to be said for confidence, but when you hold on to confidence blindly, you start stepping into the territory of delusion.

Anyway, here is the article on "Crankery". It's amazing how well this applies to so many individuals out there.

The psychology of crankery

Category: Conspiracies • Cranks
Posted on: June 8, 2009 6:24 AM, by MarkH

Our recent discussions of HIV/AIDS denial and in particular Seth Kalichman's book "Denying AIDS" has got me thinking more about the psychology of those who are susceptible to pseudoscientific belief. It's an interesting topic, and Kalichman studies it briefly in his book mentioning the "suspicious minds":

At its very core, denialism is deeply embedded in a sense of mistrust. Most obviously, we see suspicion in denialist conspiracy theories. Most conspiracy theories grow out of suspicions about corruptions in government, industry, science, and medicine, all working together in some grand sinister plot. Psychologically, suspicion is the central feature of paranoid personality, and it is not overreaching to say that some denialists demonstrate this extreme. Suspicious thinking can be understood as a filter through which the world is interpreted, where attention is driven towards those ideas and isolated anecdotes that confirm one's preconceived notions of wrong doing. Suspicious thinkers are predisposed to see themselves as special or to hold some special knowledge. Psychotherapist David Shpairo in his classic book Neurotic Styles describes the suspicious thinker. Just as wee see in denialism, suspiciousness is not easily penetrated by facts or evidence that counter individuals' preconceived worldview. Just as Shapiro describes in the suspicious personality, the denialist selectively attends to information that bolsters his or her own beliefs. Denialists exhibit suspicious thinking when they manipulate objective reality to fit within their beliefs. It is true that all people are prone to fit the world into their sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality and does so with an uncommon rigidity. The parallel between the suspicious personality style and denialism is really quite compelling. As described by Shapiro:

A suspicious person is a person who has something on his mind. He looks at the world with fixed and preoccupying expectation, and he searches repetitively, and only, for confirmation of it. He will not be persuaded to abandon his suspicion of some plan of action based on it. On the contrary, he will pay no attention to rational arguments except to find in them some aspect or feature that actually confirms his original view. Anyone who tries to influence or persuade a suspicious person will not only fail, but also, unless he is sensible enough to abandon his efforts early will, himself, become an object of the original suspicious idea.

The rhetoric of denialism clearly reveals a deeply suspicious character. In denialism, the science of AIDS is deconstructed to examine evidence taken out of context by non-scientists. The evidence is assimilated into one's beliefs that HIV does not cause AIDS, that HIV tests are invalid, that the science is corrupt, and aimed to profit Big Pharma.
...
The insights offered by Shapiro are that denialists are not "lying" in the way that most anti-denialists portray them. The cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality for sure, explaining why arguing or debating with a denialist gets you nowhere. But the denialist is not the evil plotter they are often portrayed as. Rather denialists are trapped in their denialism.
...
Psychologically, certain people seem predisposed to suspicious thinking and it seems this may be true of denialism as well. I submit that dienialism stems from a conspiracy-theory-prone personality style. We see this in people who appear predisposed to suspiciousness, and these people are vulnerable to anti-establishment propaganda. We know that suspicious people view themselves as the target of wrongdoing and hold persecutory ideas.

I agree that this certainly represents a portion of denialists, but not all. I think others, for example creationists and global warming denialists, tend to have a different motivation and style, due to ideological extremism that warps their worldview. Ideological and paranoid denialism can co-exist within denialist camps, or even within an individual, but there are areas where the overlap is incomplete. Still, the issue of the suspicious personality style is important.

We all know this person. If you don't, maybe you know Dale Gribble (AKA Rusty Shackleford).

I just know Mike Judge has met the suspicious personality style and encapsulated the extreme of this personality in this character. Dale inevitably sees every event as tied to some bizarre government/alien conspiracy, and inevitably the other men in the alley ignore his interjections or Hank simply says, "that's asinine". Hank is a wise man. To argue with a Dale would only make you look like the fool.

Some anti-denialists sites have recently brought to my attention a growing body of work trying to understand how people become conspiracy theorists. Two papers in particular are of interest, the first Unanswered Questions: A Preliminary Investigation of
Personality and Individual Difference Predictors of 9/11 Conspiracist Beliefs [1] is an interesting study because it provides some explanation for crank magnetism.

So, how was this study done and what did this study show?

For one, I enjoyed reading this study because, as with all well-written papers, they had a nice introduction into the literature behind the psychology of belief in conspiracy theories. This is something I'm becoming more familiar with, but feel that it's also a relatively crude approximation of what is happening. There are several hypotheses about what causes conspiratorial beliefs, and they cite a number of previous studies that attempt to explain the phenomenon. These explanations range from feelings of political powerlessness feeding into conspiracism, to cultural or group understanding of events, to psychological explanations like the need to preserve self-esteem, express feelings like anger at disliked groups, or be individualistic, and some hypotheses which focus on specific deficiencies in cognition.

It's a small study (n=257) of British men and women who were given surveys to analyze their "Support for Democratic Principles", an inventory to assess their belief in conspiracy theories (15 items allowing them to show relative support for common conspiracy theories - with the exception they had to drop the question about Elvis being alive since it was too far out even for conspiracy theorists), a "big five" questionnaire (which assess the five personality factors of openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism), a "9/11 conspiracist beliefs scale", a inventory assessing feelings about authority, one for cynicism, and one for exposure to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs.

The researchers then took the data from these surveys, loaded them into matrices and then tried to fit it to various models to create significant linkages between 9/11 beliefs and various personality factors. This is not research in which I have any expertise, so if anyone would like to provide any criticisms of how they did it that may impact results I'd be happy to hear it. I am trusting the peer-reviewers in this case to have done a good job vetting their technique for obvious flaws.

What did they find?

Well, in general 9/11 conspiracy beliefs were low prevalence, but interestingly they felt 9/11 conspiracy beliefs could be predicted from a few personality indicators, and, consistent with crank magnetism, belief in 9/11 conspiracies was part of a general conspiratorial attitude with belief in multiple conspiracy theories being common according to their general conspiracism scale. The authors explain their findings thusly:

The results of this preliminary examination of 9/11 conspiracist theories can be predicted by a number of personality and individual difference variables, which together explained just over half of the variance in the former. As shown in Figure 1, General Conspiracist Beliefs had the strongest effect on 9/11 Conspiracist Beliefs, which not surprisingly was also affected by 9/11 Conspiracist Exposure. Of the more distal predictors, only Political Cynicism, Attitudes to Authority and Agreeableness had significant effects on 9/11 Conspiracist Beliefs when the less distal predictors were taken into account; however, there were several significant effects of the more distal on the less distal predictors, namely Attitudes to Authority and Openness on 9/11 Conspiracist Exposure, and Political Cynicism, Support for Democratic Principles and Openness on General Conspiracist Beliefs. Age and sex differences were found for Agreeableness and Support for Democratic Principles, though age also affected 9/11 Conspiracist Exposure when the more distal mediators were taken into account.
The finding that exposure to 9/11 conspiracist ideas was positively associated with holding 9/11 conspiracy beliefs is perhaps not surprising. It seems likely that coming into contact with such ideas (either directly or indirectly) increases an individual's understanding and, consequently, acceptance of such ideas (alternatively, it is also possible that individuals who already believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories seek out such information). More interesting was the finding that General Conspiracist Beliefs was positively associated with 9/11 conspiracist ideas, a result that fits with Goertzel's (1994) assertion that conspiracy beliefs form part of a monological belief system, in which each conspiratorial idea serves as evidence for other conspiratorial beliefs. For example, believing that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman, or that the Apollo moon landings were staged, increases the chances that an individual will also believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. As Goertzel (1994) highlights, monological belief systems provide accessible explanations for new phenomena that are difficult to comprehend or that threaten existing belief systems (Goertzel, 1994).
Moreover, Goertzel (1994) points out that, often, the proof offered as evidence for a conspiracy is not specific to one incident or issue, but is used to justify the general pattern. That a government is covering-up its involvement in the 9/11 attacks, for instance, goes to show that it is also covering-up the fact that extraterrestrial life has visited Earth, or that national governments are involved in political assassination. Thus, the more conspiracy theories a monological thinker agrees with, the more she or he will accept and assimilate any new conspiracy theory that is proposed.

I'm going to have to read some more by this Goertzel cat. This is an interesting study though because it correlates these two behaviors that we ourselves have observed so frequently. It is limited by size, and that it was done on British subjects, but somehow I suspect it isn't unfair to generalize from British cranks to American ones or cranks worldwide. I would like to see their findings replicated on a larger scale, as even though their findings were significant, they were looking at a small subset of a relatively small number of subjects.

The second paper I'd like to talk about Paranormal Belief and Susceptibility to the Conjunction Fallacy[2], approaches a similar problem from the point of view that maybe people who believe in such obvious nonsense have difficulties with basic reasoning skills.

These authors begin with a discussion of a more developed literature that describes the common cognitive deficits encountered in people who believe in the paranormal. Basically, what has been found, again and again, is that people who believe in paranormal events have certain cognitive deficits and in particular have problems with probabilistic reasoning.

It is widely recognised that most people are poor at judging probability and that under conditions of uncertainty, will rely on heuristics--cognitive 'rules of thumb'--to simplify the reasoning process so as to make quick, easy and proximate, but ultimately flawed, judgments (e.g. Gilovich, Griffin, & Kahneman, 2002; Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Shaifi, 2004; Sutherland, 1992). Further research suggests a person's pre-existing or a priori beliefs can have a significant influence on these heuristical judgements (e.g. Watt, 1990/1991). Blackmore and Troscianko (1985) were first to test whether paranormal believers were especially prone to probabilistic reasoning biases. They had paranormal believers and non-believers answer questions relating to the generation of random strings (i.e. list 20 numbers as if drawn from a hat), randomness judging (i.e. indicate whether various boy/girl mixes were biased or unbiased), coin tossing outcomes (i.e. indicate whether the number of heads scored from 20 throws was biased or unbiased) and sampling decisions (e.g. indicate which is more likely to be drawn from a given number of red and blue sweets). Whilst no group differences were found for the random string generation or randomness judging tasks, Blackmore and Troscianko found that those who believed in the possibility of extrasensory perception1 made more coin tossing and sampling errors than non-believers. These data suggest paranormal believers underestimate the likelihood of a chance outcome and 'look beyond' coincidence in search of causal--usually supernatural-- explanations. According to Blackmore and Troscianko (1985), this underestimating of chance expectations--termed the 'chance baseline shift'--may strengthen one's belief in psi even when there is no evidence that psi actually exists. Subsequent work examining believers' tendency to misunderstand chance offers mixed results. Henry (1993) found most people believe intuition (71%) and psi (64%) are the best explanations for 'everyday coincidence experiences' (see also Henry, 2005) whilst Bressan (2002; Study 1) found paranormal believers reported having more frequent 'meaningful coincidences' than non-believers. Likewise, Tobacyk and Wilkinson (1991) found those with a more pronounced belief in the paranormal (specifically, in superstition, psi and precognition) had a higher preference for games of chance and were more prone to developing illusory correlations between statistically unrelated events (see also Vyse, 1997). Marks (2002) goes further by suggesting believers misperceive chance events as somehow being related because their a priori beliefs in the paranormal demand such a relationship and thus, that they are especially prone to making 'subjective validations'.

It's an interesting discussion, as many of the findings seem to be subject to general cognitive ability, and there have been mixed results in identifying the "believers" specific problems with understanding randomness and probability. There's a saying in medicine, the questions stay the same, it's just the answers that change. Well, the question remains, why do believers in paranormal events impute more significance to random events than non-believers?

These authors are interested in studying the problem from the point of view that the heuristics, or cognitive rules of thumb that people use to make decisions, in believers are off with regards to the conjunction fallacy. This refers to a tendency, that is very common overall, to ascribe a higher probability of an event occurring if it is associated in the individuals mind with another event, even if the probabilities of the two events are independent.

Conjunction biases have been demonstrated in a wide variety of hypothetical contexts where, in most cases, the proportion of individuals violating the conjunction rule ranges from between 50 and 90% (Fisk, 2004; Tversky & Kahneman, 1983). Given previous claims that paranormal believers' susceptibly to reasoning biases may be context or domain specific (e.g. Gray & Mills, 1990; Merla-Ramos, 2000; Wierzbicki, 1985; although see Lawrence & Peters, 2004; Roe, 1999), it seems reasonable to expect believers will be more prone to the conjunction fallacy, particularly when conjunctive events appear to reflect paranormal phenomena. Take the common example of when one is thinking about an old friend just at the moment he/she unexpectedly calls (e.g. Rhine-Feather & Schmicker, 2005). Here, the two constituent events--namely (a) thinking about the friend and (b) that friend unexpectedly calling--may not be unusual in their own right. One may have thought about the same friend many times before or alternatively, many other friends may have unexpectedly called in the past; neither would be particularly surprising (cf. Fisk, 2004). It is only when these two constituent events co-occur in close temporal proximity that this conjunction is deemed too unlikely to be a simple coincidence. In such cases, many experients will dismiss chance and look for a causal, often paranormal, explanation (cf. Blackmore & Troscianko, 1985; Bressan, 2002; Marks, 2002). Similar logic can be applied to other aspects of the paranormal including the apparent accuracy of psychic predictions where the co-occurrence of two constituent events--namely (a) the prediction and (b) the predicted outcome--seems too unlikely to be just a coincidence. Given previous claims that paranormal believers often misunderstand chance and randomness (e.g. Bressan, 2002), it seems reasonable to suggest believers may be especially prone to the conjunction fallacy. Evidence that believers tend to adopt an intuitive (heuristical) as opposed to an analytic thinking style (Aarnio & Lindeman, 2005; Irwin & Young, 2002; Lester, Thinschimdt, & Trautman, 1987), which in turn is associated with more conjunction errors (Fisk, 2004; Toyosawa & Karasawa, 2004), adds further support to this assertion. Moreover, given that personal experience of alleged paranormal phenomena is the single biggest predictor of paranormal belief (Blackmore, 1984), a tendency to misjudge conjunctive events as having some underlying causal relationship may help explain the maintenance, and perhaps even the development, of such beliefs

So, what did they do? They constructed a series of vignettes that test people's tendency to fall for the conjunction fallacy, and then simultaneously tested them for the presence or absence of paranormal beliefs. Importantly, in addition to testing for paranormal beliefs, the researchers controlled for achievement in psychology, statistics, and mathematics.

They found their hypothesis was correct. The relatively common conjunction bias was even more common in those who believed in paranormal phenomena. Problems with the study again included small size and worse, this was performed on a relatively homogeneous population of college students in England.

So what do these studies mean for our understanding of cranks? Well, in addition to providing explanations for crank magnetism, and cognitive deficits we see daily in our comments from cranks, it suggests the possibility that crankery and denialism may be preventable by better explanation of statistics. Much of what we're dealing with is likely the development of shoddy intellectual shortcuts, and teaching people to avoid these shortcuts might go a long way towards the development and fixation on absurd conspiracy theories or paranormal beliefs.

Viren Swami, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Adrian Furnham (2009). Unanswered questions: A preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs Applied Cognitive Psychology DOI: 10.1002/acp.1583

Rogers, P., Davis, T., & Fisk, J. (2009). Paranormal belief and susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23 (4), 524-542 DOI: 10.1002/acp.1472

Comedy Gold

You know your cause is pretty downright silly when Jon Stewart makes fun of you on The Daily Show!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Born Identity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Joke of the Day

I guess it wouldn't be this easy to make fun of them if it wasn't for the fact that they are simply batshit crazy!

Oh, and the only reason I am even bothering to mention this here is that I have a commenter here that is plainly batshit crazy several times over. This is for you JD. :)

40 Years Ago Today

Well, for me, it was actually on the 21st (I was living in Sweden at the time), but watching Walter Cronkite and those fuzzy images is still my first vivid memory. I remember my dad impressing upon me how significant this was. I was just thrilled to be staying up so late!

NASA has their own 40th Anniversary Page up, and I'm sure this will be just about the only thing in the news and on any other site that has a remote interest. But I just wanted to add to the chorus on this. I'd like to see people get excited by space again. Heck, with as badly as we're fucking up this planet, and with as many crackpots as we let wander around unsupervised, I can see the appeal for wanting to just get off this rock, and try somewhere else.

So, do you have any particularly vivid memories of this day 40 years ago?

Book Review: Rejecting Pascal's Wager

I recently saw this book, and thumbed through it. While I didn't have the desire to spend $40 at the time, I think it's a worthwhile book from the reviews I have seen on it. I was particularly interested in what someone who went to seminary said about it. Now keep in mind, I have not read the 652 page book, so this is entirely someone else's opinion of the book. In the chapter outline though, it seems very familiar ground. Things that have been discussed over and over again. Things that make sense. Agree with the real world. Of course, if someone is inclined to believe in magic, no amount of logic or reason will really penetrate, but there has got to be hope (I do actually tend to be optimistic at times). So, for skeptics, this book is a nice consice reference book for you and a good refresher. For believers, well, yet more things you need to make excuses for.

Paul Tobin's Book: The Best Skeptical Book on the Bible as a Whole

By John W. Loftus at 7/18/2009

Paul Tobin’s new book, The Rejection of Pascal’s Wager: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible and the Historical Jesus has arrived and I am very glad it did. It is the best skeptical work on the Bible as a whole. Gerd Lüdemann, author of several skeptical works on early Christianity, recommends it “with the utmost enthusiasm.” I do too.

Tobin’s whole argument is aimed to show that Pascal’s famous wager has no effect on us because we are not forced to choose between Pascal’s Catholic brand of Christianity and unbelief. Why? Because the central claims of Christianity are false. He takes aim at the Bible to show that while it may be a great work of literature it is not the word of God. And Tobin backs his claim up with his massive 652 page book, complete with a nice bibliography and indexes.

If you’re a Christian who has deconverted at a later time in life then you need to re-learn most all of what you were taught about the Bible. If you were college and seminary trained like me, this can be a difficult thing to do. So, you could go on a massive reading binge, spending many hours and a lot of money feasting on book after book. Or, you could read this one. Given that choice I highly recommend you get this one. Tobin masterfully takes us through the Bible using critical scholarship to show us what we can and cannot know about it. It has helped me remember several things I learned back in college and seminary but had forgotten. It taught me some very interesting things I hadn’t yet thought through as a skeptic, and I think I’ve read a great deal on the subject since my deconversion. Tobin showed me I hadn’t read enough.

It’s all here for the most part in an encyclopedic fashion, covering the ancient myths, the errors, the lack of confirming archaeology, the failed prophecies, and the forged authorship. He also covers the ad hoc canonization process and the textual transmission of these texts. Tobin is a very good guide to these topics, using the results of critical scholars whom he refers to time and again.

He writes and thinks well too. Take for instance Noah’s Ark. Tobin tells us simply that on the one hand “it is too big,” in that the structure could not be seaworthy. On the other hand “it was too small,” with not enough room for all of the animals it would have had in it. (pp. 75-77).

Tobin also spends a few pages effectively dealing with the minutia of numerical “contradictions” in the Bible, like the value of π (pi) found in Kings 7:23-26 (pp. 29-38). He even shows how that the evangelical New International Version has purposely mistranslated several passages to eliminate the appearance of difficulties inherent in the original languages (pp. 197-204).

And he addresses how the liberals view the Bible by concluding that they “did not reach their conclusions by abstruse theological reasoning: they were forced by external circumstances—the findings of science, comparative religions, enlightenment philosophies and historical criticism.” (pp. 187-196).

If you want to know why scholars think the Gospel of Mark was written first you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why scholars don’t think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of their gospels, and why they are written later than evangelicals claim, you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why the Nativity stories are fictions you may only need to read this book. If you want to know why scholars have serious doubts about what Jesus may have said, or why they doubt the Passion Narratives and resurrection stories, you may only need to read this book.

If you have only one skeptical book about the Bible as a whole this one is all you need. And even if you have some other books, this one will still inform you of issues you probably haven’t read up on, like it did with me.

Tobin did a massive amount of work here. I will use it as a reference when dealing with some of these topics in the future. It’s worth the price. I liked it so much I asked Tobin to write a chapter for a book I’ve been editing/writing.

LARIAN AGAIN: Well, a pretty good review from someone who went to seminary. I'll leave you with a final thought today though.

Why is it, that on nearly every moral change issue involving human rights, the bible has been on the wrong side? http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/fundamentals/bible_moral_guide.html

Time for Fat Tax

Okay, so I just saw that advert where the family goes fishing and it says that we don't need a tax on the crap that we buy that's bad for us. Sadly, I think we do need that tax...

Come on, be honest, how many people look like those in the advert? How many people that generally by chips, soda, and that type of junkfood actually DO eat responsibly and actually exercise? This is a case where we have acted so irresponsibly that we abdicated our right to consume like the obese cows we have turned into. If obesity wasn't an epidemic, I would agree with the sentiment of the commercial, but just looking around on the beach, it's like several hundred pods of whales have washed up! Heck, I'd go so far as to force people to humiliate themselves before being allowed to buy soda, chips, and other junkfoods. If they have those items in their cart, they will have to step on a scale that measurs their bodyfat (we have some pretty good ones now that are accurate to within a percent or two), and if they are lardasses, a big flashing light goes off, and a speaker announces to everyone in the store that a "fatty fat fatso is getting fatter". And since this behaviour is going unchecked, and is also responsible for so many health problems, I have no sympathy that the burden comes on them.

I enjoy a cigar from time to time as well. I know that's not the healthiest habit, but again, I am willing to pay extra for that. Heck, there are a lot of things that drive direct costs to how incredibly unhealthy this nation is, that may be occasional pleasures to people. You need to make it a cost benefit analysis to them. Not something that makes it more convenient. Hell, tax the shit out of McDonalds and their ilk too.

Some things that I even thought would help people get more motivated to change their lardass lifestyle:

- Make Helath Club dues tax deductible (provided the guym is actually used).
- Give people a tax break if they are able to pass a PT test (administered by the health club, not the gubment).
- Make the total cost of all FRESH fruits and vegetables a tax deduction as well.
- In other words, make people care about being healthy and benefit from it in ways that matter outside the quality of life (let's face it, looking like a fucking blob doesn't seem to matter to folks...).

Shit like this bugs me, because I'd rather not see us having to resort to this, but let's face it. As a nation we're about as unhealthy as a nation can be, and still be able to walk over to the Ben and jerry's counter without collapsing of a heart attack. We stopped caring, so at this point we need to be treated like the children we are acting like, and have some sense beaten into us.

Just my rant for the day. Now, I'm gonna go jogging, and then my wife wants me to cut up some veggies for our dinner tonight.

EDIT TO ADD: I did want to make an acknowledgment that there ARE medical conditions that do make life difficult for many people. However, that doesn't mean to just give up on an attempt at a healthy lifestyle. It's no excuse to have a 5000 calorie per day diet. Put down the deep fat fried Twinkie dipped in baconaise, and have an apple instead. I doubt that 32% of the US has an uncontrolled thyroid problem (obese)! Or that 65% are just big boned (overweight). Heck, I know that I myself need to take my own advice and lose a few pounds and have a better diet. That commercial just really pissed me off.

The Real America?

As I mentioned in the "Douchebaggery" blog, I may not agree with everything President Obama is doing (on the domestic side), but also realize that we've put ourselves in a bad position where these solutions are what is left. But what I would like to talk about (thanks Aaron for giving me the idea) is this "Real America" thing.

I can't express how thankful I am that President Obama won. In his mind, there aren't two Americas that are real and not real. He's not about dividing people up just because they don't adhere to whatever is your ideology. Not so with the GOP. Even more and more I am hearing that they represent the "Real America". What the fuck are they talking about? Is it really their goal to alienate and piss off anyone who isn't a fundamental xtian? Let's face it, the GOP has turned into the Fundamental Christian Political Action Group, and is no longer in any way a Grand Old Party.

And what determines what makes a "Real American" anyway? Serving your country in Uniform? Being a god fearing church goer? Really, all I see again out of the GOP is incredibly childish, short sighted, divisive actions. And this is coming from someone who was a registered Republican for 25 years!

So really, what the fuck is a Real American, and what the fuck is a fake american? I'd like to know, just so I can see exactly how deluded and childish the dividers are.

Science flies you to the moon

This is from the Bad Astronomy blog, but I wanted to repost it here. I know that the deluded fools that think the moon landing was a hoax still won't shut up, and claim this is yet another facet of the hoax (like the birther morons won't accept the proof we already have), but for those of us who live in the real world, this is cool. I think that Dr Plait sums this up nicely as far as Apollo 11 being a demarcation point in history that is based off a particular wonder! Here are his impressions:

This is so so so freaking cool: the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites!

Holy Haleakala!

LM diagram from Wikipedia

That’s EXACTLY how I pictured it would look. That picture shows the lower half of the Lunar Module, the part that stayed behind on the Moon when Armstrong and Aldrin blasted back up off the surface. It was essentially dead weight, so the LM was designed to split in half, with the top half (the aptly-named Ascent Module — click on the diagram on the right for details) going back up into orbit to meet with Michael Collins in the Command Module. From there they returned to Earth.

The Descent Module is about 4 meters or so across, and the image, above taken when the Sun was low on the horizon, clearly shows the DM and its shadow cast across the lunar surface. The region where they landed was fairly smooth, so the module is the only thing large enough in the image to cast an appreciable shadow.

Wow. Look at that! Physical, tangible evidence that human beings walked on the surface of the Moon. And not just that: we did it again and again. Behold!

That’s the Apollo 14 landing site, and you can see where the lunar surface was disturbed by the astronauts bootprints! Some of that may also be tracks from a wheelbarrow-like device called the Modularized Equipment Transporter which Alan Shepherd and Edgar Mitchell used to help them carry equipment and samples to and from the lander.

Oh man oh man oh man! And mind you, these pictures are not even the highest resolution LRO can provide; future observation will have twice this much detail!

I love this. Not because I needed proof we went, of course. But there is just something about seeing new pictures after all these years. Apollo may seem like ancient history, but those artifacts on the Moon are still sitting there, in many ways as fresh as the day they were placed there.

In all of human history, there are many dividing lines we can arbitrarily assign. Before and after the use of atomic weapons, before and after the discovery of the light bulb, before and after this war or that.

But there is one dividing line that can inspire us, fill us with wonder, make us dream of bigger goals, higher aspirations, better ways to live our lives for the future. And that is the dividing line between the time we were a race shackled to the ground, confined to a single planet… and the time a human being stepped foot on another world.

And there it is, in pictures and in fact. This is what these pictures mean. We humans spend a lot of time looking around, looking out, looking down. But sometimes, for just a brief moment, we look up. We did it once before, and it’s time to do it again.

Douchebaggery....

Okay, today's blog is going to be all over the place...

I got a link to this article about a guy that is a total asswipe and nutcase. Why do I use such harsh language? Well, anyone who is still one of the psycho "birthers" is about as crazy as the flat earthers. It's not like this has been rehashed again and again and again:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Of course, then the "birthers" go off on the wild goose chase of the "long form" certificate. Never mind that the one shown is perfectly acceptable and a legal document on its own. It's as if these nutters are a cop that stop you for going 55 in a 55 with their radar gun stating 55, but they still give you a ticket because they don't have a picture of your speedometer from the time they took the reading...

So I am glad they booted this idiot. He's clearly mentally unstable. Not to mention that it's perfectly legal under the UCMJ to do that to him since he's disopbeying a legal order. Not only that, he'd be bad for good order and discipline (a case where I agree with that verbiage). And finally, my hypothesis is that he's a pussy, and was too afraid to deploy (PUSSY!).

On the vein of DOUCHEBAGGERY; while I don't agree with all of President Obama's domestic policies, the douchebagger of the past 8 years has forced us into a corner. When Billary tried to ram rod healthcare reform back in the 90's, there was still hope that the system could do what needed to be done. Sadly, since then, douchebaggery has been rampant, and any sort of humane compassion has been abdicated by the example set in our national leadership, and now the system is so broken and fucked sidways that we have no choice but to let the government step in and pick up the pieces. The "less government" libertarian part of me hates to see all these government programs put in place to do things that we as responsible citizens should be able to do for ourselves, but I have to face the facts that we fucked things up so bad, that we need to be rescued from our worst nature. Of course, now that there is a statesman and rational thinker instead of a supersticious sheeple in charge, we may get a better example set for us.

Finally, I want to present a blog from another writer that talks about the douchebaggery in education. Today is the 40th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11. An amazing time in history for the entire human race. And today, the US is barely able to get to low earth orbit, and will in all likelyhood get beat by the Chinese back to the moon, and even Mars. So here is that blog. While he states many things as "facts", i think he's a bit on the side of hyperbole, but his sentiments are right on. If you look at reports about the state of US education (or just watch Jaywalking), you know what I mean,

40 Years After Moon Landing: Why Aren't People Smarter?

Editor's Note: Forty years ago this month, humans landed on the moon for the first time. We asked Benjamin Radford why, four decades later, humans have not become any smarter.
A look at old periodicals reveals something very interesting about human nature. Newspapers and magazines from the early 1900s were full of advertisements for instant weight loss gizmos, miracle cures, and all other forms of self-evident quackery. A century later, this stuff is still being advertised - and lots of people are buying.
You would think that by now people would know that you can't lose 10 pounds a week taking a "breakthrough" miracle pill, and you can't earn $50,000 a week working from home in your spare time (at least not legally).
Despite a long tradition of free, compulsory public education (and more college graduates than ever), as a whole we don't seem to be getting much smarter.
Many of us still buy the newest fad items and get suckered into the latest conspiracy theory. We still fall for the same logical traps, the same wacky ideas, the same old discredited snake oil in shiny new bottles that plagued our forefathers-and their forefathers.
Why? If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we rise above bad thinking?
Education
Education is a big part of the problem.
Our educational system tends to focus on rote facts and memorization: names, dates, places, and events. It is easy to teach children basic facts, and to test their knowledge of those facts; either students know the capital of Argentina or they don't, and either the correct oval is darkened with graphite or it isn't. (The emphasis on "teaching to the test" also undermines critical thinking, favoring compartmentalized factual memorization over in-depth understanding.)
Being smart involves being able to understand the relationships between events, finding and questioning hidden assumptions, and so on. The fact is, most students are not taught how to think analytically and critically.
Critical thinking classes are rarely included in typical educational curriculum. The vain hope is that in the process of studying geography, math, English, biology, and so on, students will learn to think critically. But critical thinking should not be an afterthought or happy byproduct, it should be a primary goal because it is a way of thinking that can be applied to all academic subjects and areas of life.
Cognitive limitations

The widespread failure to teach critical thinking (or even recognize its importance) is only part of the problem. Efforts to make our kids smarter will inevitably crash up against a biological barrier: Our brains are actually hardwired to hinder our attempts to think critically.
Critical thinking is often counterintuitive, and our brains are easily fooled.
Superstition and magical thinking come easily to us; we jump to conclusions without evidence; our biases and prejudices influence how we interpret the world. We see faces in clouds and patterns in events where they do not exist. Personal experience and vivid anecdotes are much more easily learned and remembered than facts. Our fears and emotions often override facts and logic (for example, the factual knowledge that air travel is very, very safe does little to calm many people's visceral fear of flying).
In a way, the better question is, shouldwe expect people to be any smarter?
Critical thinking is a skill, and like any skill it can be taught, practiced, and improved upon. Expecting the average person to think logically and critically is like expecting the average person to play the piano or write a book. With study and practice, almost anyone can do it with some level of proficiency, but most people don't learn how to think critically or analytically-nor are they even aware of its value.
More data, same processors
The amount of human knowledge has increased exponentially over the past few centuries. We have more information than ever before on virtually every imaginable topic, from physics to medicine to sociology. (The notable exceptions are paranormal, possibly non-existent subjects like ghosts, Bigfoot, and psychic powers; the body of knowledge about these topics has not increased at all.)
But all that data and information is useless if people can't effectively understand or apply it. Without logic, wisdom, and reasoned analysis, facts are useless.
The United States - and indeed the world - is faced with a daunting set of challenges, including climate change, influenza pandemics, warfare, the search for renewable energy, and so on. Solving these problems will require an educated public able to critically and logically analyze the issues. Hopefully that will happen, but if history is any guide, we will instead stumble and muddle through, just as we always have.

• And Another Thing: Why Can't We Cure Cancer?
• SPACE.com Special Report: The Apollo Moon Landing
• Top 10 Conspiracy Theories

Benjamin Radford is managing editor of the Skeptical Inquirer science magazine. His books, films, and other projects can be found on his website. His Bad Science column appears regularly on LiveScience.

• Original Story: 40 Years After Moon Landing: Why Aren't People Smarter?

LiveScience.com chronicles the daily advances and innovations made in science and technology. We take on the misconceptions that often pop up around scientific discoveries and deliver short, provocative explanations with a certain wit and style. Check out our science videos, Trivia & Quizzes and Top 10s. Join our community to debate hot-button issues like stem cells, climate change and evolution. You can also sign up for free newsletters, register for RSS feeds and get cool gadgets at the LiveScience Store.

Required reading for the day

From Scienceblogs (Just so that fucking anonymous asshat will know):

Two things: the first is Sean Carroll's discussion of what kinds of questions science can answer, and what the answers tell us about the universe.

And, without fail, the scientific judgment comes down in favor of a strictly non-miraculous, non-supernatural view of the universe.

That's what's really meant by my claim that science and religion are incompatible. I was referring to the Congregation-for-the-Causes-of-the-Saints interpretation of religion, which entails a variety of claims about things that actually happen in the world; not the it's-all-in-our-hearts interpretation, where religion makes no such claims. (I have no interest in arguing at this point in time over which interpretation is "right.") When religion, or anything else, makes claims about things that happen in the world, those claims can in principle be judged by the methods of science. That's all.

Well, of course, there is one more thing: the judgment has been made, and views that step outside the boundaries of strictly natural explanation come up short. By "natural" I simply mean the view in which everything that happens can be explained in terms of a physical world obeying unambiguous rules, never disturbed by whimsical supernatural interventions from outside nature itself. The preference for a natural explanation is not an a priori assumption made by science; it's a conclusion of the scientific method. We know enough about the workings of the world to compare two competing big-picture theoretical frameworks: a purely naturalistic one, versus one that incorporates some sort of supernatural component. To explain what we actually see, there's no question that the naturalistic approach is simply a more compelling fit to the observations.

This is why religion is a failed explanation for the world. It just doesn't line up with the evidence, at all.

Your second reading for the day is Dan Dennett explaining why we don't even need religion as a social construct.

I am confident that those who believe in belief are wrong. That is, we no more need to preserve the myth of God in order to preserve a just and stable society than we needed to cling to the Gold Standard to keep our currency sound. It was a useful crutch, but we've outgrown it. Denmark, according to a recent study, is the sanest, healthiest, happiest, most crime-free nation in the world, and by and large the Danes simply ignore the God issue. We should certainly hope that those who believe in belief are wrong, because belief is waning fast, and the props are beginning to buckle.

If religion has no useful explanatory power, and if we don't need it to make our lives better and richer, why not just toss the whole ball of fluff out?