Paraprosdokians

What a cool word!  Paraprosdokians!  So, what the hell is it? A paraprosdokian is a figure of speech in which the latter part of a sentence or phrase is surprising or unexpected in a way that causes the reader or listener to reframe or reinterpret the first part. It is frequently used for humorous or dramatic effect, sometimes producing an anticlimax.

Here is a small list that you may be familiar with.  Why not add your own:

1. Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
2. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
3. The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.
4. If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
5. We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public.
6. War does not determine who is right - only who is left.
7. Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
8. Evening news is where they begin with 'Good evening', and then proceed to tell you why it isn't.
9. A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk, I have a work station.
10. How is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
11. Dolphins are so smart that within a few weeks of captivity, they can train people to stand on the very edge of the pool and throw them fish.
12. I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted pay checks.
13. Whenever I fill out an application, in the part that says "In an emergency, notify:" I put "Doctor".
14. I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.
15. Behind every successful man is his woman. Behind the fall of a successful man is usually another woman.
16. You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.
17. The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!
18. Hospitality: Making your guests feel like they're at home, even if you wish they were.
19. I discovered I scream the same way whether I'm about to be devoured by a great white shark or if a piece of seaweed touches my foot.
20. There's a fine line between cuddling and holding someone down so they can't get away.
21. I always take life with a grain of salt, plus a slice of lemon, and a shot of tequila.
22. When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water.
23. You're never too old to learn something stupid.
24. To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target.

16 Things Atheists Need Christians to Know

I am filing this under humour only because it really is very much tongue in cheek (and besides, associating knowledge with a theists?  Who are we kidding?  They will continue to blindly parrot their assertions and stick to their silly preconceived notions of how the world works.)  Was that parenthetical too snarky?  Well, fuck them them if they have their feelings hurt...

I just happened to find this over at the I Am An Atheist website, and it was making the rounds on facebook and other places, so I wanted to add in my amusement at the whole thing.  Here it is:

Guest essay by Deborah Markus

Please stop hedging when you mention our lack of belief. Atheists are atheists. We're not "self-described," nor do we "claim" to be atheists. You don't want us to start saying things like, "This is my friend, Julie. She calls herself a Christian," do you? Then man up, brace yourself, and use the a-word all by itself. Practice in front of the mirror if you need to. You'll know you have the proper calm, factual tone when the glass doesn't shatter.
Please stop capitalizing the word "atheist." Unless it comes at the beginning of the sentence, you're just wasting ink. We know you're probably trying to be polite, but it doesn't work that way. There is no guy named Athe.
Some of you keep insisting that we're angry at your god. And then you laugh at us for being so silly – being angry at someone we don't even believe in. Well, you're right. That would be pretty darned silly. That's why we don't do it. Are you annoyed at Zeus? Do you have a grudge against the faerie folk? Of course not. It's the same for us – how could we feel anger or hatred toward a non-existent being? (Some of his followers cheese us off, but that's another story.)
Stop saying that deep down inside, we really do believe in your deity. Belief in the kind of guy who can create an entire universe with the force of a few well-turned phrases is not the sort of secret that fits neatly into a back pocket, as it were. If we thought this fellow was real, we'd be the first to know. And people don't tend to keep that particular nugget of information to themselves. Ever notice that?
Please understand that "You're such a nice person! I can't believe you're an atheist!" is not a compliment. More importantly, please understand that we understand that. Believe me, every single one of us has considered replying, "And you're so smart – I can't believe you're a Christian!" How about we all agree to not go there?
The only thing all occupants of foxholes have in common is access to weapons and a willingness to fight. It might be the better part of wisdom not to provoke them by insisting that you know more about their beliefs or lack thereof than they do.
How can our lives have any purpose without God? One word: chocolate.
It's sweet of you to worry about us, really it is. But it's not terribly helpful to tell us that we should go ahead and believe in your particular faith "just in case." Just in case what? In case a deity who can't distinguish heartfelt faith from apple-polishing affectation happens to be running the show?
Let's make a deal: we promise to stop asking that stupid question about whether God can make a rock so big he can't lift it. In exchange, please stop saying, "Well, God doesn't believe in atheists!" and then laughing like Shakespeare came back to life just long enough to write one last comedy.
Please quit asking us how or why we "turned our backs" on God. The whole point of being an atheist is that we don't see any reason to think we did any such thing.
Anyone who was born in an English-speaking country and is more than two minutes old has heard about God and Jesus. It's annoying when you assume that atheists just haven't heard enough about them, and that's why we're still atheists. Many of us have done extensive research on the subject of religion. Many of us credit our atheism to exactly that.
Please stop telling your atheist acquaintances that you'll miss us when you get to heaven. No, you won't. If you turn out to be right, you'll be in heaven – the place where, by definition, people don't feel sad. And if we're right – well, guess who won't be feeling much of anything?
If you've ever said, "You can't prove there isn't a God" – first of all, congratulations. You're officially four years old. Second, we never said we could. But until you can show some serious proof that there is one, we see no reason to believe. There's nothing wrong with taking a leap of faith, provided you acknowledge that's what you're doing. Atheists simply prefer other forms of exercise.
Stop asking us how we can be moral without God. It's simple. We're awake, and we're not idiots. That's all it takes to figure out that sharing the planet with so many other people is a lot more pleasant when we also share some basic ideas about acceptable behavior. I don't like being stabbed; therefore I support laws against stabbing and promise not to stab anyone myself, no matter how much I may feel like doing so. See how easy?
So far as being a Christian is concerned, you're either a member of a persecuted minority, or part of a solid majority. Figure out which one of those is the case, and then live with it. You don't get to switch back and forth depending on whether you think you can smother dissent better at any given moment by either whining that everybody's always being mean to you, or bellowing that this is your house and you make the rules.
Speaking of persecuted minorities: Christianity used to be one. Did you fight your way to freedom of faith just so you could treat nonbelievers the same way they used to treat you?

Can you guys think of any good clever things to add to this list?

Look at this dot!

Apparently this has been making the rounds through a torturous route, I found it at Bad Astronomy.  I just had to share.



If you don’t get it, you may, or may not, need to watch more TV. As well as this:

My Favorite Webcomics

I just thought I would post links to the web comics that I enjoy, and sort of describe why I enjoy them.  Generally, these are comics that get updated on a somewhat regular basis.  And I know that I am missing a few, I have bookmarks for comics spread out all over the place, and most days I just don't have the time to check them out.  Anyway, here is my list:

AF Blues - This is a comic started by a SSgt Justin May (or is a Tech by now?).  He started this way back in the day as a cartoon called AWACKer.  It mostly appeals to military folks, but anyone should be able to "get it" if they have any exposure to egotistical people.

Order of the Stick - This is a comoic by Rich Burlew about a classic D&D adventuring party on a giant quest.  The two things that really make this comic for me is the art (stick figures, but you gotta see them to believe them), and that the characters are actually aware of the rule set they live in.  Okay, and the halfling ranger makes it really fun too, but you just have to read to understand that!

Scandinavia and the World - A comic that has anthropomorphized countries into little people (and their sisters).  My daughter found this on DeviantArt, and it had me rolling!  Not only because I was born in Scandinavia, but also because some of the observations the artist makes about the rest of the world.


Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Very regularly updated.  Both intellectual and juvenile in a perfect mixture that makes me laugh.  Also, make sure to put your mouse over the red button!

Treelobsters - Um, hard to explain this one.  It's a comic for skeptics and people who are amused by some of the stupid stuff people will glom on to.  There is a not so secret message with the comics as well.  Remember, you can't prove they don't exist!

XKCD - What self respecting geek doesn't read XKCD?  The stick figures, the science, and the alt-text.  What is there not to like?  And remember, this is the whole Science.  It works, bitches! comes from (one of my favorites).

Cyanide and Happiness - Um, not really sure how to explain this one. It has to be experienced to be understood.

Penny Arcade - If you want your gaming news in a blunt and forthright manner, this is the place for you.  These guys really have managed to make quite a go of this endeavour!

CTRL+ALT+DEL - Another gaming comic that not only has gaming commentary and news, but a fun set of story-lines.

GU Comic - This will always be just /gu to me!  This started out back in the EverQuest days, but now has expanded to many other games, and gaming news in general.

Looking For Group - Although not particularly about a game I play, the storyline is fun, the art very good, and the characters enjoyable.  For Pony!

Calamities of Nature -Thanks to Sean for reminding me about this great skeptical comic (and Dr. Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy as well).

I also like checking out things like Russel's Teapot, Jesus and Mo, The Stonemaker Argument, and probably too many more to list here.  So, which ones do you like?

The Lay Scientist knocks one out of the park

I just found this article over at the guardian.  I don't think there is anything I could possibly add to it's singularly spectacular deconstruction of science reporting.  The Related Links section is just too true to reality that I can't comment more on it.

This is a news website article about a scientific paper

In the standfirst I will make a fairly obvious pun about the subject matter before posing an inane question I have no intention of really answering: is this an important scientific finding?

In this paragraph I will state the main claim that the research makes, making appropriate use of "scare quotes" to ensure that it's clear that I have no opinion about this research whatsoever.

In this paragraph I will briefly (because no paragraph should be more than one line) state which existing scientific ideas this new research "challenges".

If the research is about a potential cure, or a solution to a problem, this paragraph will describe how it will raise hopes for a group of sufferers or victims.

This paragraph elaborates on the claim, adding weasel-words like "the scientists say" to shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist.

In this paragraph I will state in which journal the research will be published. I won't provide a link because either a) the concept of adding links to web pages is alien to the editors, b) I can't be bothered, or c) the journal inexplicably set the embargo on the press release to expire before the paper was actually published.
"Basically, this is a brief soundbite," the scientist will say, from a department and university that I will give brief credit to. "The existing science is a bit dodgy, whereas my conclusion seems bang on," she or he will continue.

I will then briefly state how many years the scientist spent leading the study, to reinforce the fact that this is a serious study and worthy of being published by the BBC the website.

This is a sub-heading that gives the impression I am about to add useful context.

Here I will state that whatever was being researched was first discovered in some year, presenting a vague timeline in a token gesture toward establishing context for the reader.

To pad out this section I will include a variety of inane facts about the subject of the research that I gathered by Googling the topic and reading the Wikipedia article that appeared as the first link.

I will preface them with "it is believed" or "scientists think" to avoid giving the impression of passing any sort of personal judgement on even the most inane facts.

This fragment will be put on its own line for no obvious reason.

In this paragraph I will reference or quote some minor celebrity, historical figure, eccentric, or a group of sufferers; because my editors are ideologically committed to the idea that all news stories need a "human interest", and I'm not convinced that the scientists are interesting enough.

At this point I will include a picture, because our search engine optimisation experts have determined that humans are incapable of reading more than 400 words without one.
 

This picture has been optimised by SEO experts to appeal to our key target demographics 

 
This subheading hints at controversy with a curt phrase and a question mark?

This paragraph will explain that while some scientists believe one thing to be true, other people believe another, different thing to be true.

In this paragraph I will provide balance with a quote from another scientist in the field. Since I picked their name at random from a Google search, and since the research probably hasn't even been published yet for them to see it, their response to my e-mail will be bland and non-committal.

"The research is useful", they will say, "and gives us new information. However, we need more research before we can say if the conclusions are correct, so I would advise caution for now."

If the subject is politically sensitive this paragraph will contain quotes from some fringe special interest group of people who, though having no apparent understanding of the subject, help to give the impression that genuine public "controversy" exists.

This paragraph will provide more comments from the author restating their beliefs about the research by basically repeating the same stuff they said in the earlier quotes but with slightly different words. They won't address any of the criticisms above because I only had time to send out one round of e-mails.

This paragraph contained useful information or context, but was removed by the sub-editor to keep the article within an arbitrary word limit in case the internet runs out of space.

The final paragraph will state that some part of the result is still ambiguous, and that research will continue.

Related Links:

The Journal (not the actual paper, we don't link to papers).

The University Home Page (finding the researcher's page would be too much effort).

Unrelated story from 2007 matched by keyword analysis.

Special interest group linked to for balance.

A Beginner's Guide to Skeptical Dickery

A fellow by the name of Dean Burnett over at Science Digestive made a post that I enjoyed tremendously.  It reminded me of a taxonomy of Internet Trolls that I once saw, but can't find.  And yes, I realize the irony in my own dickishness against the willfully ignorant and others who seem to have minimal connections to reality.  Well, too fucking bad if you think I'm being a dick.  In my opinion, you probably deserve it.  Oh, and I like the suggestion of saying "skepdick" instead of his preferred "skeprick".  As one of his commenter said, it rolls off the tongue better.  Anyway, on to Dean's most excellent post:

A Beginner's Guide to Skeptical Dickery

Regular readers of this blog will know that I’ve become known on the internet due to my science-based letters and other comedy articles. When I say ‘known on the internet’, it’s the equivalent of someone saying they’re ‘known on TV’ because they once did a guest spot on a 3am call-in show on Challenge TV, or one of those other pointless channels where the nameless presenter tries to remain jovial but ends up looking psychotically desperate while talking to strangers drunk enough to think calling a premium rate line is a good idea but too drunk to work out a simple word jumble like ‘MASTE OF WONEY’. But still, it’s more than I expected. So, thanks for that.

Anyway, as a result of my blogging and satirical approach to science, it appears that I’m now part of the skeptic community (and it’s sKeptic for a specific reason apparently, but damned if I can remember what it is right now). I wasn’t invited to join, nor did I apply, it just sort of happened as a result of my attempts to make science interesting/amusing.

For all the use of the phrase ‘skeptic community’, there is no discernable central organisation or committee that regulates skeptic activities; you just sort of get acknowledged as a part of it and that’s it. This is by far the best possible system. If there were a central organisation you had to apply to, imagine the paperwork you’d have to fill in to prove your identity to a bunch of superskeptics? You’d probably have to submit a video of your actual birth along with DNA samples of all your family members before they’d even agree to send you the forms.

Either that, or maybe there’d be some ancient entry ritual involving the slaughter of a goat or virgin (presumably just to prove that such an act has no superstitious or unnatural consequences other than a lot of screaming, a terrible mess and a high likelihood of imprisonment).

But lately, it’s been pointed out several times that a lot of skeptics are dicks. Either that, or they come across as dicks, which to a casual observer is the same thing. As skeptics spend a great deal of effort trying to encourage others to join in or at least see things differently (i.e. more rationally), this isn’t a useful trait.

This has caused a lot of discussion and heated debate as to who exactly is being a dick and why. One side usually accuses another of being dicks because of their ‘incorrect’ actions when engaging others, and these in turn accuse their accusers of being dicks because they’re ‘clearly’ the ones in the ‘wrong’. And on and on, like a bunch of dicks.

Oh, the irony. Also, my preferred term of 'skeprick' hasn't been picked up.

The whole thing is quite confusing; especially for someone like me who is relatively new to the skeptics (I’ve still not got my membership card). So, in order to make some sense of this for myself and other potential newbies, here is a list of the type of skeptical dicks I’ve noticed, coupled with what I’ve learned about the skeptic community to make some sense of the ‘why’ of it. And as an experienced stand-up, I have a lot of experience dealing with dicks (metaphorically) so have suggested some strategies for dealing with these people should you be on the receiving end of their dick-ness (again, metaphorically).

(DISCLAIMERS: This list is based entirely on my own observations and conclusions, no examples are cited because I’m trying not to be a dick to people myself and, conversely, much of it can be applied to me).

· THE EVIDENCE JUNKIE: A lot of things are just accepted as fact. E.g. If I let go of my coffee mug, it’ll fall and probably scald my leg, and lo there shall be heard much foul-mouthed cursing throughout the land. I don’t need evidence to know that’s the case. For anything less certain, skeptics are very big on evidence, which is as it should be, but none more so than the evidence junkie. When debating a contentious issue, a typical skeptic will demand evidence for the opposing argument. If this is presented, they should then adjust their position. However, an evidence junkie will want evidence that the evidence is real. Present this evidence, and they’ll question the validity of this follow up evidence, and on and on. For an evidence junkie, sufficient evidence is like the speed of light; something that can be approached with massive effort, but never actually reached. These skeptics are the ones that most closely resemble opponents of skeptics, and are always in danger of switching sides, becoming moon-landing deniers or antivaxxers

o BEST DEFENCE: If possible, respond with the same strategy. Demand evidence for every claim they make, even if blatantly true. They may realise they’re being unreasonable. If you’re especially lucky, you might cause them to question their own existence, at which point they’ll leave you alone in order to escape the Matrix, or something.

· THE “YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG!” SKEPTIC: There is no manual on how to ‘do’ scepticism. Certain skeptics feel that their way is correct, and that other people’s methods are wrong (usually with regards to effectively engaging non-skeptic). When they feel the need to tell everyone else why they’re wrong and what they should be doing, that’s when they become a YDIW skeptic. They mean well, and may have many logical points, but they tend not to suggest but instruct others in the ‘correct’ approach despite being unable to confirm that their way is ‘correct’. And people don’t like that. Imagine an art class where an unknown fellow student keeps tearing up your paintings or squashing your wet clay sculptures because ‘they don’t look right to me’. Whatever their rationale, the unshakable impression they can generate in their victims is ‘and WHO THE F**K ARE YOU, exactly?’ Civilised debate with someone is difficult if they make you want to kick them in the nuts as soon as they open their patronising mouth.

o BEST DEFENCE: A passive approach is recommended as a YDIW skeptic usually means no harm. For someone who feels they are experts in effective engaging, pointing that their approach is infuriating may cause enough of a logical contradiction for them to revise their strategy. Or they might call you a prick, which further undermines their argument.

· THE IMPERIAL CONQUEROR: Upbringing and background varies considerably from person to person, and is possibly the most significant factor in deciding how a person behaves and what they believe. For an ‘imperial conqueror’ skeptic, none of this is an excuse. Like an imperial conqueror, they feel they have free reign to belittle and insult those from ‘inferior’ communities, and feels duty bound to bring skeptical civilisation to the savages. Backed up with their cast iron logic and evidence, an IC will wade into any debate or discussion and ridicule those with a less-than-rational viewpoint, no matter what the reason for their position. An IC is the sort of person you could imagine visiting a tribe of Native Americans and spending the whole time mocking them for not inventing iPods.

o BEST DEFENCE: Can be quite aggressive. Avoid if possible. If it’s an option, single out a physical flaw or failing (e.g. being overweight) that they could do something about but haven’t. Accept no excuses for this ‘oversight’ as, by their own arguments, they should know better

· THE ‘PRESENT COMPANY EXCEPTED’ SKEPTIC: Despite the rumours, some skeptics do have friends. You can sometimes spot these anomalies as they are equally enthusiastic as other skeptics about debunking ridiculous beliefs or pseudoscientific theories, except if they have a close friend who shares those beliefs, in which case they’re off limits to criticism. And not just to themselves, but often anyone else who probably doesn't have the same friends and sees no reason to make allowances. Accommodating the views of others is fine and diplomatic, as is not wanting to upset close friends, but with a PCE skeptic you do get the impression that they’d verbally tear you a new one if you mentioned you supported homeopathy, but would argue in favour of the merits of genocide if Idi Amin came to their house for dinner once and complemented their wallpaper.

o BEST DEFENCE: Claim to have friends who are committed sex-offenders or drug dealers, and that you see nothing wrong with their actions. If you manage to get them to face their double standards, the subsequent cognitive dissonance may cause their brains to reboot.

· THE 'GOAD AND WITHDRAW' SKEPTIC: People who have beliefs that aren't supported by science tend, to compensate, to get very angry when they're challenged. As such, skeptics have an instinctive distrust of people who argue from an emotional base rather than a logical one; citing an emotional element in your argument is akin to a Godwin's law of scepticism. Skeptics also like to win arguments. A GAW skeptic will get their debate-winning fix by deliberately making statements that have some supporting evidence but are clearly shocking or controversial to many people. They will then appear to be shocked and alarmed at the emotional response, retaining the moral high-ground by claiming to be simply trying to generate debate. Anyone with a logical argument delivered in an emotional manner is disqualified.

o BEST DEFENCE: Defence is only required if you're the one being goaded, in which case just reply rationally and calmly. If this isn't an option, simply overplay the emotional aspect; threaten to turn up at their house and bludgeon them to death in their sleep. You will be scorned for your childish overreaction. Then turn up at their house with a lump hammer. Upon seeing you, future goading should cease.

· THE 'WEIRD PRIORITY' SKEPTIC: Vaguely similar to the Goad and Withdraw, the WP skeptic will engage in debate but dismiss their opponents argument for reasons which have little or no bearing on the debate itself. E.g. incorrect grammar, the use of slang, a known relationship with a religious person etc. A current prominent example is the attacking of Jenny McCarthy's support of the anti-vaccination movement. Many skeptics claim that she has no possible credibility as she used to pose nude. Under this logic, any woman who performs in a strip club to pay their tuition fees (quite common, I'm told) is just wasting their time, as if you've exposed yourself to strangers for money you are incapable of having an informed view on anything. In truth, McCarthy being a dangerously deluded idiot is unlikely to have anything to do with her physical features being more familiar than most people's.

o BEST DEFENCE: Should a WP skeptic point out a ridiculous flaw which invalidates your argument, do everything possible to emphasise this flaw. Abandon grammar all together, adopt an incredibly dense cultural patois (preferably not your own), just strip off there and then. This should enrage/confuse/arouse them to the point that their own arguments become incomprehensible.

· THE ‘RELENTLESS KILLJOY' SKEPTIC: Science has yet to really accurately define and quantify 'fun', ergo some skeptics seem to feel that it doesn't (or shouldn't) exist. Harmless non-scientific or irrational activities that people enjoy are unacceptable and not to be tolerated, and any objection by people who enjoy these activities is irrelevant as joy can't be calculated on the metric system. You could easily imagine an RK skeptic turning up at Disneyworld and ripping the heads off the Mickey Mouse costumes worn by the entertainers, before angrily remonstrating with them and the crowd about how it's physiologically impossible for a mouse to have evolved into a bipedal humanoid. RK skeptics don't get on with PCE skeptics, partly because they see no exceptions for the application of ruthless rationality, partly because they don't see the point of friends.

o BEST DEFENCE: The RK is relentless. Your best bet is, when you see them approaching, fling a well known fictional novel (e.g. Harry Potter) off to one side, then make a run for it after they pounce on it and start crossing out all the bits which science does not agree with.

· THE 'ACOLYTE' SKEPTIC: Some people get involved with the skeptics because they want to be cool. As ridiculous as this sounds, being different is sometimes the same as cool, and most people aren't skeptics. As they're clearly influenced by the opinions and views of others, these people tend to latch to the most well known skeptic community figureheads and agree with anything they say, and react aggressively to anyone who dares criticise them. This completely misses the point of skepticism, but then again that's not why they're involved

o BEST DEFENCE: If on the receiving end of a monologue/rant about how great their hero is, casually slip in a mention of something you heard/saw about that person which is completely incongruous with their image (e.g. "Have you seen that video of Richard Dawkin's mud-wrestling with a sheep?"). They'll either think you have a superior knowledge of their idol's work, or make their excuses and immediately go to check your claims. Either way, rant over.

· THE 'SQUIRREL' SKEPTIC: The squirrel skeptic is not a dick, just inadvertently irritating. When someone finds out about the skeptic community, it can be very liberating to realise there are many others who share your interests and views. Sometimes though, these newcomers can be a little overzealous in their enthusiasm, scampering around the internet finding examples of pseudoscience and irrationality or blogs/articles they've written and sharing them with anyone who listens, like a squirrel gathering nuts with a rodent-like exuberance. However, they run the risk of repeating very familiar points, digging up old arguments or presenting you with things that you'd rather not have to encounter, like a cat dragging dead birds into your house. The squirrels are also the closest the skeptics have to cheerleaders, eager to defend skepticism as and when challenged, with an enthusiasm that can seem quite over the top.

o BEST DEFENCE: The Squirrels mean no harm and will most-likely settle down into a typical grumpy skeptic curmudgeon. Should they suddenly wade in to a polite debate you're having and risk upsetting the whole thing, just throw a stick or ball; they'll be compelled to chase it.

· THE 'ARISTOCRAT' SKEPTIC: Whereas many skeptics feel the need to engage with non-skeptics in some way, some seem to have a very specific view of the kind of 'non-skeptic' that should be engaged. Usually, people who aren't university educated, aren't scientists, have an arts/humanities qualification, have had or do have any connection with pseudoscience or irrational beliefs in any form, have read the wrong sorts of books, have read the right sort of books but have the wrong views about them, and so on. Being interested and keen to know more is not nearly enough, you have to meet their personal entry criteria. People who don't aren't referred to by Aristocrats as 'proles', 'muggles' or 'scum', but you can easily imagine them wanting to use those terms. Anyone who doesn't 'meet the grade' but dares to ask a question can either expect a hideously patronising indulgence (think house guest confronted by host's toddler showing off the contents of their potty) or utter disdain (think an expert film critic being told by someone that their favourite film is 'Dude, Where's my car?').

o BEST DEFENCE: If confronted by an Aristocrat, ask many random questions that can have no logical answer, such as "If ghosts did exist, how much would they weigh?" "When will science finally get round to producing the jetpack?" or "Would people pay more attention in talks/lectures if the speakers were forced to do them in the style of movie stars from the '80's?" They may attempt to answer the question, which will end up with them looking stupid, or they won't be able to answer, at which point you can indulgently accept their limitations, infuriating them.

· THE 'INSECURE JOKER' SKEPTIC: Probably a newcomer to the skeptic community, this one finds himself overwhelmed by the genuine intellectual curiosity most people involved demonstrate, and in order to compensate for his failings in this area becomes flippant and satirical where important issues are concerned. Highly qualified, but this is not evident in his output. Uses humour in all his dealings as a clear attempt to compensate for lack of knowledge. Makes wide and sweeping generalisations about diverse groups for the sake of a joke, but then pursues it too far and it gets boring and monotonous. Probably keeps a blog which varies wildly from relentless self-depreciation to breathtaking arrogance, such as adopting the mantle of the entirety of Science. Tries to be funny and incisive but probably ends up pissing a lot of people off, but carries on regardless.

o BEST DEFENCE: Defence is unnecessary, the 'insecure joker' knows how pointless he is already.

So there you go. In truth, every skeptic everywhere occasionally wanders into some of these categories to a certain extent, most likely without being aware of it. Because skeptics, like scientists, pseudoscientists and religious people the world over, are people; messy, confusing, complex, changeable people.

There are plenty of dicks in the skeptic community, I've even advocated being a dick myself, but (based entirely on my own experiences) they're the exception, rather than the norm. If people wish to generalise based on the few, that's their prerogative, but if you want to see truly breathtaking levels of self-aggrandising dickery, just take a look at any of the groups who oppose the skeptics.

Now, if we've spent enough time giving the dicks a spanking (a 3rd 'metaphorically' for luck), let's get back to work.

Dean

Papers Please

So I have been a bit busy at work, and didn't get to comment on the news I heard the other day about the 10 people the FBI busted for spying for Russia (I still have to fight the urge to call them the Soviet Union).  Now, I haven't seen mugshots of these people, but from the court room artist, they all appear Caucasian.  My, what a pickle!

What do I mean?  Well, these are obviously criminals intent on destroying the US and our way of life.  And they all met and interacted with obviously foreign Caucasians.  I guess the only safe approach if you are at all consistent like the sad excuse of legislature in Arizona, would be to demand to see papers from everyone for whatever reason!  Isn't that a much better world?

And, no, I'm not being serious, and stretching the crap out of an unrelated incident.  But that's how shit like this starts, and fear-mongering douche-bags would jump at it I'm sure.  Just ask a tea party hick, I'm sure they'd agree.

Headshot!

Today is the big celebration of cosmic jewish zombie day. Please remember when confronted with zombies to make it a headshot. Because a Roman centurion messed that up 2000 years ago, his zombie went on to found a major religion, and now we have to deal with all the repercussions of stupid people having a consolidated voice. Remember: BOOM, HEADSHOT!

Xtiantity: The belief that a cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... yeah, that makes perfect sense...

Speaking of that verse... Both xtians and skeptics focus on the resurrection of jesus as the “extraordinary” event. But the tombs opening and dead people walking around are just as incredible (literally), if not more so. If all these dead people were walking around, why is it only mentioned once in ancient history — and that one time is in a biased, anonymous story about the life of jesus written generations after it happened?

Dead people rising and walking around would have had people talking. And yet no one seems to have thought to mention it except the gospel of matthew.

What’s odd is that many of the people who believe this story refuse to believe in evolution, claiming it has no evidence. What hypocrisy and inconsistency!

Jon Stewart is CRAZY!

That's right. Full out batshit crazy. You should have seen him. Gesticulating wildly, jumping up and down, drawing on chalkboards like some crazed abstract artist. Oh wait, he was doing a parody of slipery slope, strawman idiot. It was FRIKKING HILLARIOUS! My wife, daughter, and I were laughing our asses off this morning as we were all getting ready for our day. It's always good to start off the day with a laugh.

Although, I wonder... Have you ever noticed how the fundies and super right wign nut jobs have absolutely no sense of hmour. At all! Even the Three Stooges is to complex and neuanced for them to get! All too often I have seen them reply to jokes as if it was an actual statement of what someone believed. Or they just don't "get" that Colbert is a parody. And they really seem to be the unfunniest lot out there. How many great "conservative comedians" can you name? And woe unto any of the conservative comedians that try to get the audience to laugh at themselves.

Now don't get me wrong, there ARE conservative funny people. Even ones who are comedians that intend to be funny as opposed to blowhards that are just funny becuase they are so fucking insane. But the tea party nutters and the fundamentalist right in the general public? Wow, what a dour lot. I have had a steady philisophical shift that has me leaning further and further left on many issues that I was quite hardcore right on. In those intervening years, i have found that I am much happier as a result of just being around happier people. And this despite my annual income soaring up there over the years as well.

Just a braindropping for today.

A Couple of Videos

I haven't written in a while, just because I have been incredibly busy with work. As such, I am just going to repost a couple of videos that I found out there on some other blogs.

I’m always astounded at how poor data-gathering devices we humans are. Forget all the hallucinations and misinterpretations, we simply don’t notice or retain most of what happens around us. Here’s a great demonstration (via Richard Wiseman’s blog)

How did you all do?

This is one of the reasons we developed the scientific method. Trusting our senses and powers of observation failed us too many times. We recognize our own shortcomings and try to overcome them. If someone says that they saw it with their own eyes, or that they just know something happened, then I am more likely to conclude that the exact opposite of what they say happened, or that what actually happened in no way bears any resemblance to what they said.

And then of course, there is utter silliness, especially some of the crap people will believe:

[NSFW language and some effects.]

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Anyway, just a quick post, gotta go.

Some Fun - Driving Truisms

Since tomorrow is April Fool, I thought I would do a lighthearted little blog entry. In my time, I have done A LOT of driving, in a lot of places. While taking many of the cross country, and cross continental trips, I have happened upon some phenomenon that seem to be true no matter where you are. I am not alone in these observations, there have been a few other folks who have contributed to this lexicon of driving phenomenon.

As such, I have decided to finally write them down. Each phenomenon has the name of the person that first expressed the phenomenon (as is the right of any discoverer; after all, it's Bernoulli's Principle, not the pressure and velocity inter-related Principle). If you have any observations you'd like to name and share, feel free to leave a comment and let me know what you have observed.

Okay, on with the list (which is by no means exhaustive):

Prescott Convergence Factor: This only happens when you have cruise control engaged. You are in the right lane, being a conscientious and observant driver. As you are coming up on traffic that is ahead of you, there is other traffic in the left lane the has the perfect speed to cause you to have to disengage the cruise control to avoid hitting the guy in front of you, and you can't just go into the left lane because you would block the faster moving guy off. The only other option is to really speed up to pass the guy in front without blocking off the faster guy, but that is just as much a pain as disengaging the cruise control. Usually happens on long straight stretches of road.

Prescott Clusters: Those patches of an otherwise open highway where the traffic is all bunched up for no reason. Accompanied by (see below) Lundquist Gaps.

Lundquist Gaps: These are areas of the highways that are mysteriously devoid of any traffic until you encounter a Prescott Cluster.

Sipes Effect: This is an interesting phenomenon that happens on alternately curvy and straight roads. You get behind a car moving much slower than your desired speed. While you are on the part of the road that is too curvy to even begin to give you the hope of passing the slow mover, you note that there is no oncoming traffic. As soon as you get to a straight area or where there IS some passing margin, NOW there is all of a sudden a lot of oncoming traffic.

Ryan Stops: These are areas of the road where YOU would normally speed up (such as in a lane to merge with highway traffic), but for some reason, the person in front of you has decided to stop, particularly while you are craning your neck back to appraise the situation with the traffic you are about to merge with.

Bjorn's Law: You pass a gas station with the intent of hitting the next one, but the next one is further away than you comfortably think the remaining gas will take you!

Brooke's Law: When you exit to go to a gas station, the one with the best services or all the amenities you need is the one that is most difficult to reach. Generally involves numerous detours due to construction.

Megan's Demands: The type of fast food restaurant you want will not be available along the route you have planned.

Okay, so what do you have? Remember, this should be a fun exercise.