Quick Blog Again

Today I have a a couple of different entries for you. First of all, I just love this comic: http://www.viruscomix.com/page433.html. How horrible are such things!?

I also have a couple items about subjects that I have been blogging on a lot at the Facts, not Fantasy site, so I wanted to add them here.

Vaccines/Autism:
Somehow I missed this article in the Skeptic eNewsletter. It's a great rundown. Here is a brief excerpt:

During a question and answer session after a talk I recently gave, I was asked for my opinion about the vaccine/autism controversy. That was easy: my opinion is that there is no controversy. The evidence is in. The scientific community has reached a clear consensus that vaccines don’t cause autism. There is no controversy.

There is, however, a manufactroversy — a manufactured controversy — created by junk science, dishonest researchers, professional misconduct, outright fraud, lies, misrepresentations, irresponsible reporting, unfortunate media publicity, poor judgment, celebrities who think they are wiser than the whole of medical science, and a few maverick doctors who ought to know better. Thousands of parents have been frightened into rejecting or delaying immunizations for their children. The immunization rate has dropped, resulting in the return of endemic measles in the U.K. and various outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in the U.S. children have died. Herd immunity has been lost. The public health consequences are serious and are likely to get worse before they get better — a load of unscientific nonsense has put us all at risk.

And it would probably be a good idea to read the article that preceded this one as well. Between these two articles, I still can't understand how people buy into the lies and deceit of the anti-vax pro-disease brigade, but they do. We still have a lot of work to do!

Evolution:
For today, I wanted to have a more lighthearted bit of news. The Florida Citizens for Science sponsored a contest where you could draw a stick figure comic talking about some classic mistakes people make in thinking about science. My wife and I both entered the contest, and we both placed in the top ten (although I hear her entry beat mine, how humiliating!). Please head over to the page and check out the comics, I think some are indeed much more worthy than mine and I am glad they beat me.

Okay, that's all I have for today. I may end up being a bit quite over the next few days as I have job interviews and things like that to take care of.

Can't see, can't type...

Ugh, just had an eye appointment and they had to dilate my pupils, so right now I can't see. Um, so I won't actually be blogging. Just wanted to say that it's cool how we can do all these really cool things on such an "irreducibly complex" thing. Well, either that, or we may actually have an idea about the evolution of the eye, and all that. ;)

Evolution, Vaccines, and Autism

Stayed out late having fun with my daughter, so I really didn't get a chance to blog much. So, today I will repost my blog from Facts, not Fantasy instead. Sorry, but it's the best I can do with the time constraint I am under.

Vaccines:
Here is an interview/book review where they discuss the eradication of Smallpox. Can you imagine if this effort had been fighting today's anti-vax pro-disease movement? Would countless deaths and the opportunity to make something just a distant memory be enough to get them to understand that in science, there is always a weighing of risk versus benefits? Or are they so self centered and craving attention, that they would rather put millions at risk?

Here is an OpEd piece discussing how emotions are horrible guides when it comes to the scientific. Particularly addressing the non-existent link between autism and vaccines. Well worth the read.

Autism:
One handicap of the autism spectrum disorders is being able to put names and faces together. That is why I found this article interesting. Especially the implications to the many other aspects of how people deal with others as well as objects even.

While the generally accepted view of autism is as a handicap, keep in mind that quite often it manifests as a narrow focus, or even a hyper focus. This has manifested in some research regarding problem solving. The key take away though is that there are still so many things that we just don't understand about autism and how it truly affects the individual.

Evolution:
First of all, I wish that there was a better way to bring pay journals to the public. In my daily search on articles, I ran into some very interesting stories that not only highlighted the interconnectedness of genetics and evolution, but also gave a great understanding to the complexity and wonder of it! Sadly, the journals are probably beyond the reach of most citizens.

Again, while abiogenesis isn't evolution, just the starting point, I found this article particularly fun and entertaining to read. I must say that it is pretty speculative, but if the speculations have any data to support them, they are worthy of pursuit. However, should the data not support the speculation, then the theory needs to be shelved (you know, that stuff that science does).

In tracking the amazing evolution of humans, the University of Leeds has tracked down some interesting information on how our behavioural and physical traits evolved. I am particularly interested in where else this REST protein shows up.

Finally, a good day for Skeptics

Today was a good day overall for the skeptical movement. So instead of covering the same three topics that I type up on most days, I am going to repost a blog entry from Dr. Phil Plait (the guy that inspired this web page and who is also the president of the JREF). Enjoy the good news, and remember that it takes a concerted effort to actually put down woo. While they have no standards of evidence, and pretty much just make stuff up on the fly, we are bound by science and our conscience to present information that we can actually back up.

And again, for that anonymous asshole that can't seem to read, the above paragraph is mine, and below from the linked blog...

Well, antiscience is taking major body blows the past week or so, and it’s a wonderful, wonderful thing to see. It started with Newsweek taking down the quackery promoted by Oprah Winfrey, and has taken off from there:

1) Reader’s Digest jumped on the anti-Oprah ride… and when the milquetoast middle-of-the-road offend no one RD takes you on, it’s time to rethink your very existence.

2) Deepak Chopra — who couldn’t find reality with both hands, a compass and, evidently, the aid of centuries of scientific advancement — ran to Oprah’s defense, and, as usual, mangled more logic in one essay than can be humanly possible without the aid of quantum healing. Massimo Pigliucci magnificently takes him down, as did JREF’s Jeff Wagg at the Swift blog.

3) The Australian government has ruled that Arnica Montana, a homeopathy company, falsely advertised the efficacy of its product — which, in the case of homeopathy is everything they advertise — and they had to post a humiliating retraction. I weep non-diluted tears for them. Dr. Rachie has more info. Also, Steve Novella has written a lengthy and complete destruction of homeopathy on his NeuroLogica blog. If you are a homeopathic believer and feel you must spout your undiluted nonsense in the comments below, read his essay first, because if you make any of the claims he debunks I will allow everyone free reign to mock you. Because that’s better than allowing babies to die due to homeopathy.

4) Simon Singh is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association because he wrote about their "bogus" claims. BCA vice-president Richard Brown then posted a flailing essay titled In Defence of Chiropractic in New Scientist magazine, a piece laden to the hilt with astonishingly poorly thought-out logic. Apgaylard thoroughy dismantles the claims from Brown, leaving the emperor looking a little naked out there.

This kind of antiscience antireality antihealth garbage will always be with us, but I can hope to help amplify the chorus of voices being raised against them. It’s important, as I have been hammering home for months. They will never rest as long as people credulously accept their claims, so we need to make sure as many people as possible examine their claims as critically as possible.

Quick Drive By Blogging

So, what are the chances that I would have a job if a company is flying me out for a face to face interview on a job that hasn't been filled since Nov 08? That is assuming that I don't blow the interview or anything like that (I am reminded of the Episode of Cheers where Norm goes for the interview at the brewery!). I am feeling good about this, but I don't want to be too confident, since I really do need to keep my focus.

I am still surprised and disappointed that the Eglin folks thought they could low ball me like this... I always felt that I was underutilized there, so it's probably a good thing that I am just getting away from this provincial and bureaucratic regime and out into the so called "real world". I am not so naive to thing that everything will be different, but it will be a change of pace, and I am looking forward to new challenges.

While looking for a job, and being about as busy as one human can be, I am also running that Facts, not Fantasy website. I am finding myself disappointed with the lack of news that is really relevant and interesting in the arena of evolution, autism, or vaccines. The H1N1 thing has pretty much googlespammed the net on anything to do with vaccines, the Age of Autism fucktards are prolific in their missinfomration campaign, and the creationist nuts are out in force as well. Sometimes I feel like I am fighting a losing battle with ignorance and idiocy. I suppose that geting into any debate with these mental midgets ends up with them dragging me down to their level (i.e. no discernible brain activity) and then behaving like innanimate matter in defiance of the mountains of evidence stacked against them... Hopefully I can get the word out more about that website. At least there I don't call them the fucking idiots that they are...

Okay, I'm off. See you all later.

I fucking told you so!

Well, fucktardery is particularly rampant in this area, but today I saw a news story about whooping cough (pertussis) springing up in this area... The thing is, I blogged about this back in April in the local paper. No wonder I am so compelled to create the Facts, not Fantasy website to highlight this.

So far, no one has died, but I would like to quote Dr. Plait from one of his blogs about a baby that DID DIE. Will the anti-vax pro-disease fucktards not be satisifed until babies are dying all around them?

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

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

In Australia, this movement is taking root as well. Calling the alarm to this, a TV program in Oz called "Sunday Night" aired an excellent exposé of what happens when parents don’t vaccinate their kids: they risk their children’s lives, and those of others. In the case shown on the TV show, a four-week-old baby, Dana McCaffery, died of whooping cough. This innocent infant wasn’t eligible for vaccination yet, but the lack of herd immunity — that region has lower-than-average vaccination rates — sealed her fate. The fact that other parents didn’t vaccinate their kids gave that little girl a death sentence.

Here’s the segment from that program. Warning (and I’m serious): if you are a parent, or any kind of feeling human being, this segment is seriously disturbing. I could barely watch it.

If you aren't tearing up after watching that, I seriously doubt your humanity. And to thing, this was totally preventable.

News on the Job Front

Okay, so I have a firm job offer. I guess that's good in this economy, but I think I am going to have to turn it down... The salary, combined with my retirement pay, was a 30% pay cut! Really, WTF is with that? Just because the economy is in the shitter, they can lowball people? Thankfully I have skills and qualifications, and am able to pursue numerous options. I guess the worst part about it all though is that it may involve relocation, and that means taking a big hit on property. But considering how severe the pay cut was, combined with the snail paced opportunity to improve that, a short term loss is much better than a long term stagnation.

So, if you have any leads, I'd appreciate that though. Especially in the local area.

Creationism as a Thinking Disorder

The following article, Creationism as a Thinking Disorder, by Rev. Richard Bradshaw, Mental Health Chaplain, Teesside, England, was originally posted at No Answers in Genesis!, which I have re-posted here and edited for grammar/disambiguation, provides a good understanding of the creationists' mentality. I am reposting this from several other different blog entries that I have spread this around so folks can find it. And to that anonymous asshole that can't seem to read; look, this paragraph is mine, and the rest is a republishing...

Creationism as a Thinking Disorder

by Richard Bradshaw (Rev.)

Mental Health Chaplain (September 2007), Teesside, England.

Creationism is a curious phenomenon which calls for an explanation. Some would say that applies to all religious belief and maybe so, but there can be few philosophies in the modern West that display such intense irrationality; that require devotees to set their faces against such a vast body of modern knowledge – cosmological, biological, geological, anthropological. I was warned early on in my attempts to understand creationists that any attempt at debating with them is futile, and my experience confirms this, although I have had some perfectly civilised exchanges, verbal and written.

It is rather like dealing with anorexics: thin people who are convinced [that] they need to lose weight, to the point of putting themselves at risk. Plonk them on scales and the scales are wrong. Show them their emaciated reflection in a mirror and they will still see a plump person. [Try to reason] with them and you are part of the conspiracy to make them obese. While anorexia is normally referred to as an eating disorder it is also, clearly, a form of mental illness, whose victims can be sectioned and force-fed to keep them alive – which they will interpret as cruelty. Anorexia is something that happens to other people; they are perfectly normal.

The parallels with creationism are as obvious to anyone who has engaged with it as [the notion] will seem outrageous to creationists themselves -- which proves my point. Anorexics, victims of an eating disorder, cannot always be helped because the very condition leads to denial of what's wrong with them; creationism we might say is a thinking disorder which also generates denial about its own irrationality. In their own eyes, [it is the] creationists [who] are sane and impartial; the competent scientists; the faithful interpreters of scripture, and the true Christians. [As for] everyone else, [it is] their science [that is] worthless and their religion deviant, [but] they can't see it, so they're crazy; they have a religious disability. You can do the equivalent of holding a mirror up to the anorexic, which is to quote the immense body of scientific and theological expertise proving their errors; [however], to the creationist, this simply proves that you are part of a Satanic conspiracy to undermine the true faith.

Pursuing the parallel further, I think it follows that certain approaches to creationism should be avoided. You do not arrange debates between anorexics and people with a properly adjusted body image; you call sickness by its name and attempt to treat it. They are mentally ill, so they're not fully aware of what's wrong with them; you make allowances for this. Humour them, up to a point. So with creationists: their thinking is disordered; they're in denial about it; they're convinced you're out to get them, so to debate with them is not only futile, it's actually inappropriate, because it treats them as equal partners in a search for truth and insight – which they are not. It will not help their recovery. Books and pamphlets that put both sides of the case, as though there are arguments for and against creationism worthy of equal consideration, are similarly misguided. This would be like publishing the anorexic's argument for starving herself to death and weighing it respectfully against her consultant's view that she's a very ill person.

You do not, you cannot, respect an anorexic's beliefs; you respect her as a person, which of course is quite different. Ditto with creationists; ridiculous though their beliefs are, it's important to respect them as people. This will not be reciprocated. You may treat the creationist as a Christian, but he will not so regard you [as one] unless you buy into his world-view, which you can't. (If you don't profess to be a Christian anyway, you don't have the same problem.) [Furthermore], you do not put the anorexic in charge of the food counter at Wal-Mart, because she doesn't understand what a normal diet is; likewise, you don't let creationists anywhere near a school curriculum because they don't understand what education is, certainly not what science is. You don't discuss this with them, because they [will] think [that] your intentions are sinister; [they] can't grasp that [your intentions] might be honourable. That's what having a disorder implies. [Anorexics think they are] an overweight blob. [Creationists think that] evolution really is an atheistic ["fairy tale"] with no evidence to support it. Sure. Time for your medication.

There are really two issues worth discussing here and I think that those who are trying to cure the creationist disorder should concentrate on them, rather than on sterile debates about radiometric dating and imaginary subjects like "flood geology". The first has to do with protection. Anorexics need protection from themselves; schools need protection from creationists. The debate was over long ago. The question to be asked is not whether creationism can be taught, but simply how we can ensure that it isn't taught. Anywhere, ever.

The second really interests me. Anorexia is a condition with causes, typically in the patient's dysfunctional family circumstances. Understanding these can help towards a cure of existing victims and preventing the illness from flaring up in others. What are the conditions that give rise to the disorder of creationism? It's not just the decadence and insularity of American fundamentalism, with its focus on Biblical inerrancy; although this doesn't help, not all inerrantists are YE creationists. I think it's a combination of fundamentalist culture, a particular personality profile, the politicisation of American religion and the polarisation of its popular culture. These streams feed the swamp in which the malarial mosquitoes of creationism breed. How can we drain it?

For God's sake, for humanity's sake if you don't believe in God, isn't it obvious? Rational thinkers of the world, unite! The open, pluralist society which guarantees every one's freedom – including that of creationists themselves -- is under threat here. What does rational thinking mean if not shouting from the roof tops: Beware [of] absolutes!; Beware [of] who know they're right!; Beware [of] those who can't cope with shades of grey and who insist that everything is either black or white!; Beware [of] those who would send you to hell if you don't believe in their God!

There is more than one point of view on any subject and it's a pretty boring subject on which there are only two!

Fundamentalists, creationists, [and] sectarians in general, can be perfectly charming people; [however], their underlying position is unavoidably arrogant, and that's the great danger. They know they're right. Rational thinking is, or should be, about humility, but it doesn't preclude conviction. It doesn't have to be woolly. I know what I think, you know what you think, but we could both be wrong, or only partly right; let's talk about it and by discussing what divides us arrive at a truth greater than either of us understood before. I believe in one God, you believe in another God, and she doesn't believe in God at all. Isn't that interesting? Let's discuss it and see where we get. It might be that we all finish up believing in something none of us do just at the moment: such as (and how many creationists dare play with this thought), whether or not there is a God; whether God can sensibly be said either to exist or not to exist, may not be the issue. Perhaps the question really is: how does "God" language work for me, and how does her "no God" language work for her? Do we perhaps have more values in common than we realise?

Rational thought is a precondition of cultural health. Rational thought provides for the flourishing of science. Absolutist positions, whether rooted in religious or secular ideology, lead to totalitarianism. Call it the Taliban, call it Stalinism, call it creationism, call it the Spanish Inquisition, any mindset that believes it alone has the truth and damns all opposition to hell, is the enemy of the free society. As someone once said, we need seekers after the truth, but protection from anyone who is dead certain he's found it.

For the evil of creationism to triumph, it is only necessary that all the good rational thinkers do nothing. [Also], perhaps, with Ken Ham's new museum drawing crowds, not all of whom can have paid their entrance fee just to have a laugh, now is the hour for rational thinkers to gird their loins.

Though I could, of course, be quite wrong about that.

Drive-by: I’m skeptical of denialism

Dr Plait has a blog today about people who claim to be skeptics, but instead are denialists (or even worse, cynics). I enjoyed this blog, only because I find that I am constantly having to explain and point out the difference to the uneducated or just plain contrary folks. There is another write-up by another author on the subject as well.

Now, why am I writing about other people's blogs on this subject? Well, for the most part I have been posting in my local fishwrapper (Northwest Florida Daily News) on various subjects, making comments on sotries, etc. The thing that really gets me is that these people are so incredibly provincial and for the most part have a version of groupthink going that is frightening. One of the posters there offered a bit of feedback that I come off arrogant. I will admit that I do. It's hard not to when you read ignorant statements, and are nearly able to predict with 100% accuracy what people will say about specific subjects.

How's this relate to skepticism? Well, this area is full of denialists of evolution, global warming, and even the legitimacy of Obama's Presidency... They do accuse me of not having a skeptical bone in my body because I worship science and evolution (their words obviously). So this is just an attempt at setting a few things straight for them, not that they will read it.

Whirlwind and more Braindroppings

Whew, what a weekend. When I got home from class (early) on Friday, my wife suggested that my daughter and I go to Disney for the weekend. Just for fun, and because I haven't really had a chance to spend a lot of time with my daughter because of deployments and such. We had a great time just hanging out and doing stuff together. it was an incredibly enjoyable weekend! Although, both of us were pissed that Space Mountain was closed until this winter. Grrr. We both also decided that if you go to Orlando for rides and stuff, the place to go is Universal. Overall it's probably a more active place than Disney. Disney is more about atmosphere really I think.

So, on my Facts, not Fantasy page, I quoted the UBS Freethinkers on a blog post, and they have decided to talk to me about that in a podcast. I think this is my first podcast ever! Kind of cool really. Hopefully I can get more traffic an information out about the site. I did see that IVAN3MAN put up a couple of news stories in the blog as I was in the land of mouse, and that was very nice of him. I still am looking for more folks to assist in this web site project. I'd like to see this become a frequently utilized resource by students and laypeople around the world. Please spread the news about Facts, not Fantasy!

Okay, all I got for today. Still catching up from playing hookie this weekend!