After much thought, I feel the best reply is, “Shut up, you idiot, while you have the chance. If you talk any longer you may convince us that you’re retarded and not just stupid.”

This charming little logical fallacy is as annoying as it is persistent. But none of its spewers goes on to mention how we modeled climate change back in the 1970s. None of them bother to point out the lack of comprehensive computer models (tracking rain, but not clouds, for instance), weather satellites (SMS-1 wasn’t even launched until 1974), global networks and… well… fucking supercomputers! The ECMWF got their first Cray-1P in 1979, Wait… OK. My iMac just did as many operations in those few seconds as a Cray-1P could do in a day. Just imagine a room full of people doing this on paper or on computers with no more power than an iPhone.

But to really get this in perspective, let’s have Isaac Asimov say something pithy and wise in a couple of sentences that I couldn’t put down properly in a full page:

“… when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.” - Isaac Asimov - The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 14 No. 1, Fall 1989

So, in a nutshell, we may not be 100% accurate in our predictions about climate change (and I encourage you to look into the recent re-affirmations and newly joined supporters of the data), but we’re far less wrong than we were in the past.

Now, shut up, you idiots. Or I’ll stick you on an ice floe from the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf and hope a swimming polar bear eats you as you pass by.

Jeff and I had corresponded briefly and I kept thinking that it would be awesome if we could get together and meet. I also entertained a fantasy of trying to rope him and couple other rational thinkers into a small network of bloggers so we could pool resources and cross-promote one another. Sadly, I waited too long.

I don’t believe in a mystical afterlife. But to the memory of Jeff I say, “I’ll miss you, as will many others.”

Ella

I won’t spoil the plot for you by telling you exactly what he did with his Jesus-flavoured cracker. You really need to read his post. Indeed, you should read it in full as there’s some very eye-opening history laid out there showing the vicious nature of the catholic church over the years in regards to the eucharist. Especially against Jews.

Have a read. Totally worth it.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php

UPDATE: Oh, my! What a hoot! My favourite part is the true believers who, unable to wrap their head around the idea that someone else does not share their particular brand of hysteria, are hypothesizing that the image is faked! The idea that someone could actually not be in fear of their god is so completely unfathomable and alien to them that they then (much like the formation of religion itself) come up with a rationalization to explain this cognitive dissonance — they think the picture is photoshopped! The notion that photoshopping the picture would be more than simply spearing a wafer just doesn’t seem to concern them. They can conceive of a wafer being Jesus but can’t grasp the concept of Occam’s Razor?

A sacred cow. I doubt anyone reading this has not heard the term. It’s derived from the practice of treating cows as sacred animals in some religions. The phrase has come to mean something which is considered off limits and unquestionable because of someone’s religious beliefs. It’s one of the more superior examples of ‘political correctness’, but you’ll rarely hear those who bash being ‘P.C.’ talk about it. It’s a sacred cow, after all.

The cow to Hindus. The name or likeness of Mohammed to Muslims. Catholic communion wafers… Wait. What?

Yes, a Catholic communion wafer is at the heart of P.Z.’s current shitestorm. It seems that a young man at UCF went to communion and, instead of swallowing the eucharist, spirited away his communion cracker… and some of the peaceful, Jesus-following congregation went medieval on his ass. Apparently they believe that, once blessed by the priest, it literally becomes the body of Christ. And they want their saviour’s body back. Even if it is just a cracker.

Myers made some less than solemn remarks about this, admittedly ridiculous, situation and got himself on the end of the same whoop-ass stick as Mr. Cook, who didn’t swallow, did. When the church found out that the man had not swallowed the sacred Christ cake, they cried out like… well, like someone had butchered a sacred cow in the vestibule. And some of the peaceful, Jesus-following faithful even had the peace-bringing notion that threatening to kill Mr. Cook was the answer to WWJD. And, apparently, Myers has now received a handful of threats of bodily harm as well from some lambs of god.

Over a cracker. A wafer. Noted blowhard Bill Donohue spun up his hyperbole engine and blurted out that the man’s “taking the Body of Christ hostage–regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance–is beyond hate speech…” I shit you not. Donohue, an apologist in every sense of the word, is even calling for Myers to be ‘fired’ from UMN (Myers is a tenured professor, so… dream on, Bill).

And what was the young man’s nefarious purpose? According to him, “When I received the Eucharist, my intention was to bring it back to my seat to show [a friend he'd brought along to mass]…”

All I can think about, however, is how I can find out how many of those who are up in arms over this missing bit of transubstantiated Jesus flesh were also out talking about how crazy those Muslims got over those cartoons or that teddy bear named for their prophet. Or maybe they make jokes in the grocery about Hindu cow patties as they buy hamburger. I can’t help thinking that it was a fair few of them. And the parallel is totally lost on them, I further suspect.

It all looks different, it seems, when the sacred cow is yours.

Ella

A link to P.Z.’s original blog post and to two hyperbolically headlined stories.

It’s a Frackin’ Cracker
‘Body Of Christ’ Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student
‘Body Of Christ” Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats

I don’t know about you, but this both annoys and worries me. As harmless as this may seem on the surface, it illustrates an underlying willingness to submit to the ‘whims of chance’. A lucky penny, lucky shoes, a lucky feather and lots of knocking on wood. When his lucky compass was lost, he had his campaign manager searching for it in a panic. Such a resignation to chance controlling the good and bad in life is a pretty serious cop out for us normal folk. But for a potential leader of the free world… the free western, modern world… it’s disturbing and downright creepy. What happens if Steve Dart, his lucky friend, doesn’t show up before an important meeting with a hostile head of state? Or what if his lucky rock goes missing. (I’m not making all this up, I assure you. And this isn’t all!) Will McCain resign himself to failure?

Hey, in all seriousness, I can see it being a little infectious for his staff who may be caught up in the ritual as it relates to the electricity of the campaign. Much like kids who don’t wash their football jersey while on a winning streak. But this is serious business, not a time for humbug, hooey and balderdash. McCain himself, however, is very serious about this and has cultivated (and grown, as you’ve seen) his superstitions over the years.

For me, though, the clincher is this: lucky food. Barbecue. McCain insists on it before each debate for him and his staff. Sure, having to sleep on a certain side of the bed, having to watch a movie before each vote count… quite frankly all that sounds like things my grandmother did. (Yes, I’m pointing out his age. He’s old. So was my grandmother. And she was superstitious to a fault). But lucky food everyone needs to eat? Creepy.

And more than a little ridiculous for a man who’s supposed to be an example of the best leader for the 21st century America. This sounds more like a man living in the 19th century…

But I digress.

In the meantime I want to point you to a glorious blog post at Blue Collar Scientist which covers critics’ reactions to the… do I have to call it a documentary? OK, fine, the ‘documentary’.

http://bluecollarscientist.com/2008/04/18/some-expelled-reviews/

UPDATE 4/28: A fair and balanced review from a Christian film reviewer has come to my attention. It’s quite a pleasant break from all the (not unexpected) ideological/dogmatic responses we’ve seen so far. http://filmchatblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/expelled-reviews-up.html. Our friend Blue Collar Scientist shows up there, as well, in the comments, ironically.

Let’s flip this around and ask a very simple followup question here: Has the accuser an open mind? Is not following a belief an affirmation that you ascribe to its premise and promises? Of course, one can believe many things simultaneously, but believing too many, especially if they diverge or purport to negate the other, doesn’t make one open minded. It makes one wishy-washy. And probably prone to buying crystal jewelry and flowy robes.

In actuality, neither is indicative of a closed mind. It’s a false dilemma of sorts. If I refute the claims of homeopathy (and I do), this does not mean that I refute all other alternatives which purport to do what homeopathy claims to do (make people well). I must take each on its own. For, you see, I am bound by the framework of the scientific method to do so. The homeopath or snake oil salesman is not. They can say whatever they wish at any time.

Bu what’s really at the root of this whole issue is a question of evidence versus the intangible. The subjective claims of closed versus open mind is, quite frankly, a red herring. What matters is whether ones claims can be proven or not. Calling a scientist closed-minded often just means one has acknowledged their being chained to the methods of science and unable to freewheel, as a mystic might. The scientist must weight the evidence, the mystic can make up claims on the spot.

The mystic says “your mind is closed” because you, the skeptic, are unwilling to abandon the measurable, the rational, and step outside the boundaries of logic. You are unwilling to believe things that do not hold up under the scrutiny of evidence. You’re not closed-minded, but you are different-minded from him.

Good on you. You have reason on your side, after all.

For the natural world — the world of the sick, the hungry, the ill-at-ease, the very things that many mystics claim to cure — has a relation to science that mysticism can never compete with or negate; the power of evidence. There is nothing like it in reality. For, indeed, it is a part of reality itself.

If you make a claim and it does not bear out in evidence, no claims of closed-mindedness will change that. Proof is what is needed and, if it is not delivered, then the skeptical mind has every reason to cast suspicion and doubt on the claim. And all the other prior evidence of the world is also at your beckon call. The laws of reality, which we call “science”, borne out over the years, are there to apply against each claim. Each whittling away the layers of falsity if there is no substance to the notion. Or bearing it up if there is.

That is an open mind. A mind letting in reason, while casting out superstition. Bettering itself by bettering the world around it through critical thinking and ration. It is, indeed, quite noble.

So the next time someone accuses you of having a closed mind because you present evidence that refutes or debunks their claims, remember… what’s really in play here is the unwillingness of the scrutinized to play by the rules of reason. Calling you closed-minded is a tactic. Whether they’re cognizant of it or if it’s simply a learned behaviour, it’s a ploy to get you to shut up or to paint you as pathetic. Anything to keep from having to answer to reality. To evidence. To science.

It’s just another form of snake oil.

Ella

First, I should define First World for those of you who don’t spend much time talking about this sort of thing. You’re undoubtedly familiar with the term ‘Third World’ and will surely have a general idea that this describes the portions of our planet which are home to our poorest and least privileged inhabitants. The First World is the one in which you and I live. The very fact that you’re reading this means that there is little chance that you are not in the First or Second World (Obligatory Wikipedia link).

But what of the First World’s place in relation to the Second World? How do we measure ourselves in relation to the poor and starving?

Well, my friend, on the Internet we do it by acting like a pack of privileged assholes. To whit:

Dean Kamen, an inventor who is most famous for the Segway but who has spent most of his life creating medical innovations which enhance quality of life for millions, has spent 5 years developing a water distillation machine that is viable and affordable enough to deploy into the Third World to help eradicate water-carried disease and dehydration. Such a machine, which uses other technologies he has put his effort into to create power and provide dependability, deployed to the regions in dire need of clean water could drastically re-shape the Third World and change the world. All of the world. Pretty cool, eh?

See this video:
http://gizmodo.com/370698/colbert-first-vid-of-dean-kamens-miracle-water-distiller

Now read the comments.

Done? Shocked?

Yes. See the arrogance? See the disconnected gall of the First World as it sits and judges Kamen as though their weighing of the efficacy of his pursuits is somehow important? See the scoffing at his efforts and the pronouncements of how he falls short? See yourself wanting to vomit?

Now, imagine a mother in the Third World who knows her child will likely die but for access to clean water. Do you honestly think she gives a damn that Kamen has only, according to Shane112358, created “a vapor compression distillation machine” for the Third World. Yeah. What was he thinking. Especially since, again according to Shane112358, “we’ve been working on them at NASA for years”. Yet, somehow, Shane112358… there are no fucking NASA vapor compression distillation machines being offered to these people!!!! But, hey, don’t let that stand in way of your privileged and exaulted position as Internet Scoffer, there, Napoleon Dimwit. I’m sure the people whose lives could be spared will stand with you and say “Oh, no no no! That is not a true innovation. We cannot accept this machine. What would NASA think of us?”

Are you fucking kidding me, Shane112358? Seriously?

Or maybe ccweems, who says “A part from that the process of vacuum distillation is old hat. Reverse osmosis is far more energy efficient” will be offering up some energy efficient reverse osmosis machines that can run easily and readily in the Third World where access to things like… the First World’s electricity and manufacturing infrastucture is a little weak, to say the least. Got your cow dung fueled reverse osmosis device built, have you, ccweems?

Ready to donate the first one? I thought not. Perhaps you’d find more satisfaction from calling people fags on YouTube, ccweems. You’re a little light here.

And then there’s the more honest elitists like Ralph48 who asks, “Do we really need inventions that help increase the number of humans on the planet?” Of course, not only does this expose the ease at callousness of the First World’s privileged, it also shows that just living in that world doesn’t necessarily mean you are well educated. You see, Ralph48, population growth and disease and poverty and hunger are a very complicated game. But one of the basic rules of statistical analysis for this game is: When people feel threatened by starvation or disease, they breed more to create greater a chance of survival of their genetic legacy. And, also, disease, as you may have noted, spreads. And it can spread to the second and third worlds. In creating a safer world, helping stop starvation and disease in the Third World is crucially necessary.

So, Ralph48, you’re an idiot, for lack of a more clever idiom. Check the dipstick on your idiot fluid next time before you post such vapid crap.

Look… having fun calling these jerks names is all well and good. Actually, I like it a lot. Asshole! Dickface! Fucktard! (whee!) But this sorry strawman of an ‘argument’ (if we can call it that…) is so weak that all you need to do is ask yourself this:

Will the people of the Third World over-breed if their children do not die in large numbers of malnutrtion, disease or lack of basic necessities?

Well, do other populations? Because these people are simply humans, exactly like you, Ralph48. Except for one thing; you had the good fortune to be born somewhere with clean water and acces to food. And, unless that water has some sort of ‘asshole-inizing’ additive, you really have no place acting like such a pompous jerk and, nose in the air, poo-pooing the work of someone who is actually trying to make a change to benefit us all. Especially as you sit here on a computer in the First World where clean water surrounds you. You have no conception, it seems, of the brutal world these people live in.

But Kamen, someone making a true difference (go read about the man if you doubt my word), for him you don’t have to lift a finger to help him or encourage him (the least you could do). No. But you seem giddily happy to lift that finger to scorn him on the Internet. Where does that come from? What makes you that way? Are you so out of touch with the realities of the real world, the world outside your city or country, that you simply can’t see this? Or could it be that, deep down, you really don’t care and just enjoy picking people apart, no matter how much good they’re attempting to do.

Or maybe you just hate yourself and take it out on others. Perhaps that’s it. Perhaps you feel impotent and small when others do big things. Well.. get the fuck over yourself.

Me, I tend to feel agreement with dwarf74 who, in countering the ‘this doesn’t solve some other problem’ strawman, said “it’s like saying a cure for AIDS is worthless if people are still going to die of cancer anyway. It’s flawed logic, and just shows you’re an asshole.”

Indeed. Assholes with no perspective on their place in the world, but a lot of opinions nonetheless (you know that old saying about opinions and assholes, right?). If Kamen were to start a 2-for-1 program — Buy a water distillation machine for the Third World, get an asshole filtering machine for the First World — I’d be first in line.

Loving Dean Kamen for all he does,
Ella Rache

* - If, indeed, it ever had one.

I would add, “Quite possibly, you’re also an asshole.” Maybe that’s just me. But I often find that pure opinion, the uninformed sort in particular, can be a parsimonious and troublesome commodity in the marketplace of knowledge. And I enjoy a good smackdown as much as the next asshole.

A participant in this year’s Conference on World Affairs recently commented how he had observed a woman hastily leave a panel discussion which featured SETI’s Seth Shostak because, she exclaimed, they were “biased” against the UFO crowd (more on this term in a moment). She was irate that ‘both sides’ of the story weren’t being represented by this scientist and his fellow panel members. The other side, of course, being her side.

The problem here is not this panel ignoring her camp’s compelling evidence and silencing their ’side’ of the story. The problem here is that there is not, for all intents and purposes, another side to the story. There is no existing credible evidence to support the notion that extraterrestrials have ever visited Earth; much less that they continually do so. This is who I mean by “the UFO crowd”. Technically, a U.F.O. is any unidentified flying object, terrestrial in origin or not. However, popular culture has co-opted the term to mean the ships of visitors who are not of this planet. It’s not accurate, but it’s in general use, right or not. And popular culture has given it a sense of credibility, as well, that it does not deserve. It also seems to have made them huffy and panel-fleeing.

Much like the less-than-accurate use of the term “UFO” to describe only extarterrestrial craft, those who hold the beliefs this woman apparently does are also perpetuating their own falsity. In this case, a logical fallacy known as “the false compromise”. The false compromise is, it may shock some to know, quite commonplace to us Westerners. We’re often presented with it on the news or in groups or at work. The false compromise is this notion that ‘both sides of the story’ are not being represented. We see it fairly often these days when the ‘intelligent design’ proponents weigh in against evolution. The former gets a free pass to compete as an equal against the latter simply because, the reporter assures us, both sides of the debate need to be heard. That and religiously related issues always get a free pass unless there’s some unsavory moral or sexual aspect involved.

The problem here being, of course, that the intelligent design crowd has no science to back up their idea, while evolution and natural selection are backed by decades of evidence and experimentation and is considered beyond reproach in the natural sciences. So, there is no ‘other side’ here, except in the court of public opinion. And opinion, as Hippocrates pointed out, does not breed knowledge. That is science’s job. And here we get to the crux of the matter:

Merely having an opinion does not make your opinion as inherently valid as any other, no matter how fervently you believe it. Your opinion may quite possibly be demonstrably wrong or otherwise indefensible based on evidence (or lack thereof). In short, to have a ’side’ to a story, your side must be as credible as all others, not merely your favoured belief… and that’s good enough. Far too often the media will present another ’side’, an alternate view of an issue lacking in credibility, simply because they do not understand the subject well enough to make a proper judgement. And sometimes they do it for entertainment value. But this cultural acceptance of such un-balanced reporting does not mean that it must carry over into instances where the subject matter IS understood by the participants.

Just because your local news wants to talk about UFO sightings doesn’t mean Seth Shostak does. Why? Because Mr. Shostak understands that the evidence in favour of extraterrestrial visitation is… sorely lacking, to say the least. He’s no more likely to want to spend his panel time discussing UFO sightings than your doctor is likely to be amenable to discussing leeches as a viable treatment for your edema. Neither is scientifically practical based on evidence. Now, while the lowly leech has returned to favour in helping restore circulation to re-attached appendages and while a great many scientists believe that there is a mathematical probability, verging on certainty, that life must surely exist elsewhere in the universe, neither of these lends credibility to leeches for dropsy or a constant visitation of Earth by aliens.

Yet, still, the argument persists, loudly at times, that scientists are ‘controlling the microphone’ or practicing a one-sided argument when it comes to UFOs and extraterrestrial visitation. They are initiating and argument for suppressed evidence against established science, yet they can provide no compelling evidence which would put them on an equal footing; give them an equal ’side’ of the argument.

And, until such time as they can step up to the challenge, I suppose they’ll continue to huffily exit panels and conferences where their thin arguments are not given equal weighting against the heavy tome of science.

Ella Rache

PS - Interested in learning more about logical fallacies? Have a squiz: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

But what happens when there is no individual to harass? What does the cult do when plan B, involve the police or courts through whatever means necessary, has no tangible boogie man to subpoena or investigate? The cult’s entire M.O. has centered for years on this ability to smear, defame, intimidate and, as Hubbard pronounced, destroy it’s human enemies — those who would speak out against them in public. Now, suddenly, like a troupe of jesters turned cavalry, Anonymous appears on the scene and, in the name of fun, turns out to be the cult’s worst nightmare. A nightmare they never saw coming. The perfect antibody for a one-trick virus that just won’t go away.

Surely You’re Joking
Let’s be clear; Anonymous’s protest of Scientology started out as a sort of joke, a way to make fun of a ridiculous group whose non-sensical beliefs were the fodder for so many jokes on Fark and YouTube and Slashdot and the like. Some jokers wanted to take this joke live, and Anonymous was born. Knowing that the CoS is notorious for harassing and smearing those who they see as enemies, often hiring private investigators to follow people and dig up dirt — keeping long long lists of enemies that are distributed to cult staff, Anonymous urged those who planned to protest to wear masks so that the cult could not photograph them and try to persecute them. This, coupled with their ability to form seemingly out of nothing, from their target’s POV, on the Internet made them formidable. The joke was on, they’d point out this noxious cult loudly and with much farty noise-making and then… who knows. Maybe they’d move on to somehting else. Maybe it would all just dissolve.

But, fortunately, before this force could be wasted on a mere single joke,ev en as good as that joke was likely to be, those who had been fighting Scientology for years popped up and asked Anonymous to also consider going one step further; protesting and doing ‘the right thing’, but also doing it for the right reasons: to expose the CoS for what it was, a dangerous cult and to keep at them. Anonymous was a force for change which Scientology never saw coming. All their tactics were tied up in Hubbard’s old school strong-arm tactics. Anonymous was immune to that.

Mission: Wise Beard Man
And the organizers and early planners listened. When Mark Bunker, of xenutv.com, a long-time crusader against the cult who recognized the power that Anonymous wielded, asked them to go ahead and have fun and enjoy themselves, but to avoid any and all acts which the cult could use as propaganda against them (no serious hijinks or violence, basically). Anonymous applauded and adopted Bunker, calling him Wise Beard Man, and made sure to let everyone know that they planned to protest in a civil and responsible manner… but still wear funny masks and signs. Wise Beard Man’s words were wise. And his face was beard.

Today saw Anonymous’s second round of protests all around the world. It was held on L. Ron Hubbard’s birthday, much to the cult’s consternation as they hold events as well, just as the first was held on Lisa McPherson’s birthday. McPherson, who died while being held in the cult’s Clearwater hotel/base, has become a symbol for how dangerous the cult can really be. Today’s protests were also peaceful and, despite much noise from the cult asking for court injunctions against a bunch of kids in plastic masks, and some dubious bomb scares which some are saying were orchestrated by the CoS, Wise Beard Man’s wise words have helped Anonymous to become something more powerful than they ever expected:

An accidental cure for a festering disease called Scientology.

I salute the accidental (and intentional) genius of Anonymous. My suspicion is that your next move is to take the story to the celebrities who fund and endorse the church with their name. A noble cause. Maybe I’ll see you there.

Ella Rache

Read more about the cult’s beliefs and activities (including destroying careers, families and lives) at:
Xenu TV (xenutv.com)
Operation Clambake (xenu.net)
Wikipedia.org

UPDATE: While reading through the Oliver documents, I found a section which backs up my contention that the CoS is hobbled by their dogma. In their investigations officer full hat checksheet (page 6) in a clay demo exercise you’ll find, “The goal of the department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies…”

Following this is a demo section outlining how to do just that. Note b. and c. in particular:

a. “If it’s a group problem, find the key person and influence him.”
b. “If it’s nebulously about a group without any mention of a key person, discard it.”
c. “Only data about individuals is valid for use.”
d “Only action upon individuals is productive.”
e. “Forget they Find him or her.”
f. “Use Scientology to resolve individual problems.”
g. “Never abandon an attack until you have found and contacted the key person. Then apply Scientology.”
h. “Get volunteer Scientologists interested in this game and helping.”

As you can see, their M.O. is to find individuals to go after. They aren’t meant to go after nebulous groups. But, with Anonymous, there is not “him or her”. There is only ‘them’. You can see why so many cult members were trying to get pictures or names of protestors (well, that and the judge who had their attempt at a restraining order told them to sod off unless they could provide actual names, not some nebulous group). As the kids say these days, “Epic fail.” This sort of attack can’t work against Anonymous, and Scientologists can’t just make up new tactics. These are the words of Ron. That would be like asking and evangelical Christian to add a new commandment (Scientologists call anyone who changes Hubbard’s “tech” a “squirrel”. You can’t “squirrel the tech”. Hubbard’s word is, for all intents and purposes, scripture.)

Against Anonymous, the cult is hobbled by the ‘tech’, not empowered by it.