Science and Dragons

One of my favorite exhibits at the Denver Zoo would have to be the Komodo Dragons.  These huge reptiles grow to almost ten feet long and weigh up to 150 pounds.  They are known to eat humans.

 

Komodo Dragons Enjoy A Meal

 

 

I have enjoyed the Komodo exhibit at the Zoo on many occasions.  I always found it especially interesting that the dragon had more than teeth in its bite–it had bacteria.  You see, the exhibit and everything I had ever read about the Dragons told me that they had evolved to grow a particularly lethal brew of bacteria in their mouths and that victims would die of nasty infections if the initial bite did not do the deed.

From the Wikipedia article:

Komodo dragons also possess virulent bacteria in their saliva, of which more than 28 Gram-negative and 29 Gram-positive strains have been isolated.^[25] These bacteria cause septicemia in their victim; if an initial bite does not kill the prey animal and it escapes, it will commonly succumb within a week to the resulting infection. The most harmful bacterium in Komodo dragon saliva appears to be a deadly strain of Pasteurella multocida, from studies performed with laboratory mice.^[26] There is no specific antidote to the bite of a Komodo dragon, but it can usually be treated by sterilizing the wounded area and giving the patient large doses of antibiotics. If not treated promptly, gangrene can quickly develop around the bite, which may require amputation of the affected area. Because the Komodo dragon appears immune to its own microbes, much research has been done searching for the antibacterial molecule(s) in the hopes of human medicinal usage.

Fascinating, isn’t it?  A creature evolving a mutualistic relationship with bacteria as an alternative to evolving venom glands is really interseting and cool.

A couple of years ago some scientists suggested that the Dragons might have a  weak venom production ability to supplement the bacteria cocktail.

Further scientific research (discussed in today’s New Scientist) has now shown that the Dragons are, in fact, extremly venomnous.  So venomnous that the actual bite inflicted does little–it is the venom that does the job.  Indeed, the Komodo’s bite, previously thoguht fiersome, is not all that strong at all.  From the New Scientist:

The team’s computer modelling of the Komodo bite suggests a relatively weak bite – a maximum bite force of 39 newtons, compared to 252 N for an Australian saltwater crocodile of the same size – but the powerful neck and razor-sharp teeth are ideal for a slashing attack.

“They slash and pull back, but it’s the venom that nails it. It lowers blood pressure, and stops blood clotting. Prey goes into shock and can’t even struggle,” says Fry. The venom could lead to the development of novel pharmaceuticals, he adds.

 

You have got to love the scientific method.  Never content to sit and consider learned opinion the truth, science always strives to find out that accepted truths are false, and finds potential new pharmcudicals, to boot!

______________________________________________________________________

Tsar Bomba is currently wondering about the physics of beer carbonation.  You can listen to him on the Dogma Free America Podcast.

 

 

 

The importance of being wrong

When I was ten I solved the problem of travelling at the speed of light.  My logic went like this…

1. Light was both a particle and a wave
2. Light most likely had a magnetic charge
3. All one would have to do to travel at the speed of light would be to use a very powerful magnet to stick light particles to the front of a spaceship
4. Voila, speed of light achieved, problem solved.

My first scientific breakthrough.  All that was left now was to sit back and enjoy my Capri Sun and wait for the inevitable accolades, fast women, and money to roll in.

For almost ten years I believed this was possible.  I could not believe no one else had ever thought of it.  It was so simple, how could so called scientists have missed it up until now?  Einstein, Newton, Bohr…morons.  They had all been shown their place by some tween from the suburbs of Denver.

Then, while I was in college, on a whim I picked up a physics textbook…

Uh oh…

I’m sure it will come as a huge surprise to find out that I was mistaken.  Little niggling problems such as a basic misunderstanding of particle/wave duality, general relativity, and the fact that at the speed of light I would have infinite mass (and then my pants wouldn’t fit) showed me the error of my ways.

There was only one thing to do.  The inevitable decline into deep depression, shallow meaningless relationships, and alcoholism began.  I grew a large beard to signify I had given up on life.

Ok, not really…well, maybe the beard.

What really happened was the discovery of my error led to a lifelong fascination with physics. I learned that the universe was so much weirder than I ever figured; I broke my brain trying to even conceive of quantum interactions; I tried to understand how there could possibly be more than 4 dimensions (still haven’t gotten around that one, and the beard has made a reappearance as a result.  It shall be shaved only when the ability to completely visualize the universe in 11 dimensions is realized).  Most importantly, I learned something that has been very significant in my life.  Being wrong is ok, staying wrong is not.

It seems to be very deeply seated in the human psyche that there should be some sort of personal shame involved in being proven wrong.  Often I think that the primary skill of being a true skeptic is being able to say “I don’t know” and “oops, I was wrong.”

There was a point in time when it was a reasonable hypothesis that thimerosal in vaccines could possibly cause autism.  That time is almost two decades past, yet it seems pride keeps many from accepting the legitimate evidence disproving the hypothesis.  Not even the simple fact that this misconception has a body count attached can break through the ignorant pride of its followers.  The human mind, it seems, often has an easier time with unnecessary death than it does accepting its errors.

It is not my intention to oversimplify the variety of misconceptions and even mental disorder that causes people to attach themselves to these disproven beliefs.  Michael Shermer wrote three books on the ideas and processes and just barely scratched the surface.  Nor is it my intention to figure out a way to convince these people of their errors, as I consider this pretty much impossible.  Zealots are by definition unmovable in their beliefs.

What I’m interested in is what I can learn from watching others.  The mistakes made by the anti-vaccination zealots provide a valuable lesson for those who wish to avoid making these same mistakes.

The lesson I have ingrained is this:  No idea is immutable; no belief unchangeable, no process or supposition free from possible error.  The only way is continued vigilance in our internal mental processes.  Where does this idea come from? How did I get it?  Have I checked it against other sources? Is there any new information to integrate?

Learning to accept and admit ignorance is primary, and is something that I still struggle with.  I consider myself a consummate story teller, and this is both a blessing and a curse.  It is far easier to pull ideas out of my ass than it is to actually find and integrate real information.  I have a least a small reputation for being relatively knowledgeable among my friends and family, and many of them would easily accept what I told them on many different subjects without checking.  The more my reputation for this type of thing grows, the more imperative it becomes that I admit ignorance when applicable.  One only needs to observe the type of damage someone like Oprah has done to see how necessary this is.

“I don’t know”

“I was mistaken”

These are powerful phrases.

 

Political Activism, Critical Thought and Twitter

I have a twitter account.  I’m not very prolific with it, although I do use it occasionally and have an automated new blog post feed set up.

One of the things I’ve noticed about Twitter is that many companies are using it to generate business and advocacy groups are using it to advance their ideas.  Because of this, I have followers I don’t know from Adam.  I just assumed some keyword flagged me for them, and they added me automatically.  Since I don’t feel obligated to follow those who follow me, I didn’t think about it much until recently.

A friend of mine was having trouble with the Comcast services at her home, and she tweeted about it.  Within 15 minutes, a Comcast technician had responded to her tweet with an offer to assist, and she’s now on her way to a resolution of her problem.

Interesting business model, and my friend was impressed with her experience, and blogged about it. I’d call that a win, for both her and Comcast.

But I’ve also realized this can go both ways.  I recently retweeted a pro-vaccine link provided by the Bad Astronomer, along with a comment of my own about how the correlation between autism and vaccines = none.  I received an immediate response from anti-vax activists, providing links to their pseudo-scientific web-sites, anecdotal “evidence” of the link between vaccines and autism, and the usual ad hominem attacks on Skeptics who “don’t get it.”  My own response was both short and civil, indicating that Twitter was hardly the medium for resolving such complex issues, and then I blocked the activists.

No harm, no foul in my case – I’m going to do my own research and make up my own mind regardless of the information provided by some nameless, faceless stranger with an axe to grind on Twitter.  But I don’t know about the rest of the Twitterverse.  Since it was so easy for Jenny McCarthy, Poster Child for the Stoopid, to convince people of the non-existent causation between vaccines and autism, how much harm is Twitter activism doing?

So at this point I’m thinking that Twitter is kind of a double-edged sword.  On the one hand, it allows customers to be served by their vendors in a more specific and time-sensitive way.  On the other, it invites “drive-by rhetoric” on issues that are far more complex than a 140 character message.

I’m not one of those curmudgeons who shakes her fist and tells tweeters to get off her lawn, but I also don’t think it’s an appropriate avenue for advocacy.  As a skeptic, I want more information than a 140 character tweet can give me.  And yet, getting a tweet directing me to additional information on a topic I’m interested in is usually welcome.

On the whole, is Twitter and good or bad thing for critical thought?  For political activism?  I don’t know yet.  But it’s going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

_________

Janiece Murphy is, in no particular order, a Navy veteran, a systems engineer, an amateur skeptic, a fan-girl of science, a student, a dirty, dirty liberal, and a blogger. This entry has been cross-posted at Hot Chicks Dig Smart Men.

 

Questions of Intent and Practice

Having been a skeptic for quite a few years now, I feel pretty comfortable about how I live my own life. Taking things provisionally, waiting for evidence, always asking why, and doing my best to find and winnow out all the little misconceptions I have. Oh, and trying not to feel badly when I find them. For instance, even though I’ve been an avid follower of astronomy for most of my life, it was only a few weeks ago that I realized I’ve been mistaken about the location of the Andromeda nebula in the sky my whole life. I thought it was in the Orion constellation. I don’t really know why. I can’t remember when I started thinking that, but, as it turns out, it’s actually in the Andromeda constellation. A bit humbling and embarrassing to be sure, and I can’t begin to count how many people I’ve told this incorrect fact that had no reason to doubt me. So I’ve been making the rounds of my friends and family that I may have led astray and letting them know I made a mistake.

This example is a bit silly to be sure, but it does deal with a lot of basic skepticism. And I’ve always felt that skepticism is more of a personal journey than a cause. I found an incorrect assumption, I replaced it with correct information, and I tried to fix any damage I caused.

So I feel pretty good about skepticism in my own life. Where I find myself still at sea is when deciding exactly when and how I should use my skepticism to help others.

I play in a Brass Quintet. One of the other members is about as far down the credulous conservative road as it is possible to get. He is a young earth creationist, a biblical literalist, a global warming denier, and he once told me that he dislikes Bill O’Reilly because he found him too liberal. Through many conversations I have learned that he seems to have almost no critical thinking skills at all. Last I heard he was going to give a man a thousand dollars to “cure” his near sighted-ness with eye exercises.

Yet he is one of the most decent and genuinely happy people I have ever met. I enjoy the fact that he has a very ironic job. He travels around the country and helps large college campuses and businesses greatly reduce their power usage. For someone who denies global warming, he will do more for the environment than I will ever achieve with my little recycle bin and compact fluorescent lights.

Do I try to help this man? Should I attack his beliefs if they bring him peace and a sense of satisfaction?

Obviously if he were trying to get creationism into the science classroom I would do my best to oppose him on the legal front. And I would at least attempt to dissuade him from giving the crank “optometrist” his money. But should I engage him in debate as to the state of global warming when he’s already doing more than anyone else I know to correct it?

Or here’s another example. My family often asks me about different aspects of pseudo-science that they see and hear in the media. My brother and I have had a mild argument as to the accuracy of the Ghost Hunters (though I must admit I did not handle myself very well and was just kind of angrily dismissive, not making a solid point at all). I have discussed the failing of naturopathy, false claims about organic foods, and even UFO’s with them and I am pretty sure nothing was ever or will ever be resolved.

However, just a few months ago I found out that my brother and his wife were considering not inoculating my nephew because of some stuff they heard on Oprah. This was something I could not let pass, as it directly affected the welfare of my nephew. I and others encouraged my brother to seek advice from a real pediatrician, and I’m happy to say my nephew did get his vaccinations. So the choice I have made here through my actions is that I find my sister-in-laws visits to a “doctor” that tells her she has a new allergy every week (through applied kinesiology no less) not worth fighting, but my nephews health is. It’s a bit hypocritical.

I guess I often feel that, if it’s a lost cause, it’s not worth my time. Or that if someone’s false beliefs and ideas seem to bring them general happiness and are not harming others, then I should probably leave them be. This doesn’t do much to squelch the frustration, but it’s a rule of thumb that seems to work ok in my life.

I often feel emboldened after reading a particularly scathing essay in skeptic magazine, or truly inspired to bring enlightenment to the huddled masses after reading something Sagan wrote.

But then I go out and find myself disheartened that (seemingly) no one cares, and, more importantly, my ideas are often run over because I am unable to bang my fist on the podium as hard as the religious and political zealots. So I turn back inward, often swallowing a large hunk of frustration.

When should I fight? When should I stand up? Should I beat my head against an impenetrable wall?

I don’t have these answers yet, as they are often found by studying what I did do after the fact. If I did have one hard and fast guideline it would be simply that people, all people, even those I disagree with, are more important than ideas. No matter how highly I may hold my ideals or believe that my way is the best, to attack someone else’s worldview and cause them unnecessary hurt is not the way. I also try to remember the few times in my life where showing someone a different way to think about things genuinely helped. They come few and far between, but it’s worth the patience and frustration.

 

Colorado SkeptiCamp 3

It’s that time of year again, Colorado skeptics. Time for the 3rd Annual Colorado SkeptiCamp, to be held Saturday May 9th, from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm at Tivoli Student Union in Denver.

I attended last year’s event, and thoroughly enjoyed myself. The talks were interesting, the speakers engaging, and folks were just plain friendly. Talks this year promise to be just as interesting – the preliminary schedule includes topics such as “Mindfulness, Meditation, and Skepticism,” “Exposing PseudoAstronomy: Top Creationist Claims Examined,” “Financial Skepticism- How They Madoff with Your Money” and “Quantum Nonsense, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love My Mom.”

Additionally, Dr. Phil Plait, President of the JREF and proprietor of Bad Astronomy will be in attendance giving a JREF update.

Denver benefits by its proximity to Boulder, in this case.

There are still 54 seats available at this event, so sign up quickly to reserve your spot.

___________________________________________________________________________

Janiece Murphy is, in no particular order, a Navy veteran, a systems engineer, an amateur skeptic, a fan-girl of science, a student, a dirty, dirty liberal, and a blogger. This entry has been cross-posted at Hot Chicks Dig Smart Men.

 

LOTR AS SCIENCE FICTION

Like many of you, I was appalled to learn that the first Blu-Ray release of the Lord Of  The Rings Trilogy will contain the theatrical releases only.  Sauron and his money-grubbing hoardes Peter Jackson & Co are counting on legions of LOTR fans to purchase the Theatrical Releases on Blu-Ray this year, and then purchase the Extended Editions when they come out on Blu-Ray next year, or whenever they get around to doing it.  I fell in to that trap last time around with the DVD releases, but not this time.  (If you want to have Amazon notify you when the Blu-Ray Extended Editions are released–click here ).

I know that some skeptics hate LOTR for its dramatic use of magic and the paranormal, for instance Penn Jillette: ”LOTR was one of the worst things I’ve ever seen.”  For any skeptic that feels that way, I have this suggestion–shuffle LOTR from the literary genre of fantasy to that of science fiction.

“But Tsar,” you are surely thinking, “the Lord Of The Rings is classic fantasy.  It has magic, it has elves, goblins (so-called in The Hobbit, called Orcs in the rest of the books), wizards, dragons, trolls and other strange magical creatures.”  I understand why you might think that way–I really do.  But as Fantasy, LOTR makes no sense.  As Science Fiction, it is transformed into a cautionary tale of the societal impacts of genetic manipulation of organisms (and manipulation of the human genome in particular), genetically modified crops in agriculture, information technology, and nanotechnology.  When you think of LOTR as Science Fiction, it is much more enjoyable and interesting to read or watch–give it a try next time.

Not convinced?  Fine.  The Tsar shall explain.  All of the events in LOTR and The Hobbit took place in the Third Age.  Traditionalists, and Tolkien himself, would consider the the  Third Age to be in our distant past (Tolkein placed the events of LOTR around 4000 BC), and that we would be living in the time beyond the Fourth Age, possibly even the Sixth or Seventh Age.  This is, of course, absurd.  There were no elves, wizards, trolls, orcs, ents, trolls and the like around 6000 years ago.  The entire Tolkien universe makes much more sense if you place our present time at the start, or even before the start of, the First Age.  You won’t see much about the First Age in the LOTR books–for that you have to read The Silmarillion.  The First Age starts with the awakening of the elves, so let’s talk about that.

Tolkien’s elves were tall, slender, physically attractive, intelligent, physically strong, with enhanced visual acuity and hearing, and an extremely long life span.  They also had the ability to use magic to interact with the world around them.  At least some of them had the ability to have instant communications across great distances.  In short, they make much more sense as genetically enhanced human beings, rather than magical creatures.  For everything except the magic stuff, Tolkiens’s elves have virtually all of the attributes you would expect a parent to select if given the choices of advanced genetic engineering.  For the magical attributes, remember what Arthur C. Clarke said: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”  Thus Lady Galadriel’s ability to communicate with Elrond over great distances can be seen as embedding some means of remote communication inside the body.  You can see similar advanced technology in the perfectly accurate arrows fired by the elves–they are guided arrows, perhaps guided by a remote link between the arrow and the brain of the elf firing it.  

Perhaps creatures like the Trolls are the result of mistakes in genetic engineering.  After all, they are ugly, and die if exposed to sunlight (at least Bilbo’s Trolls did, in the movies they seem to have some trolls that can survive in the daylight).

Other magical creatures that appear in the books or films should be seen as the products of genetic manipulation, for instance the Ents, a race of moving, intelligent plants, or the Orcs, or the giant eagles, or even Hobbits.

Wizards like Gandalf and Saruman, like the elves, possess and know how to use extremely sophisticated magic, controlled by their staffs, which are obvioulsy disguised technological devices.

The One Ring makes much more sense as an extremely advanced technological device, one that obviously uses some form of advanced nanotechnology.  How else could a ring like that make people invisible, or allow instantaneous communication over great distances merely by putting it on?

One of the more fascinating technological innovations in LOTR is Lembas, the elvish waybread.  In the movies, Legolas said that one bite could sustain a grown man for an entire day, although in the books Tolkein said that it was one cake of Lembas that could do it.  Either way, Lembas is an extremely energy-rich food that can stay fresh for months.  In other words, it is an advanced food product that is the obvious result of advanced farming techniques using genetically modified crops.

I could go on, and on, and on, and on.  There is very little, if anything, in LOTR that cannot be better understood if seen through the prism of futuristic science fiction.  I know that Tolkein did not intend it as SciFi, but it just makes so much more sense that way.  All I ask is that the next time you watch the movies, or read the books, you think of what I have said here, imagine the events taking place in a far-flung future, and then let old Tsar Bomba know what you think.

_______________________

Tsar Bomba is currently forming a support group for the eternally bewilederd, of which he plans to be the charter member.  You can hear more of what he says on the Dogma Free America Podcast. 

 

 

Colorado House Bill 1157

Colorado House Bill 1157 is currently pending before the Colorado Senate.  This bill is an effort to regulate Naturopathic Doctors in Colorado.  The bill is being championed by David and Laura Flanagan, who had a negative experience with a naturopathic doctor in 2003.

Please read the bill, and contact your Colorado State Senator to express your support if you agree that such regulation is a good idea.

___________

Janiece Murphy is, in no particular order, a Navy veteran, a systems engineer, an amateur skeptic, a fan-girl of science, a student, a dirty, dirty liberal, and a blogger. This entry has been cross-posted at Hot Chicks Dig Smart Men.

 

What Does the [Long-tail Skeptic] Do Next?

The following is a post by Reed Esau, Mile High Skeptic and creator of the increasingly popular speaker driven Skepticamp events:

In my October 2008 essay “Raising Our Game” I lamented the near-absence of good opportunities for skeptics, particularly those new to our community, to get involved. Their enthusiasm, I asserted, is being squandered. Without good opportunities to engage, these new skeptics eventually lose interest and move on.

Even for those of us who have decided to stick around, getting involved and contributing is the exception to the rule. Roughly 95% of skeptics aren’t active beyond small-scale efforts like subscribing to a skeptic magazine, interacting in an online forum or attending a local meetup. In contrast, the remaining 5% represent such people as podcasters and the full-time professionals like Michael Shermer who are producing the bulk of the content and moving skepticism forward.

This unbalanced level of contribution is actually quite common in many domains and shouldn’t be too surprising. However, what should catch the interest of our community is the potential that lies within this majority of skeptics, who I term the ‘Long Tail’ of organized skepticism.

Business empires have been built by those who have figured out how to tap into the long tail. For instance, Amazon lists millions of book titles in its inventory, far more than any brick-and-mortar bookseller could match. They are able to meet the most obscure needs of book buyers, where each purchase can contribute to their bottom line.

This suggests a strategy to tap into the long tail of organized skepticism: we must develop granular ways for each of us to contribute, where each of those ways can build upon our enthusiasm and fit within the constraints of our busy lives. Furthermore, those contributions must not only provide great value to the individual, but also to skepticism at large.

Fast forward from last October to now. Last week Junior Skeptic editor Daniel Loxton published a detailed collection of 105 opportunities for skeptics to get involved, annotated with the comments of a dozen notable activist skeptics. This panel project is titled What Do I Do Next? and follows on Loxton’s popular 2007 essay Where Do We Go From Here? that ignited a discussion on the future of organized skepticism.

Can this recent project help us to tap into our long tail? The answer is a qualified ‘yes.’

Most of the 105 are ill-suited to the long-tail skeptic and instead require the time and expertise of a dedicated activist. To be a podcaster (#85) for example, not only depends on the rare convergence of time, talent and energy to develop content and produce the podcast, but also the discipline to keep it going week after week without burning out. For those of us who have an active family life or a demanding job, this form of activism is largely out of reach, at least as a solitary effort.

Nevertheless, Loxton’s project mentions several entry-level or granular opportunities that we long-tailers might find compelling. In some cases it can be a solitary effort, such as to “Contribute Responsible Edits to Wikipedia” (#96) where one can take deep satisfaction in helping to add value to this great resource. Group efforts also exist, such as my beloved “Participate in a ‘Skepticamp’ event” (#29) where one can present on a skeptic or science-related topic to her peers.

Tapping into the long tail of skepticism is no easy task, as there must exist compelling opportunities that can fit within our busy lives. To succeed in this effort can not only open up new avenues for growth but can add value to skepticism as well. “What Do I Do Next?” gets us a couple steps further down that path.

(Full incestuous disclosure: I was one of the proofers of Loxton’s piece, and he provided feedback on a draft of ‘Raising Our Game.’)

 

Of Superheroes and Microscopes

I am 33 years old, and I still want to be Spider-Man when I grow up.

I doubt very much that I am alone in this wish.  Poll a large number of average working Joes and Janes and ask them if they wouldn’t rather quit their cubicle jobs and go fight evil with their super-strong genetically enhanced bodies, and it would be very surprising to not see a good portion agree with me.  Though, having not done the study, I can only hypothesize and am not making a solid claim here.

This wish is not based on any significant dissatisfaction with the current state of my life.  Like anyone my age, I have definite regrets about some things that could or could not have been done.  I wonder what would have been if I had made certain other choices, if maybe I had applied certain talents to other areas, or had a better work ethic or more ambition.  But these are not major things, and in many ways my life has been more blessed by providence than most.  I do not hate my job, I love my wife, I have good friends, and I am genuinely interested in my life.

But oh, to be able to fly through the air, swing from buildings, travel the stars, shoot heat vision from my eyes, commune with extraterrestrial races, live for hundreds of years, move things with my mind, fight for truth and justice and all that is right and good…

I find it hard to believe that very many people would turn down these opportunities.

It’s an idealistic stance, I know.  But one I think many of us share, proof of which is shown by the countless number of books, movies, television shows, and comics that retain their popularity by showing these very things.

But, as much as I want these things to be true, and it would be difficult to find someone who wants them more than I, I would need to know for certain that they are true.  All joking aside, I take these things seriously enough that I would be unwilling to accept any but the most solid evidence for their existence.  Nearly all of the fantasies I have about super powers or fantastic beings have been claimed by someone to actually be real.  Every time I hear one of these stories a very deep part of my being longs for this one to be true, for proof of alien contact, mental and physical super powers, or even just a fantastic creature to really be real this time.

This is where I need to make sure I’m wearing protection.  Because I want these things so much it would be very easy for me to falter, to accept flawed evidence, to believe an anecdote, to let that part of me that still retains a wide eyed five year old to simply accept the fantastic because I need it to be true.

Where will I find such an ideological contraceptive?

It’s called the scientific method; a way to test claims for their accuracy and veracity, the most powerful tool man has ever developed.  Powerful because, at its core, it accepts and understands our need to believe, and helps us to set those preconceptions aside and look at what is really happening.  It shows us our bias, and encourages us to explore why we believe what we believe.  It is a set of instructions for learning and evaluation in such a way that we can be assured that we have come to a solid result.  It encourages us to not do these things in a vacuum.  Every added person helps balance the equation.  The scientific method is a cooperative venture, teaching us to use others to expose our biases and misled pre-conceptions, and vice versa.  Most importantly, it teaches us to not place ultimate support in any theory, to always understand that more evidence could change significantly what we know.  We need to follow the evidence where it leads, and, as much as possible, to set aside what we really want and see what is.

It can be a scary thing to approach such a powerful tool.  Humans very much enjoy our fantasies and wishes.  We did not evolve to think critically.  We retain millions of years of residual instinct and bias based on a method of survival that is no longer viable in a modern world vastly changed from our tribal beginnings.  In some ways the scientific method is greatly at odds with our natural way of thinking, and as such can seem very intimidating.  It is not something that can just be adopted instantly and easily.  I don’t really think any person can truly adopt it fully.  Like many philosophies it’s more of a journey than a destination.  Also like many philosophies, you can not engage it and stay unchanged.

Asking why and requiring proof has a way of creeping into every aspect of your thinking, of niggling its way to the core and refusing to let go until you’ve exposed everything you think you know to it’s revealing (and sometimes harsh) light.  From personal experience I can tell you that I eventually had to break down the very core of my own belief system and rebuild.  I had to truly stop and consider why I didn’t murder, steal, or rape.  Why do I value life above all things?  Why do I care for my loved ones?  Why do I believe that man is inherently benevolent?  These questions are often considered purely the realm of religion and philosophy, both things I had stopped putting much weight or credence in.

To my great joy, I found that there were legitimate, well researched and documented answers to many of these questions.  Are they proven completely? no.  But they are well thought out and are under the lens of science.  I find it difficult to explain the sense of relief and unbounded freedom that I felt knowing it did not require divine intervention or fear of punishment for me to be a good person (I do not remember a time when this idea wasn’t distasteful to me.)

I came to realize something else.  That wide eyed five year old with dreams of traveling the stars and fighting evil with super-powered fisticuffs didn’t go away.  He was essential.  There is no science without imagination, for how could we know if we didn’t want to know?  It is the imagination that drives us onward, and science that helps us reel in the fantasy.  We must be willing to engage in wild flights of fancy, and equally willing to crush some of those fantasies under the heel of observed evidence.  Those that can do both of these things to a high level are rare and of great value.  Sagan was one, Einstein another.

I wish to see the world for what it is, and accept that it is fantastic enough in its reality…

…oh, and x-ray vision… I want that too.

 

Skepticism and Faith

I’m fairly new to the skeptical movement. While I’ve long been a fan of critical thinking and the scientific method, it’s only been in the last year or two that I’ve been actively seeking out the skeptical community through online forums, SkeptiCamp, and podcasts. I’m enjoying being a member of this community, and the longer I hang around, the more I learn, and the more I sharpen my critical thinking skills.

However, there’s one thing that bothers me about our community, and that’s the inherent assumption that someone who self-identifies as a skeptic is automatically assumed to also be an atheist. This first came to my attention during last year’s Colorado SkeptiCamp 2, where many of the speakers made the assumption that the audience was predominantly atheist.

Subsequent research revealed a perception of the skeptical movement where atheism always equaled skepticism, and vice versa. This bothers me.

I think making this association, and allowing it to go unchallenged in mainstream media, hurts the skeptical movement. While there are clearly a large number of skeptics who also consider themselves atheists, the designations are not necessarily mutually inclusive. By insinuating they are, the skeptical movement essentially excludes the majority of humanity from even joining the conversation.

I know many people who would be considered critical thinkers by any reasonable standard and would be a fine addition to the ranks of the skeptics. But to a greater or lesser degree, they’re people of faith, and feel their personal beliefs preclude them from engaging with us. This assumption that being a person of faith and being a skeptic are mutually exclusive roles keeps them from adding their voice to the discussion, and we’re the poorer for it. Since they believe their faith will be mocked and ridiculed, they choose not to address areas of mutual concern, such as Intelligent Design in public schools, alternative medicine, the anti-vaccination movement and many more.

I’m not talking about inviting Young Earth Creationists or the Westboro Baptist Church to the table to discuss separation of church and state, but including liberal, progressive people of faith to join us in discussing areas of mutual interest.  To do so is to everyone’s benefit. Promoting critical thought, science-based medicine, and the protection of the innocent from the purveyors of woo is an agenda where atheists, agnostics and people of faith can all agree on the common good.

Let’s not inadvertently exclude potential allies by being unnecessarily exclusive.

___________________________________________________________________________

Janiece Murphy is, in no particular order, a Navy veteran, a systems engineer, an amateur skeptic, a fan-girl of science, a student, a dirty, dirty liberal, and a blogger. This entry has been cross-posted at Hot Chicks Dig Smart Men.