What is the The Skeptics Society & Skepticism?

reposted from: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html

my highlights in blue

Skeptic - Extraordinary claims, Revolutionary ideas and the promotion of science.

The Skeptics Society (wikipedia) is a scientific and educational organization of scholars, scientists, historians, magicians, professors and teachers, and anyone curious about controversial ideas, extraordinary claims, revolutionary ideas, and the promotion of science. Our mission is to serve as an educational tool for those seeking clarification and viewpoints on those controversial ideas and claims.

Under the direction of Dr. Michael Shermer, the Society engages in scientific investigation and journalistic research to investigate claims made by scientists, historians, and controversial figures on a wide range of subjects. The Society also engages in discussions with leading experts in our areas of exploration. It is our hope that our efforts go a long way in promoting critical thinking and lifelong inquisitiveness in all individuals.

I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.

—Baruch Spinoza

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum — I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think:

Sum Ergo Cogito —
I Am Therefore I Think

Richard Dawkins - interview by Laurie Taylor - The God Delusion

Gentle Rottweiler by Laurie Taylor, New Humanist

Richard Dawkins' attack on religion has been hailed, revered and derided. He talks to LAURIE TAYLOR about the mixed reception of The God Delusion.

reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,511,n,n
Read comments. Read the full interview (pdf)

Richard Dawkins says:

• "my book "The God Delusion" is an invitation to atheists to come out of the closet and publicly declare their disbelief."
  
• "As a scientist I am only interested in the simple scientific question is there a God?" If someone wants to say that God started off evolution then that seems to be a total denial of everything we have learnt."
• in Terry Eagleton's review of "The God Delusion" (wikipedia) Eagleton wondered what Dawkins view was on the epistimological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus. Dawkins says "somebody who thinks the way I do doesn't think theology is a subject at all. So to me it is like someone saying they don't believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven't studied fairy-ology. I think it is as simple as that. I'm all for professors of theology who write about little known religious texts and study biblical history, but when theology turns to the study of the trinity, then I think its a non-subject"
• "I'm happy to be governed by feelings and I suppose, in a sense, by faith. But that doesn't mean that I ultimately believe there is something other than the material world that is causing these feelings. Life would be intolerable if you wrote down detailed reasons for everything. So I don't have a problem with faith in that sense. But that is so different from going on from there to declare that there must be something supernatural about it."

^^^^^ Selected comments from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,511,n,n

4. Comment #17278 by Steven Mading on January 12, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Thalesian said in the first comment:
"After America's experiences in Iraq, perhaps ethnic identity is as dangerous as religion (if they don't already both stem from the same vice)."

Actually, the big problem is the world's tendancy to mix ethnic identity with religion as being one in the same. Consider the Sunni/Shia thing: They are religions, and yet they can also be treated as ethnicities because people mis-label children as being the religion of their parents long before the children have any idea what that's really all about - and so people tend to view their religion as a definitional integral part of who they are. That prevents intelligent discourse on the subject because they don't treat it as just yet another idea that can be freely accepted into or freely rejected. They view it as being a permanent thing just as much as, say, one's race is.

16. Comment #17322 by John Phillips on January 12, 2007 at 10:58 pm

Let's get real here, with regard to theology that is. It takes the a priori assumption that god exist without any objective evidence for it. It then twists itself into philosophical knots rationalising the irrational. But sophisticated irrationality is still irrationality only it may have a seeming gloss. Need one know any more than that. Or to put it in another more simplistic, or Walt Disneyish way, as one poster put it, I can only argue how many angels fit on a pin if I start from the premise that angels exist. If I don't, after all there is again no objective evidence for angels either, then what point the argument.

17. Comment #17324 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 11:06 pm

The trouble here is twofold. First, it's not ultra-sophisticated religious intellectuals like Eagleton's mates who are in charge of the US military and wield vast social and political power in many parts of the world.

Great post, Russell, articulates my thoughts so clearly. I think this is the bottom line John, esoteric, ephemeral and academic constructs are fine, potentially interesting in their own right, but they have no bearing on the real world. No data, no tests, no results. What could be more pointless?

Besides, the people burning embassies, rioting over comics and killing abortion clinic staff would be the first to call Eagleton and his rarified cohorts heretics and aspostates.

So in my view, Eagletons wordy critique is fatuous because it misses the point so completely.

Finally, Dawkins and Harris are right to dismiss theology, and the comparison to fairology is a nice soundbite, that resonates with the majority of people. Theologians are considered the "brains" of the religious movement, descredit theology as a subject and you remove what little intellectual credibility religion has. I actually don't think it can be said often enough that theology is to cosmology/philosophy, what astrology is to astronomy, or alchemy to chemistry.

Theology is bunkum, but it will be very hard for Eagleton and Co. to admit it.

18. Comment #17330 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 12:26 am

Russell and Brian, this New Humanist piece was particularly interesting because it gave Richard the opportunity to respond to a number of Eagleton's main points in the context of a sympathetic interview. And there is no Eagleton & Co., since I cannot imagine such a critique coming from any other public intellectual, combining as it does his own ultimate skepticism about theism - "now it may well be that all this is no more plausible than the tooth fairy. Most reasoning people these days will see excellent grounds to reject it" - attached to a masterfully concise summary of a non-dogmatic Christian theology with a series of well-targeted political criticisms.

The real problem is that Eagleton misunderstands the project that TGD represents. It is not an intellectual new synthesis for religious skepticism in the 21st century; it is a popular rallying cry to do battle against actually existing religious insanity around the world. TGD was not intended as a scholarly engagement with theological discourse, but as a tonic for unbelievers and a lifeline for the waverers. And in these goals it has succeeded admirably.

Now on the specific question of theology. In the interview Dawkins' position is circular; in TGD it is not, as he does actually deal with the "main proofs" theology has provided. I made both points in my earlier post. But the latter operation depends entirely on defining belief in God as a hypothesis equivalent to any other empirical proposition. And this is entirely the point at issue.

So Eagleton's complaint remains, and needs to be understood. Why? Because time and again we have seen people at this site express incomprehension at the fact that intensely intelligent scientists (Ken Miller comes to mind) who are nonetheless religious. Understand what Eagleton is saying, and you start to understand how that is possible. These people are not suffering from a mental disorder, they are not stupid, and they are deserving of our respect.

We are not dealing with Jerry Falwell here, and this is not a debate with two sides. It is entirely possible that both Richard and Terry - two of the best known British intellectuals - are both "right" but are on different trajectories launched from different starting points with their paths nonetheless intersecting. It is these points of intersection that provide the opportunity for us to enrich our own understanding.

Creationism can be taught in RE but not science lessons

The Sunday Times December 31, 2006 Creationism gains foothold in schoolsreposted from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524442_2,00.html Christopher Morgan and Abul Taher

THE government has cleared the way for a form of creationism to be taught in Britain’s schools as part of the religious syllabus. Lord Adonis, an education minister, is to issue guidelines within two months for the teaching of “intelligent design” (ID), a theory being promoted by the religious right in America. NI_MPU('middle'); Until now the government has not approved the teaching of the controversial theory, which contradicts Darwinian evolutionary theory, the basis of modern biology. Adonis said in a parliamentary answer: “Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs.” He announced that the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is to hold discussions with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the assessment regulator, and said local advisory councils would decide whether particular schools should teach the theory. Creationists believe in the literal truth of the Biblical account of the creation by God in six days. Intelligent design argues that life and the universe are guided by a “designer”, rather than an undirected process as illustrated by Darwin’s natural selection. The theory has gained a foothold in the American state school system, sparking legal challenges from secular groups seeking to oust it from science teaching. Although Adonis stopped short of permitting the teaching of intelligent design in science lessons, one of the key lobby groups behind the theory, Truth in Science, hailed his statement as a significant breakthrough. So far no schools in Britain teach the theory as part of its religious education syllabus. But Truth in Science believes that the new government guidelines will give the green light to dozens of schools to incorporate ID in the syllabus. Andrew McIntosh, a professor of engineering at Leeds university who heads Truth in Science, said: “We believe that evolutionary theory should be taught in a critical manner, and some space must be given to credible alternative theories, such as intelligent design.” The lobby group says its ultimate aim is to pressure schools to teach ID in science lessons as a challenge to Darwinism. It says it has the support of about 70 heads of science across Britain, who want ID to be introduced in the national curriculum as part of science. Opponents in the Church of England dismiss it as fantasy. Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark, said: “Everything needs to be explored, so that children can ask sensible questions. Though I see no huge difficulty with exploring intelligent design or creationism or flat Earth, they happen to be misguided, foolish and flying in the face of all evidence. I see no problem with Darwinian theory and Christian faith going hand in hand.” Canon Jeremy Davies, Precentor of Salisbury cathedral, said: “I don’t see why religious education should be a dumping ground for fantasies. If it is claimed that this is a scientific theory, why isn’t it explored in science classes? Its validity or otherwise should be tested against the usual criteria.” Others regard it as religious dogma masquerading as science. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said ID was not a science. Dawkins, who holds the chair in the public understanding of science at Oxford, added: “It is creationism by another name. It’s a rebranding exercise to get into schools. I personally think it should not be taught.” In America ID has come under legal attack. There have been more than six recent cases in which local education bodies were sued by groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State for teaching intelligent design as science. NI_MPU('middle'); Robert Boston, a spokesman for the group, warned against the teaching of ID in Britain. He said it “could possibly leave an entire generation of people not capable of meeting the scientific challenges of this century”. Boston also said ID was being pushed by certain religious groups, “to undermine the separation of church and state in schools. It’s an effort by them to subvert Darwin’s theory. And unfortunately, trends in America seem to go to Britain”. It has emerged that 12 prominent academics wrote to Tony Blair and Alan Johnson, the education secretary, last month arguing that ID should be taught as part of science on the national curriculum. They included Antony Flew, formerly professor of philosophy at Reading University; Terry Hamblin, professor of immunohaemotology at Southampton University; and John Walton, professor of chemistry at St Andrews University. In October Truth in Science was criticised for sending education packs to hundreds of schools across Britain explaining ID. The packs — which included books and DVDs — were used by some unwary science teachers as teaching aids. But Truth in Science in turn accuses Dawkins of pressuring ministers into promoting atheism through schools. McIntosh said: “People like Dawkins are pushing atheism through schools, which is a religious view, and not a scientific one. Atheism is not the natural state of a scientist, since there have been scientists who have been theists both before and after Darwin.” Lord Pearson, a Tory peer and supporter of ID, who asked the question that prompted Adonis’s statement, said: “Advances in DNA science show that the DNA molecule is so complicated that it could not have happened by accident. It shows there is a design behind it.”

South Park Takes On Richard Dawkins

reposted from: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timeless_002719.php

South Park Takes On Richard Dawkins

20 November 2006

By Daniel Sorrell

The recent publication of Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion has provided fodder for reviewers to discuss and debate a number of interrelated issues: atheism, evolution, the role of religion in public life, and scientific rationality, to name only a few. A common refrain in even the most sympathetic appraisals of the book was voiced in the New York Times review. “There is lots of good, hard-hitting stuff about the imbecilities of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes, but the tone is smug and the logic occasionally sloppy.” Dawkins’ strident, aggressive brand of atheism and his haughty poise undercut an argument that would be more persuasive if made in a cooler, more judicious tone.

Given a public figure on a high horse with a pompous, in-your-face manner, sooner or later South Park will point its satirical barbs in their direction. In a recent two-part episode, Dawkins came under heavy fire for his belligerent atheism and hyper-rational tirades against religion (A dead giveaway that Dawkins was in for it came early in the first episode: a graphic sex scene between him and Mrs. -- formerly Mr. -- Garrison, the town’s proverbial pervert).

In a convoluted plotline (Episode one and Episode two) involving teaching evolution in the classroom, Nintendo’s soon-to-be-released game system Wii, and the botched cryogenic freezing of Eric Cartman that leads him to be revived 500 years too late, it is revealed that the society of the future is based on godlike worship of Dawkins -- along with his eventual wife Mrs. Garrison -- as the founder of worldwide atheism. In a situation that recalls the Judean People’s Front and People’s Front of Judea in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, the atheists of the future are split into three warring sects: the United Atheist Alliance (UAA), United Atheist League (UAL), and the Allied Atheist Allegiance (AAA), who also happen to be sea otters. Their core grievance with one another is the answer to the “great question,” namely what to call their respective groups.

The key criticism South Park seems to be pursuing is that extremist enthusiasm for any belief system -- in this case Dawkins’ vaunted atheism and scientific rationality -- can lead to sectarian group-think, absolutism, and even schismatic violence. Replacing religious dogma with atheistic dogma still leaves us with the problems of dogmatism. In the future, people -- and otters -- say “Science damn it” and “Oh my science” and adhere as rigidly and inflexibly to their own brand of Dawkinsism as they did before to whatever religion that subscribed to.

This is an important insight to be sure, yet it probably has as much to do with Dawkins’ public persona as it does with the actual ideas of the belief system being scrutinized. Being an offensive jerk with an unswerving belief in one’s own ideas while condescendingly dismissing opposing views -- or in the words of Mrs. Garrison, “being a dick to those who don’t agree with you” -- is never going to be popular. That’s a caricature of Dawkins, but it certainly squares with a popular perception of some other vocal atheists (Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris come to mind).

The sectarian conflict between the UAA, UAL, and AAA is a consequence of irrationally held passions -- even, in this case, for rationality -- that do not allow for debate, co-existence, or reasoned consensus. The dangers of tribalistic group identification, not atheism as such, are the target of criticism. This is borne out when, near the end of the second episode, the future timeline is altered and the citizens of the future are found to be at war with the French-Chinese.

It is telling that South Park did not take on the core ideas of its target. Other than the scene of Dawkins and Garrison’s first date, where he introduces the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster argument (really a hyperbolic and colorful demonstration of the idea that you can’t prove a negative), only to have it misinterpreted by Garrison, the episodes are short on a conceptual critique of atheism or scientific rationality. It is the shrill tone and obnoxious zeal -- and the extremism they engender -- not the intellectual consistency or evidentiary basis of Dawkins’ arguments, that the episode condemns.

This oversight is a little puzzling given South Park’s long history in satirizing matters of doctrine. Its send-up of Scientology’s cosmology and the founding myth of Xenu in “Trapped in the Closet,” which precipitated the departure of Isaac Hayes from the show, is a notable example. The Islamic prohibition against depicting the Prophet Muhammad is satirized in “Cartoon Wars” and the Catholic belief in miracles is rather vulgarly ridiculed in “Bloody Mary.”

All of which is to say, South Park’s ecumenical contempt for religion doesn’t necessarily translate well into a critique of the substance of atheism or scientism. Rather, it is the slavish thinking and rigid dogmatism that go into any –ism or orthodoxy that South Park is best at lampooning. Dawkins’ abrasive public demeanor and penchant for rhetorical excess is interpreted in South Park’s blunt satire as just as inflexible and uncompromising as any of the religions it targets. This should be a lesson to Dawkins and fellow-travelers to tone down the noise and antagonism of their message if they are going to be persuasive. Yet it also indicates that, unlike Scientology, Islam, or Catholicism, atheism’s ideas, as opposed to its style, proved off limits for even South Park’s religious critique.

Daniel Sorrell is a graduate student in NYU’s Department of Journalism.

Why Do Today What You Can Put Off Till Tomorrow - The Procrastination Equation

my highlights in blue

reposted from Sciam January 12, 2007

Why Do Today What You Can Put Off Till Tomorrow

A 10-year study of procrastination provides insights into--and a formula for--human motivation

by David Biello PUTTING IT OFF: The fine art of procrastination has been summed up in a mathematical equation.

I am a moderate procrastinator. Even when I believe that I would be bestserved by finishing a task (say, filing this story), I will occasionally put it off in favor of some short-term reward (like a much needed caffeine fix). This tendency on my part to delay what is in my long-term interest can now be explained by a simple mathematical equation, according to industrial psychologist Piers Steel of the University of Calgary.

Steel developed the equation--Desire to Complete Task (U) = Expectation of Success (E) x Value of Completion (V) / Immediacy of Task (I) x Personal Sensitivity to Delay (D), or U=ExV/IxD--as a way of mathematically mapping a given individual's procrastination response.

So, for example, my desire to finish this article is influenced by my relative confidence in writing it well and the prospect of a paycheck as well as a looming deadline and my inherent desire to go home at the end of the day. "You're more likely to put something off if you're a very impulsive individual," Steel says. But, "if you only work at the last minute, time on task tells."

Of course, this does not explain why humans would procrastinate in the first place, but it is certainly not a new problem. The Greek poet Hesiod writing in 800 BC averred "a man who puts off work is always at hand grips with ruin" and the divine incarnation Krishna singled procrastinators out for special scorn in the Bhagvad Ghita. Nor does it explain why procrastination seems to be on the rise--afflicting as many as 95 percent of students and at least 15 percent of adults, according to two recent surveys. Perhaps the answer lies in the cornucopia of distractions that surround us, ranging from YouTube on our computers to finally getting around to decluttering our desks just when we should be writing that article. "We have a workplace that is motivationally toxic," Steel says. "Convenient access to inferior choices is decidedly inconvenient." But the problem of procrastination, which Steel came to by suffering from a particularly acute case of it in his own schooling, may have broader applications. The equation to describe it, dubbed temporal motivational theory, may be applicable to the entire field of human motivation. "You can use it to predict stock prices and other theories of motivation, such as goalsetting, can be derived from it," Steel notes. "Even the behavior of nations and groups can be better described by using this theory."

Insights into our procrastinating ways may help explain why humans struggle with long-term problems that require immediate solutions such as climate change and mounting public debt. And by reducing human motivation to a formula, powerful computer models can be put to work to predict our choices (and perhaps create avatars that will successfully mimic us in online worlds). "Modeling complex systems is something that we've done. We do it with the weather," Steel says. "This gives us the initial foundation to do it with people's personalities."

For my part, I hope that game designers and other modelers procrastinate on taking up this challenge, perhaps distracted by things like this news item or by the motivational tests Steel has devised. Already, one of his tests (linked below) labeled me as a moderate procrastinator and delayed this story by a good 15 minutes. "Millions of people hours are spent making [distractions] as succulent as possible," he adds. "There are so many ways we could do something else."

RELATED LINKS:
Steel's Procrastination Central Up the Lazy Creek Psyching Out Evolutionary Psychology: Interview with David J. Buller