Truth and the Devil

How do we determine the truth of something? How do we know what really happened? During the course of any investigation into whether something is true or not, any claim that is made needs to be testable/disprovable, otherwise it has no value. For example, let’s say that I claim that there is an invisible dragon on my shoulder that tells me what to do. There’s no reason for you to believe me unless I can provide some evidence. If you try to grab at it, I can say it was on the other shoulder. If you grab again, I can say it hopped away outside of your reach. If I provide no further way to test this claim then you have absolutely no reason to believe me, especially if the claim presupposed things which are contrary to established knowledge (namely that dragons do not exist, nor are any creatures invisible).

I just found a wonderful article on the common phenomenon, in our culture and especially on the internet, of the Galileo Fallacy. That people who have unpopular ideas must be right because people who have been attacked due to their unpopular ideas in the past turned out to be right.

There’s a form of very bad thinking that I see a lot in some very smart, thoughtful people.

The thinking goes like this:

“Great thinkers throughout history have had unpopular ideas that everyone disagreed with.

“I have an unpopular idea that everyone disagrees with.

There’s a nice short article in AlterNet about AIDS and vaccine denialism. One contributing factor they find in how denialism continues is short collective and individual memories.

No. She doesn’t remember.

And that’s the problem.

I thought it might be telling to keep an eye on the Expelled blog and see what’s going on there. Ben Stein has a new post which is rather cryptic [edit: the post has been inexplicably removed]. It basically is setting out to create a climate of victimization (which the film seems to be doing as well) starting out with a quote attributed to Jonny Cash.

It’s good to be hated by the right people.”

I’m not quite sure what to make of the following quote, though if it turns out to be some sort of parody, I’ll be pleasantly surprised (though I’m not holding my breath).

Looks like Expelled really isn’t going to provide anything new under the sun. An article on Beliefnet gives us a little more information on what the film might include.

Let the buzz begin. Not that “Expelled’s” intentionally incendiary tone will need much help from the pastors and religious-school teachers in attendance at yesterday’s meeting. From the clips and trailers they showed, the film presents a world of–to use a quote I heard repeatedly yesterday–”the new scientific movement” (Intelligent Design, in case you weren’t sure) vs. the tired, old “theory” of evolution. Relying on news-clip montages, interviews, even cut-away shots of concentration camps, “Expelled” talks of faithful scientists and other believers losing jobs, losing grants, even losing friends in defense of ID. And, relying on footage of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and other atheists du jure, it sets up a worldview of ID vs. atheism, with no gray areas in between.

Richard Dawkins is back with part 2 of The Enemies of Reason

I haven’t been able to take the time to seriously write anything recently, but this is so mind-numbing I just had to show it.

A talking plastic fish. Really.

Maddox of The Best Page in the Universe has created his own conspiracy video and site called Loose Change Unfastened Coins. No, not for 9/11, but for something more insidious: the Titanic! Watch this video, and if you’re not convinced that the sinking of the Titanic was a government conspiracy, then you’re already brainwashed, or too close-minded, or whatever.

At the always wonderful ScienceBlogs a new blog has been added: denialism blog. It appears to cover what is a growing interest for me, deniers and conspiracy theorists. one of their first posts is about general conspiracy mongering and the sheer ridiculousness of their propositions.

Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn’t because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it’s that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.

For those of us who are skeptical of pseudoscientific claims, especially those of the supernatural variety, our skepticism can often be treated as though were limiting ourselves to our 5 senses. Implying that we have another sense that we’re not utilizing or simply ignoring. When asking for evidence of psychic phenomenon, a common dodge might be, “How do you prove photography to a blind man?”

The implied answer is that you can’t, even though we all know photography exists, blind people can’t see the contents of a photograph. They lack the visual sense required. Similarly, only psychics have the extra sense required to perceive psychic phenomenon. Attempting to provide evidence to those who don’t have the ‘psychic sense’ is like trying to prove photography to a blind person.