God has been proven

With astounding logic.

#36 ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION
(1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
(2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#37 ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS
(1) If things had been different, then things would be different.
(2) That would be bad.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#129 ARGUMENT FROM INTEREST
(1) If God really doesn’t exist than atheists wouldn’t spend so much time talking about him.
(2) [Atheist refutes (1).]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#131 ARGUMENT FROM INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORITY
(1) [Christian posts argument.]
(2) [Atheist refutes argument.]
(3) Atheist, you obviously didn’t understand my argument.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

#276 ARGUMENT FROM FAITH EQUIVALENCY
(1) You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, don’t you?
(2) See! Atheists have faith too!
(3) Therefore, belief in science is just another faith.
(4) Just like I have faith in God and Jesus.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

Thought of the day

I actually like Mark Zuckerberg more since seeing The Social Network.

Ken Cuccinelli is on a witch hunt

The Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, is on another witch hunt.

When Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli II on Monday revived his anti-climate science crusade with a new, 30-page civil subpoena demanding boatloads of documents from the University of Virginia, we wondered what he might have discovered recently about the work of former U-Va. researcher Michael E. Mann, the object of the probe, that would justify further investigation. The answer: essentially nothing.

Slapped down once by a Virginia judge in his effort to investigate Mr. Mann, the attorney general is trying again with a screed that rehashes a lot of the old arguments about Mr. Mann’s findings, including the complaint about his famous “hockey-stick” graph in 1998, which shows a spike in world temperature during the 20th century. What Mr. Cuccinelli doesn’t discuss is a 2006 inquiry from the National Academy of Sciences on reconstructing historical temperature data, which found that Mr. Mann might better have used some different statistical techniques but that his methods weren’t unacceptably poor. Instead, the academy stressed that his basic conclusions appear sound.

As I’ve said before, people like Cuccinelli don’t have the qualifications to read, understand, and appreciate scientific papers. It’s frustrating when jokes like this guy go out and attack good science out of political and economic ideology.

Oh, and the cost?

To defend itself from Mr. Cuccinelli’s investigation into the distribution of a $214,700 research grant, the University of Virginia has spent $350,000, with more to come, and that doesn’t count the taxpayer funds Mr. Cuccinelli is devoting to this cause. Sadly, though, that’s the smallest of the costs. The damage to Virginia’s reputation, and to its universities’ ability to attract and retain top-notch faculty and students, will not be easily undone.

Almost sorry

There is an excellent post over at The Stranger by Dan Savage. A listener to his radio show wrote him complaining of the way he placed responsibility on bigots for what happened to Tyler Clementi.

As someone who loves the Lord and does not support gay marriage I can honestly say I was heartbroken to hear about the young man that took his own life after being humiliated by people who should have known better. I think you need to be aware of your own prejuduces and how they might play into your thinking. At best I think your comments were hypocritical.

If your message is that we should not judge people based on their sexual preferance, how do you justify judging entire groups of people for any other reason (including their faith)?

I’ll get to Savage’s response in a second, but he didn’t directly address the listener’s question, so I want to tackle that first.

What is the difference between judging a group based on sexual orientation and judging a group based on any other reason? That question is a non-starter since it’s so incoherent, but the listener does give the specific example of faith. So how is that different? This isn’t that hard. Even though people probably adhere to the same religion as their parents, people do have a choice in their religion. They do choose to have faith, the idea that belief without evidence is a virtue. They choose to base their lives on certain doctrine and dogma. Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is entirely different. That same level of choosing simply does not exist. I can choose to be gay no more than a gay woman can choose to prefer men.

But I like Savage’s response better:

I’m sorry your feelings were hurt by my comments.

No, wait. I’m not. Gay kids are dying. So let’s try to keep things in perspective: fuck your feelings.

Being told that they’re sinful and that their love offends God, and being told that their relationships are unworthy of the civil right that is marriage (not the religious rite that some people use to solemnize their civil marriages), can eat away at the souls of gay kids. It makes them feel like they’re not valued, that their lives are not worth living. And if one of your children is unlucky enough to be gay, the anti-gay bigotry you espouse makes them doubt that their parents truly love them—to say nothing of the gentle “savior” they’ve heard so much about, a gentle and loving father who will condemn them to hell for the sin of falling in love with the wrong person.

I wish we could see a lot more of this in the political realm. Of course, that would require honesty.

Things that conflict with science

Here is a short list of things which clearly conflict with science.

  • Miracles
  • Guided evolution
  • A belief humans are not animals
  • Belief in prayer
  • Naturopathy
  • Big business interests
  • Religion
  • Teabaggers
  • An intervening god

Chief scientist of Ed. Ministry fired for right reasons

Gavriel Avital was the chief scientist of the Education Ministry in Israel. But over the past year he made a lot of stupid comments, so now he’s gone.

Sources familiar with the affair said Avital was fired over past statements he had made, in which he questioned evolution and the global warming theory.

Avital, who was named chief scientist in December 2009, said Darwinism should be analyzed critically along with biblical creationism.

“If textbooks state explicitly that human beings’ origins are to be found with monkeys, I would want students to pursue and grapple with other opinions. There are many people who don’t believe the evolutionary account is correct,” he said.

He’s at least right that there are many people who don’t accept evolution. He just forgot to mention the part about how those people aren’t qualified to participate in scientific discussion.

Thought of the day

I saw a seagull get hit by a car today.

How to write a news article

It’s unfortunately common that journalists are always so eager to seek out all sides on an issue. It’s this sort of blind following of protocol that has resulted in the anti-vax crowd rising to the prominence it has, or the fact that creationists will often get to spout lies concerning recent scientific discoveries. And do the journalists ever challenge those lies? Not really. It’s apparently enough that we hear what two groups think, even if one of those groups is incompetent.

That’s why I really like this article by Ashley Yeager of Duke. Without simply presenting us her point of view, something for which we have plenty of bloggers and the like, she informs the reader of what happened at a particular event – and she doesn’t ask for the needless opinions of dissenters.

People filed into Page Auditorium on Oct. 3 carrying The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution tucked under their arm. The scene was typical of a lecture given on a college campus, except the instructor was the controversial and outspoken British biology writer Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins’ lecture used no props or PowerPoint slides. For 45 minutes, he simply talked his listeners through his latest book, mixing scientific discussion with scathing jabs. He cited evidence for his argument that “we stop calling evolution a theory and call it a fact.”

He spoke about the family trees that linked all animals and how some would argue that “God deliberately deceived us.” Maybe God did, Dawkins conceded. But if so, “I’m not sure if that is the kind of God you want to worship,” he said.

“You have all the arguments on your side. (Students) may say well my parents, say or my preachers say this. Well, damn your preacher, these are the facts.”

You know when you watch a DVD of a TV show and it has that weird cut where you feel like you’re about to watch a commercial? Well, this is the point in this article where most other journalists would go to some priest or well-known creationist for a dissenting view. I can just feel it. But Yeager doesn’t do that. Here is the next paragraph.

One audience member asked Dawkins if he and religious groups that advocate for many of the same causes as his foundation — natural disaster relief, education reform, among others — could ever work together. No, Dawkins said. At a fundamental level, the two groups’ views would have them debating much more than aiding others, he said.

She just continues on with her account of the event. I love it. This is a good example of how journalism should be done.

Just because there is another side doesn’t mean it’s a side worth hearing.

Killing in the name of language

I post this for three reasons. First, I have a deep appreciation for language. Second, it mentions a common quote misattribution, and I recently corrected a quote attribution for which I had long been crediting the wrong individual. Third, it tickles my fancy.

Every time a post or comment on Language Log mentions, in any context, the prescriptive disapproval of preposition stranding (where a preposition is separated from its logically associated complement, as in What are you looking at?), e.g. in this post, we get commenters (who, incidentally, seem never to have read the site before) tussling with each other to be the first to inscribe two routinized types of comment.

One type says “I think a preposition is a fine thing to end a sentence with!”, or words very much to that effect (unaware that instances of this lame “look-I’m-violating-the-rule” joke have been going on since at least the 1700s). The other type says, “This is nonsense up with which I shall not put!” (invariably thinking that they are quoting Sir Winston Churchill, though Ben Zimmer definitively refuted that misattribution years ago in a post that Mark and I subsequently included in our book, and it is enormously annoying to us that still no one is aware of Ben’s discovery).

Unable to bear any longer the tedious work of seeking out all the instances of these two comment types so I can delete them, I have decided that from now on I will hunt down the relevant commenters and kill them.

I realize that it is unusual for a popular science blog to launch upon a policy of killing its own readers. That is why I thought an explicit warning should go up on the site first. This is that warning.

PZ has some of his own warnings.

Oh, Jesus Christ, Moritz

I don’t even like posting about this scummy loon anymore. I’m only doing it out of a sense of responsibility.

Andreas Moritz had his Wikipedia page deleted. He was promoting himself and there are no neutral non-blog sources on the scumbag. Pretty simple. But he hates any form of criticism (because he refuses to go get educated on how anything works), so he edits the hell out stuff. He did it with a link I had here. The result? I posted the new link and copied and pasted everything to which I was referring. In other words, he should have learned a very simple lesson about editing. Instead he went and edited his discussion for deletion page. Twice. (I’ve edited out some of the Wiki coding for the sake of clarity here.)

*Absolutely agreed [the page should be deleted]. Andreas Moritz is just some random guy with enough cash to self-publish. He is not notable enough for Wikipedia.–[[User:MHawkins1985|MHawkins1985]] ([[User talk:MHawkins1985|talk]]) 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

and

*”’Delete”’ for lack of WP:RS. Article makes claims of medical practice/teaching/etc, but GS hits in the actual medical literature seem to mostly come from 2 physicians having the same exact name: one in Germany and one in Austria. I think it’s safe to assume that our particular Andreas Moritz has no actual sources in the literature. His book is touted, but that seems to self-published by an entity called the Ener-Chi Wellness Center. In fact, most of what is found via web search is promotional material that ultimately originates from the subject, e.g. http://andreasmoritz.org/ andreasmoritz.org, http://www.andreasmoritzblog.com/, http://www.andreasmoritzblog.com, http://liverandgallbladderflush.com/, liverandgallbladderflush.com, etc. The highest-ranked Google hit that ”is” independent is http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/andreas_moritz_is_a_cancer_qua.php this entry in PZ Myers’ blog Pharyngula that is highly unfavorable, to say the least. To me, it looks like the subject’s highly developed promotional machine effectively obscures any legit, neutral sources that might be out there. I certainly don’t see any. Respectfully, [[User:Agricola44|Agricola44]] ([[User talk:Agricola44|talk]]) 15:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

*”’Delete”’ This seems entirely self-promotional [[User:VASterling|VASterling]] ([[User talk:VASterling|talk]]) 16:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


*”’Delete”’ self-promotional, conflict of interest, no secondary sources. Thanks, [[User:Starblueheather|Starblueheather]] ([[User talk:Starblueheather|talk]]) 00:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


*”’Delete”’. Fails WP:NOTE. Lack of significant discussion in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. — ”'[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]”’ ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 00:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop trying to promote the harm you cause people, Moritz.