Come celebrate the upcoming Apocalypse with us this Saturday at Three Birds Tavern. And, in the unlikely event that we are still corporeal here on this material plane come 6:01, either because the Rapture did not in fact occur, or because we have been passed over and are now doomed to dwell in a blazing nightmare hellscape, we will at least be able to console ourselves with a few more drinks!

PZ Myers delivers a very entertaining talk at the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne in 2010:

From Pharyngula.

Ray Comfort being interviewed on Atheist Experience on local public access television in Austin, TX:

Un-fucking-believable. (How do you manage to sound like a blithering idiot within a minute-and-a-half of being introduced? Especially when 45 seconds of that time is eaten up by host introductions.) I watched about 25 minutes before my head exploded.

There’s a lot of nutcases out there.

OK, now I’ve officially heard everything. I’ve changed my mind–this guy is f-ing hilarious! I think he’s pulling a Steven Colbert-style satirical swindle on all of us.

From Pharyngula.

Is this modern-day Tennessee, or 1925? Hard to tell. From Panda’s Thumb:

Unable to deny the word of god to his students or himself, Joe Wilkey walks a thin line between science and religion…

No he doesn’t; he spews unadulterated horseshit. Perhaps he should watch some Eugenie Scott to bring himself up to speed.

An online chat I had with a good friend a few months ago really made me think about how I view the world as a skeptic. I think that many people don’t draw a distinction between skepticism and cynicism, and often assume both mindsets are one and the same; particularly when an individual happens to be a snarky skeptic, like myself.

The discourse soon became a discussion about verification and belief. It all started with a discussion of the ubiquitous Jenny McCarthy and her genuinely dangerous anti-vaccination notions.

8:57amTrent
speaking of bad “science:” [The "Jenny McCarthy Body Count" Video]

8:59amTrent
of course it never occurred to Ms McCarthy that her child was misdiagnosed, and she simply passed on the “bimbo” gene.

9:00amCarrie
of course, there isn’t any evidence presented in that video that actually proves that the increase in vaccine preventable illnesses is actually a direct result of her book or appearance on Oprah…

she may be deluded, but the science geeks can’t have it both ways

even if they’re RIGHT that she’s a complete idiot

or am i being too much of a freethinker here?

9:03amTrent
since they’re hanging it on her, it would have been nice if they could get their hands on figures for how many of those figures were associated with individuals choosing not to vaccinate as a result of of the anti-vaxxers.
but that’s not easily done…

9:03amCarrie
and the fun part is just pointing out that she’s an idiot, i know

9:04amTrent
not just an idiot, but an idiot promoting a delusion with dangerous consequences.

What Jenny McCarthy is espousing is a belief, not a verifiable fact. But what does that distinction mean?

9:04amCarrie
i guess i’m saying that we all tend to agree without question when it comes to information that matches what is already a part of our “world view”

i’ve been trying the experiment of not having a “world view” lately, and it’s pretty fascinating how attached everyone seems to their own version of the universe

9:07amTrent
belief is intensely personal.

9:07amCarrie
not that i’m not attached to my own view, but i’m trying to be aware of mine — hence noticing the lack of scientific evidence for jenny mccarthy’s ‘body count’ while stating it as a fact

Without evidence, a notion is, by definition, unverifiable. That does not mean that it is false, it means that we cannot say whether it is true or false, because there is no evidence supporting either conclusion.

In this Venn diagram, what is verifiable would be within the blue circle and what is real is within the green circle.

So in this case, if it were the case that there were no evidence either way, Jenny McCarthy’s notions could either be real or unreal, but they would be unverifiable, and lay outside the Blue Circle of Verifiability.

In Ms. McCarthy’s particular case however, her notion that vaccines cause autism is verifiably false.

Recently the seminal medical journal article supporting the anti-vaxxers was retracted. Even prior to this removal of the last foundation for their argument, a lack of anything other than anecdotal evidence left the anti-vaxxers notions untenable.

In the second Venn diagram, the distinction between what is verifiably real and what is verifiably false can be seen. The anti-vaxxers notions of a connection between vaccinations and autism lay squarely in the realm of the false, based upon a preponderance of evidence that shows that no such connection exists.

Note that my diagram lists the areas of the verifiable as “provisionally” true and “provisionally” false. Why is that?

And what implications does that hold for beliefs in general? Do I have beliefs? And how do I address them?

9:13amTrent
i am rational about it. except in very rigorously defined systems, such as mathematics, it is not possible to prove via deductive logic that something does not exist.

if compelling evidence could be presented, i’d be open to it.

9:14amCarrie
the only compelling evidence that truly exists for anyone in many cases is personal experience – that fact has been true for all of human history

9:15amTrent
anecdotal experience makes for poor evidence. that’s why science avoids it.

9:17amCarrie
but your belief is in the scientific method? and i’m not being snarky, it’s a serious question

9:19amTrent
this is similar to the argument from believers in the paranormal, that “belief” in the “scientific method” is somehow flawed because it doesn’t support their beliefs.

the scientific method isn’t a belief. belief is something that an individual chooses in the absence of or in the face of evidence. i simply seek proof before provisionally accepting a concept. that acceptance is always open to dismissal if further evidence warrants that. that is what the scientific method is.

9:25amCarrie
i didn’t use the argument that the scientific method is flawed, just tried to point out that you do have an opinion on what type of evidence is compelling to you…

9:25amTrent
yes, verifiable evidence.

9:26amCarrie
ah, the rub is that the evidence of the existence of anything ‘supernatural’ (even in the very loosest sense) is completely verifiable, but only by personal experience

now should i assume that since other folks’ personal experience is not compelling to you, that you assume your own wouldn’t be either?

9:28amTrent
while an individual may have a personal experience, and that experience may be genuinely “supernatural” in nature, if i can’t verfy it independently and objectively, i am unwilling to accept it as evidence. at the same time, i recognize that it is entirely possible that such an experience is “real.” it is simply that i am unable to verify it.

there is a distinction between verifiable and “true” or “real.” verifiable only encompasses those things that can be verified – it does not wholly encompas reality.

9:30amCarrie
so you are saying that even your own personal experience wouldn’t qualify as “verifiable” to you, no matter how “real” that 900 foot jesus looks standing in your yard? lol

9:33amTrent
i am. i could be hallucinating, or simply mistaken, or any other number of potential causes that can color our perceptions and make them differ from what others may perceive or measure. or it could be real. but if i can’t verify it somehow, i would have to question what i had seen.

9:35amCarrie
so do you just ignore what is ‘real’ in favor of what is ‘verifiable’, or do you ever ponder the question of what is outside that ‘verifiable’ circle in the venn diagram of your own personal universe?

9:38amTrent
i accept that not all of what is real may be verifiable, but i do not accept something unverifiable as real. i understand that there is a “gray area” outside of the verifiable. things that lay in that area i accept as neither “true” nor “false” – and if someone claims that such a thing is “true” or “false” i accept that they are not making that statement from a standpoint of critical thinking.

Being in a position of needing to put my understanding into words was a valuable experience, and I thank Carrie for pushing my buttons and making me think.

Just a collection of stories from today’s St. Petersburg Times that caught my eye.

Writer Jerry Blizin revisits the stories he wrote about Mary Reeser back in 1951. Reeser is arguably the best documented and best known example of the non-phenomenon known as “spontaneous human combustion.” What’s interesting is that the FBI got it right at the time:

“Once the body became ignited almost complete destruction occurred from its own fatty tissues,” the FBI reported, adding that the absence of any scorching or adjacent damage was due to the fact that “heat liberated by the burning body has a tendency to rise and form a layer of hot air which never came in contact with the furnishings on the lower level.”

That’s the wick effect, since proven to be the unusual circumstance behind most of the so called spontaneous human combustion cases. Even though this good explanation has been around for more than 50 years, Reeser still shows up all the time in paranormal literature as a “mysterious” case.

Then there’s the story about a Marine reservist who attacked a priest with a tire iron. The priest, who was attacked for no other reason than pure xenophobia, reportedly doesn’t want to press charges because he wants to practice “biblical forgiveness.” I’m not sure what that means legally, but I hope the reservist is still prosecuted. Forgiveness is terrific thing to give to those who are repentant, but I’d hate to think that the priest’s interpretation of his Christian beliefs is going to allow a clearly dangerous man stay free to visit more violence on innocent people.

Finally, there’s a new bar called Club Sinn over by Williams Park, and they’re getting ready to feature scantily clad dancers. No real skeptical angle here, but I have to call attention to the following, regarding whether or not these dancers will make the bar an “adult business”:

What about a bikini, from a legal point of view? “Generally, I would say that a bikini is not a violation. There are small bikinis that are smaller than other bikinis, and those might be a violation,” said Mark Winn, the city’s chief assistant attorney. “You almost have to look at them on a case-by-case basis.”

I’m thinking that the city won’t have much trouble finding selfless public servants willing to look at each and every one of those bikinis. In context.

Today would have been Carl Sagan‘s 75th birthday. Among his many interests, Sagan was an outspoken advocate for skeptical inquiry, critical thinking, and the scientific method.

Carl Sagan with a full-scale mock-up of one of the Viking landers.

In the fall of 1980, I was 14.  I had had a deep interest in science for literally as long as I could remember.  But that fall I was one of millions treated to a voyage of scientific discovery on PBS through Carl Sagan’s Cosmos.  While Cosmos is largely the story of the history of science and how it leads to our understanding of our place in the universe and the world around us, it is also a collection of lessons on critical thinking and the scientific method.

Over the course of the series, Sagan clearly and concisely demonstrated the logical and verifiable flaws in creationism, astrology, and tales of alien abduction and UFOs.

He also discussed the suppression of knowledge, by ancient Greek philosophers, by the early Christian church through its brutal murder of the mathematician Hypatia of the Library of Alexandria, and by the Inquisition against astronomer Galileo Galilei. In our present society, suppression of scientific knowledge for religio-political purposes remains an antagonistic issue.

Years later, in 1995, I had the good fortune to see Carl Sagan speak in person at the annual Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).  The talk was part of a session honoring the late James Pollack, an astrophysicist and former student of Sagan’s.  The talk was to be on the work Sagan and Pollack had done together on the potential for terraforming Mars, but Sagan spent the time telling stories about his former student, colleague, and friend.  It was a kind and generous tribute.

Through his work and his clear elucidation of the wonder of understanding the world through science, he gave us all an immeasurable gift of enlightenment.

Thank you, Carl.

Satirist Andy Borowitz is now writing for the St. Pete Times, and you can read his first column here. Of interest to local skeptics:

In other news, in St. Petersburg, Mayor-elect Bill Foster’s contention that the Earth is only 6,000 years old was challenged today when it was pointed out that many residents of St. Petersburg are older than that.

With the Halloween season just behind us, it seemed timely to take a glance back at what Americans think of supernatural creatures roaming the Earth.

Haloed and Horny – er, Horned

Let’s start with the big guns: angels and demons.  No, not Dan Brown’s Angels and Demons.  The “real” ones.

A 2007 Pew Research survey found that 68% of Americans completely or mostly agree that “angels and demons are active in the world,” while only 14% completely disagreed with this idea.

Interestingly, 4% of those attending evangelical churches completely disagreed with the statement that “angels and demons are active in the world.”  Perhaps these apparently conflicted folks were only showing up at church to score some of that sweet puritanical lovin’ they couldn’t find on ChristianSingles.

[BTW, ChristianSingles, "marriage minded" should be hyphenated.]

Ghosts – Do They Prefer Chicks?

What about ghosts?  A Harris poll published in 2003 found that 51% of Americans believe in the existence of ghosts.  In 2005, a CBS News poll found that not only did 48% of Americans believe in ghosts, but that 22% believed they had actually “seen or felt the presence” of a ghost.

While this potential market may help explain the existence of the “ghost-hunter” shows on cable television, such supportive numbers are at odds with the lack of verifiable evidence, and a dichotomy present in the poll numbers is of interest.

While 22% overall of the CBS poll respondents believed that they had “seen or felt the presence” of a ghost, only 14% of men made that claim, while over twice that percentage of women (29%) felt they had experienced such an occurrence.  Why such a discrepancy?  Do ghosts prefer chicks?  Or vice-versa?

“Ghost” was a chick flick, after all.  You make the call.

Update: It turns out Ray Comfort* is a demonstrable liar. (OK, this is no surprise: he’s been a demonstrable liar on many issues for years. But here’s a nice, concrete example that he’s a demonstrable liar on this particular issue.) In addition to being disingenuous and despicable, turns out he’s also an intellectually dishonest plagiarist. Apparently, What Would Jesus Do? is copy and paste the text of a Darwin biography directly into your introduction, without appropriate citation.

Actually, this situation is even worse than what I was going to blame him for: I had assumed that the various stories I’d seen about this were all referring to the same instance of plagiarism. As it turns out, don’t give a guy like Comfort the benefit of the doubt: There are two separate issues of plagiarism in the first five pages of his introduction! He lifts an entire timeline of Darwin’s life into his book with a citation at the very end, suggesting that only the last statement is being cited, rather than a two-page hunk of text copied verbatim. And he appears to have lifted the preceding biographical essay nearly entire without any citation whatsoever!

And unsurprisingly, what changes there are in the copied text tend to be insulting to Darwin: Changing “in his youth he demonstrated predilections for hunting, natural history, and scientific experimentation” to “young Charles showed less interest in studying than in hunting, natural history, and scientific experimentation”; “In 1839 he married Emma Wedgwood” to “In 1839 he married his cousin Emma Wedgwood”; etc. So, in the entire first five pages – and there’s an entire page of illustration – it looks like he might have written half a page himself.

(Just so I don’t get accused of plagiarism, thanks to PZ Myers for covering this.  )

In other evolutionary update news, check out this week’s Scientific American Podcast, with several concrete examples that one can use to smack people like Comfort upside the head, including the evolution of lactose digestion in adult humans, evolution of malaria resistance through non-ideal means, and NOVA’s new three-part series on human evolution, “Becoming Human” (part one, covering ~7-2 million years ago, was pretty good!)

*For those of you who don’t regularly follow Comfort, his partner-in-stupid is Kirk Cameron. Yes, that Kirk Cameron. No, seriously. No, for real seriously. I know – Reality has just Poe’s Law‘ed itself.