tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26459006889280669342024-02-06T19:42:03.072-08:00SkeptoricalIn our society we are constantly surrounded by convincing but poor arguments. Common rhetorical practice involves the misuse of language and logic in order to prove a point. This blog is dedicated to skeptically looking at this art of rhetoric by breaking down arguments and seeing if they hold water.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-63727258560066571052013-03-05T13:18:00.001-08:002013-03-06T14:41:03.207-08:00The Natural Fallacy and the language of Alt MedI have a general rule of thumb. If something is called alternative medicine it doesn't work, because if it worked we would just call it medicine. Its a good rule of thumb, but it isn't always true because some alternative medicines actually do have active ingredients. This exact issue was addressed in a recent Forbes article: <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/02/28/theres-nothing-special-about-alternative-medicine/"><span style="color: blue;">There's Nothing Special About Alternative Medicine</span></a>. The article pointed out that when an alternative medicine cures you or makes you better it is doing so because the chemicals in that alternative drug are having a chemical reaction with molecules in your body just like what happens with real medicine. The only difference is that the alternative medicine hasn't been tested and shown to work, otherwise it would be medicine. As the author stated<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But it’s important to know that if [alternative meds] are having an effect, when it comes to your body, they’re no different from industrial pharmaceuticals. The meds interact with some molecules and change the way something works, regardless of what you call them. It’s just that with the alt-meds, we often don’t know anything else. By their ‘natural’, usually untested nature, they leave us uninformed.</blockquote>
This is a good summation of the fact that for an alternative medicine to work it must have some sort of chemical effect on the body. However, one commentor took issue with this and dove head first into the natural fallacy my topic for today.<br />
<div>
<a name='more'></a>The natural fallacy is the idea that "natural" things are healthier than "un-natural." This is an interesting idea that we could think about and wonder if it is true. First, we need to define what is "natural" vs. "un-natural" a task that is not as easy as it might seem. Google gives us this definition of natural:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Natural: Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.</blockquote>
Although this seems fairly straight forward, its not as simple as it seems. First, nature created humans, thus, in one sense anything created by humans was also created by nature, thus everything is natural. If that idea doesn't settle well with you then lets move to this idea slowly.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
When humans plant seeds in the ground in rows and grow food that is something caused by humankind, not nature. Thus, food produced by even the simplest of agriculture is technically un-natural. The only way to eat natural food would be living the hunter gatherer lifestyle. Under this definition any food grown by humans is un-natural. Maybe you disagree and say: "the seeds were produced by nature and humans just moved them around a little so basic agriculture is natural." If you think that then lets move on...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvxM8tXZV-GQvOzIChcRHxSt22niWm46P5rSU8rmzSJ2bDhXNLCaKEVkf1PL_oM5nJ1xCJ-veM9iZ4a-8_v1tzD-8F8YRoIKBsM3HNxBmDNLsm_us6NcKsrnVaVaCtskud4WF9zys60eg/s1600/banana2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvxM8tXZV-GQvOzIChcRHxSt22niWm46P5rSU8rmzSJ2bDhXNLCaKEVkf1PL_oM5nJ1xCJ-veM9iZ4a-8_v1tzD-8F8YRoIKBsM3HNxBmDNLsm_us6NcKsrnVaVaCtskud4WF9zys60eg/s200/banana2.jpg" width="168" /></a></div>
<div>
Nearly all foods today are vastly different than their "natural" state because of changes humans made to that food. Since the beginning of agriculture humans have used selective breeding with animals and plants to produce better plants for food and better animals. If you look to the right you can see our modern banana on the top and a wild banana on the bottom. Humans created modern banana from wild banana through selective breeding. As I stated before, bananas are not alone, almost all of our food today is vastly different from the wild versions because of selective breeding. Thus, all of our foods today are un-natural because they were changed by human hands. We bred food to be what we wanted it to be. Maybe you disagree and say: "breeding occurs in nature and humans just guided the breeding so selective breeding is natural." If you think that then lets move on...</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Today new foods are produced through many different techniques. Sometimes the DNA of a food is hit with a large dose of radiation to change its genetic structure. We then select the best results from this process and produce those. Other times we may take the DNA out of one plant and place it in a different plant. I think most of us would say that this is un-natural. But, we could disagree just as we did above. Radiation occurs naturally from the sun and many other sources on earth. This radiation has changed the DNA of things on earth in the past, so when humans do it we are just guiding the radiation (like our guiding hand in selective breeding). With genetic engineering humans are just taking the DNA that nature created and moving it around (just like the seeds we moved into rows).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even chemicals that are produced in a laboratory could be said to be "natural" in some sense. Chemical reactions are constantly happening in nature, our stomachs convert the food we eat into energy we can use by changing the chemical structure of the food we eat, the sun fuses hydrogen into helium, and the photosynthesis in plants is a chemical reaction that uses the suns rays to create energy for the plant. We could argue that laboratories just use human hands to guide completely natural chemical reactions just the same as we said selective breeding was human hands guiding the process of natural breeding.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The point I am moving toward is that its hard to determine what is natural and what is un-natural. There isn't a bright line that clearly marks when something becomes un-natural. The problem is that humans are a part of nature and everything we do is simply a manipulation of nature. It is strange that at some certain point we suddenly say that our manipulations of nature are no longer natural. We don't do this for any other species. No-one argues that a bird nest, a termite mound, or a monkey using sticks to fish termites out of that mound is un-natural. It seems odd to also say that human manipulation of nature is un-natural.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is one of the reasons I think the term Natural is so worthless, it doesn't really tell us much useful. But there are other reasons that I think the the word "natural" isn't helpful. People often use the word "natural" to mean "healthy." As if the fact that something is natural somehow instantly makes it healthy. But, as I pointed out above, its hard to even determine when something suddenly becomes un-natural.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And we all know most of nature is actually extremely dangerous to us. Natural sunlight will burn our skin if we stay out in it too long. Most plants in the wild we cannot eat because they contain natural poisons that will make us sick or kill us. Natural animals and parasites roam the wild that are just waiting to kill us or invade our bodies so they can eat us.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Even worse, dangerous chemicals exist all around us. The B.P. oil spill in the gulf released natural oil into the gulf. Would you replace your cup of coffee with a cup of all-natural oil? The all natural metals we use to produce our buildings were pulled out of the ground where they natural occur but I wouldn't want to sit down to a meal of iron ore. Or take a look at the beautiful ocean in front of us, but don't drink because the natural salt water in the ocean is unhealthy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Of course there are also many dangerous things made by humans as well. But, the point I am making is that just because something says "natural" does not mean it is safe. And many things we would consider to be un-natural actually are safe. Would you rather drink synthetic water produced in a laboratory by combining oxygen atoms with hydrogen atoms or drink a cup full of natural oil from the B.P. oil spill? The answer is obvious, we prefer water and we know that water produced in the lab is identical to water occurring in nature. Water is always the chemical H20. All of the water we see in nature was created by chemical reactions between hydrogen and oxygen that produced H20. There is no difference between whether we made it in the lab or nature created it when hydrogen and oxygen bumped into each other.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now with that introduction I want to delve into the poetic rhetoric of the natural fallacy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Natural Fallacy: Romanticism and poetic rhetoric</b></div>
<div>
The natural fallacy is the idea that natural things are inherently better than un-natural. As I discussed above, it is hard to determine what things are actually un-natural and I also pointed out that many natural things are dangerous. The natural fallacy ignores these facts and holds to a romantic view of nature and uses romantic poetic language to perpetuate the view that natural is better for us. This poetic language is a form of rhetoric used to convince people that natural is better and it is what I want to discuss next. To discuss this further I want to quote portions of the comment that I mentioned at the beginning of this post.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Granted, herbs and supplements interact on molecules and cells in the body just as do pharmaceuticals. However, they present to the body more like old friends than like highly specialized, concentrated entities. Our bodies prefer “whole” substances to refined.</blockquote>
<div>
This is the perfect example of romanticized notions of natural herbs. The idea that natural substances "present to the body like old friends" is simply nonsense hidden behind poetic language. First off, why in the world would we believe natural herbs would be like "old friends" to the chemicals in our bodies. Remember, half of nature is trying to kill us to eat us and the other half is trying to prevent us from eating it. That is why so many plants have toxic chemicals in them, they are trying to stop us from eating them. From this perspective natural chemicals are more like old enemies than old friends. But, that doesn't fit well into the romanticized version of nature that many people hold so they choose to ignore it.<br />
<br />
I also have to wonder how these herbs and the body "recognize" each other. I picture the chemicals in my body saying to the chemicals in an herb:<br />
<br />
<b>My body</b>: "hi joe herb, good to see you again"<br />
<b>The Herb</b>: "hi Bob body, watch out for Jean Medicine, I don't recognize him, I think he's from France."<br />
<b>The Medicine</b>: "Hey, I might be from France but I'm just a chemical like you two!"<br />
<br />
All of our synthetic chemicals were produced from natural chemicals and many synthetic chemicals are identical to chemicals occurring in nature. There is no good reason to believe natural ones are any better than un-natural. But, using poetic language like "old friends" can trick people into believing there is some difference.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
The comment continues with the natural fallacy stating:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The question is a difference with biochemical approach overall. Pharmaceutical drugs are much more toxic than herbs and supplements and people know this. They do not represent a coordiated approach to the body systems. They often don’t recognize each other biochemically in the body like foods and herbs.</blockquote>
Again the commentor is using poetic rhetoric to obscure the fact that her words are nonsense. She says Pharmaceuticals "do not represent a coordinated approach to the body systems." What in the world is a "coordinated approach" and is a "coordinated approach" actually good for us? And why would natural herbs and alternative medicine give us this "coordinated approach" where real medicine does not. This is simply nonsense language that sounds nice and flowery.<br />
<br />
Next the commentor tells us:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The educated use of herbs can, just like diet and lifestyle adjustments, heal a person from pharmaceutical dependencies and prevent same. The word healing implies promotion of adaptive physiological processes. Curing is something you do to prevent the spoilage of meat. </blockquote>
<div>
Here is where the flowery language gets really crazy. First the author tells us herbs can heal us from pharmaceutical dependency, a completely unfounded claim. The author seems to imply that herbs heal while pharmaceuticals cure. Then she states this nonsense "Curing is something you do to prevent the spoilage of meat." This is a clear demonstration that the commentor does not understand how language works. Curing has multiple meanings. One definition of curing is a process designed to prevent the spoilage of meat. But, this is very different from the medical definition of the word. In medical terms curing is the process of stopping a disease. The commentor is confusing these definitions but trying to make some poetic connection between these to very different things.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here is a perfect example of poetic language and appealing to our innate ideas that natural is better.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Using nature in our healing just makes sense.</blockquote>
This is the natural fallacy in full force. It just assumes that natural is better but as I already discussed nature is in fact very dangerous. Then the poetic natural nonsense continues in her next comment:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Science is the study of nature. Nature holds the key to understanding through science. Nature is always right. Science, sometimes, is wrong.<br />
Nature holds the hologram onto which all things are manifest; animate and inanimate. Nature is the set of everything, known and unknown. Science is the set of the known. This does not mean that unknown things are not true. Especially things which have a long history of use.<br />
Natural remedies come from nature. They come directly from life or are simple life promoting elements.</blockquote>
<div>
This comment shows a vast lack of understanding of science. She is right, that science is the study of nature. But she is wrong, nature is not always "right," nature just exists and science is our method for learning about nature. That nature is always "correct" is simply a poetic way of looking at nature and doesn't actually mean anything. Science of course may not give us the correct interpretation of nature, but the only way to find out science is wrong is with more better science. Because if science is the study of nature the only way to find out if we are wrong about nature is with more science.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The commentor then runs into her biggest fallacy stating "Science is the set of the known. This does not mean that unknown things are not true." She is of course right, unknown things may be true. But at the same time unknown things may also be false. The unknown is simply unknown and we don't know if it is true or false. Somehow she wants to jump from the fact that we don't know if some alternative treatment works to stating that she knows it does work. Her excuse that it has been used for a long time. This is a ridiculous idea that length of use somehow means something works. It is a poetic notion that alternative medicines are natural and have been used forever so they probably do work. Well, lets set her up with some blood letting next time she gets sick.</div>
<div>
<b><br /></b></div>
<div>
<b>Conclusion</b></div>
<div>
The word "natural" tells us very little about health. Everything around us is a chemical and any chemical made by humans comes from nature. The only difference is the process by which we have changed it. People who believe that natural = good ignore the fact that most of nature is trying to fight us while on the other hand most human made (aka un-natural) things have been designed to benefit us. Instead they believe romantic notions that nature is pure and beautiful and only works to protect us. If you really believe this I say why not trade out your morning cup of coffee for a big cup of all natural oil from the B.P. oil spill.</div>
Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-10347717467451273482013-02-25T13:45:00.001-08:002013-02-25T13:45:21.570-08:00The Principal of Charity and FramingMy recent posts have discussed schisms in the skeptical/atheist movement on arising from discussions of sexism issues. Steven Novella has a great post at his blog Neurologica entitled <a href="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/moving-forward/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Moving Forward</span></a> that discusses a way to move forward past some of these issues. I want to add on to what Dr. Novella has written about and discuss the problem of framing<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 110%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 8.0pt;">—</span>that each of us views an event from our own reference frame and personal experiences that may cause us to discount the different experiences other people have had leading up to that event.<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Dr. Novella argues that we should all use the <i>principal of charity</i> when attacking others arguments stating that:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
Before you set out to criticize someone’s claim or position, you should endeavor to grant that position its best possible case. Don’t assume the worst about your opponent, assume the best. Give them any benefit of the doubt. At the very least this will avoid creating a straw man to attack, or opening yourself up to charges that you are being unfair.</blockquote>
This is something I always try to do, though I am of course far from perfect and I often go back to read my writing and find cases where I failed to do this. In order to use the <i>principal of charity</i> Dr. Novella points out that we should also use the <i>principal of understanding</i>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
make every effort to truly understand your opponent’s position before attacking it.</blockquote>
This <i>principal of understanding</i> and how it relates to framing of issues is what I want to discuss in this post.<div>
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div>
<i>Framing</i> (as I use the term) is the idea that everyone has their own viewpoint or reference frame that is based on their experiences. If we have different reference frames we will often view events in completely different ways. Framing is not only affected by our personal history but often rhetoric can completely change our view of events. The words that someone chooses to use when writing about an event can create a framework that biases readers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Before I get into framing in the skeptical movement I want to use an example of a real life dispute that occurred between two of my friends (with minor detail changes to make the example work better).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>The Problem with Framing</b></div>
<div>
I have two friends Dick and Charles (names changed). They both know each other and are friends but they each tend to move in different circles. Recently I was at a wedding with both of them when an extremely unexpected incident occurred. After the ceremony and during the reception we were all out on the dance floor dancing and enjoying ourselves. Dick and Charles were dancing near each other and I happened to look over just in time to see Charles punch Dick in the face, hard. A number of us jumped in to break up the fight and I was totally disgusted with my friend Charles. I had never seen Charles act this way and a number of us were shocked and talked about him behind his back afterwards about how out of line it was for him to punch Dick.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
From my frame of reference Charles was completely out of line because he punched Dick for absolutely no reason. But, my frame wasn't a neutral frame because I didn't have all the details.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I later learned from another friend that Dick was one of those guys who messes with people. He gives people titty twisters, hits people in the balls, and does other things like this that many of us consider to be immature. I learned that Dick had a history of hitting Charles in the balls and that Charles had repeatedly told him to stop. But Dick always laughed and kept hitting Charles. It turns out that the wedding was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. Dick had turned to Charles as if to say something and when Charles turned toward him Dick flicked him in the balls. Charles, being a little drunk and fed up with Dick's bullying, finally decided to stand up for himself and do something to stop Dick. So Charles punched Dick in the face as hard as he could.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Suddenly, I understood the framing that Charles was using. Charles' actions that I at first considered abusive and out of line made sense. So, I switched my view and thought that Dick was, well, a Dick. I couldn't understand why he wouldn't just stop hitting Charles in the balls when Charles had repeatedly told him not to.</div>
<div>
<br />But, as I learned Dick also had his own framed view of the world that explained why he acted how he did. As I mentioned, Dick and Charles each had different circles of friends that they tended to associate with. Recently I spent some time with Dick's groups of friends and I learned something. They all pull little pranks on each other constantly. They hit each other in the balls, they give each other titty twisters, they tie each others shoes together, and then they all laugh about it together. People get mad when it happens to them and tell other people to stop it, but then they laugh about it and everything is fine. This is the world that Dick was coming from. In his reference frame it was normal to mess with people and thus he never realized that Charles really meant it when he asked Dick to stop hitting him.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This event reminded me that every event can be viewed in many different ways depending on the history that lead a person to that event.It took understanding each sides history and personal view to understand why my friends behaved the way that they did. This problem could have been solved if either of them had stopped to think about the reference frame of the other and talk about the issue. Instead, their lack of understanding caused them to end up in a near fight at a wedding.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Our Personal Reference Frames as blog readers</b></div>
<div>
The current skeptical and atheist movements tend to involve a significant amount of conversation through blog posts and comments on blog posts. There is a wide tangled web of information and writing on numerous issues connected by links and themes. None of us have read all of the blog posts, comments, or emails that frame these issues. In fact, even with the things we have read we likely only remember a small portion and have difficulty remembering the location or the exact words that were used. But we remember themes or specific offensive or good ideas that stick out to us.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I personally have noticed that I often read blog posts or comments that I personally disagree with or that I think are stupid or wrong. When reading through the comments I often find myself simply nodding when I agree with people but when I see something that I find offensive or that I disagree with I get mad and I remember. This also means that most of my comments are directed toward combating the worst abuses I see in the comments rather than addressing the more reasonable views or the common themes. My response is then likely to be aggressive in tone. This has the potential to create a cascading effect where people see my response but fail to realize what I am responding to and also get offended and then make their own response which causes other more exaggerated outraged responses.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This problem of limited ability to read everything and limited ability to comment causes each of us to have our own personal reference frame of these divisive events surrounding sexism in the skeptical movement. In our own eyes each of us is right because we are addressing the issues from our personal reference frame and forgetting that others may have reached the same blogpost through a different reading history.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think that a large part of this debate has been caused by these different histories. There are of course horrible people writing horrible things that derail conversations. But, I think there are also many reasonable people that are arguing with each other merely because their view of the events has been shaped by a different reading history. This is why so many people who call themselves "skeptics" and believe in using rationality and logic to answer questions are arriving at such polarized answers on these issues.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
<b>Framing and the Skeptical Movement</b></div>
<div>
Sexism in the skeptical and atheist movement has created a storm that, I believe, exists in a large part due to the different viewpoints people have based on their own personal reading history. I cannot imagine what it is like to receive the horrible abuse that people like Rebecca Watson of Skepchick receive. When I look at Ms. Watson's writings through the framing of the abuse she receives I can understand why she gets angry and lashes out at these transgressions. Like my friend Charles, she has had enough of the abuse and has every right to defend herself. Although I may believe punching someone is wrong I have to stop and ask myself whether I would behave differently. In fact, as humans, sometimes all we can do when subject to these sorts of abuses is to fight back with our fists because we are angry and tired of being abused.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If Ms. Watson wants to punch these Dicks in the face with her words then good for her. If she overreacts and says things that might appear illogical or incorrect we should all remember that from her frame she is defending herself from serious abuse. If we want to respond to her we should try to respond in a way that takes into account her framing and understands the abuse she has received. Ms. Watson was like my friend Charles, she's had too much abuse and is fed up with it. There are cases where I had thought she was acting inappropriately, but, after learning the history I realized I had been wrong because I didn't understand her framing.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Many of us have not received the abuse people Like Watson receive and have not seen the abuse that is poured onto some bloggers. From this reference frame we see wild accusations of sexism, misogyny, and abuse that we think is directed at us. From our reference frame blog posts may appear to be overreactions and exaggerated rhetorical attacks against mild statements (i.e. <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2013/02/shermer-its-not-guy-thing.html" style="background-color: white;" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Shermer's its a guy thing</span></a>.) We have this view because we are not subject to the same horrible treatment. This is just like my initial view of Charles at the wedding. I couldn't understand his reaction and decision to punch because I hadn't seen the history that lead up to the punch.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I believe this is why many feminists try to discuss issues of male privilege to explain to us why our framing may be preventing us from understanding the issues they face. But, then going back to the other side, the use of the word privilege can alienate men because in some contexts it can appear to be a condescending attack on us based merely on the fact that we are male as I discussed <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2012/01/skeptical-sexism.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a> (warning, I wrote that a while ago and I am still learning about these issues so I would love to have constructive criticism if I get issues of sexism wrong due to my framing of the issues). My point there was that our framing of the issue might cause us to view someone pointing out privilege as an accusatory attack on our credibility. This back and forth of framing can dig us deeper into our sides and prevent understanding.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think this idea of framing also allows us to understand the abusers, people like my friend Dick. Some people may simply live in an internet culture where abuse is the norm and nobody takes it seriously. To them, internet abuse is simply the way of the internet and they can deal it out as much as they take it. But, just because we understand why they do what they do does not mean we should put up with it. We all should do our part to tell them to stop and explain that they should treat others with respect. And, when they refuse to listen we should do our best to criticize all acts of internet bullying whether it is merely an annoyance or it is death threats. Just because we understand why they behave how they do doesn't mean we need to accept that behavior or agree with them. On the other hand, we should be careful not to discount the Dicks just because they are Dicks. We should remember that from their framing being a Dick is normal and that their good ideas might be hidden within Dickish behavior.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Likewise, we should also be careful not to assume that those who disagree with us are associated with the Dick's of the internet. When I initially was mad at my friend Charles for punching Dick, it wasn't because I approved of Dick's ball tapping. It was because I disagree with punching people as a rule and I didn't understand the context that made punching necessary in that specific situation. I think this is an easy nuance to miss. Those of us who didn't see abusive behavior may chose to criticize the one who we see throwing the first punch. Again, its not because we agree with the abuse, it's because we saw the punch first.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Responsibility of Top Level Bloggers</b></div>
<div>
Word choice is everything when talking about an issue. If I use loaded language when I describe another person's actions it is likely my readers (if there are any) will interpret those actions through the lens of my accusatory language. If I accuse someone of sexism, say they made a horribly sexist comment, that they intended to disparage women, then I quote that person, it is likely that I will have biased all my readers and framed the issue in an inflammatory way. Likewise, if I say other bloggers are irrational, they made illogical arguments, they straw manned my position and then move on to quoting them it is likely that readers will be biased by my introduction. That is one of the reasons I have tried to start <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2013/02/ive-been-waiting-to-write-about-recent.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">my recent posts</span></a> with links to the source material prior to my criticisms. I want to avoid biasing the issue. But even so, my choice on who to criticize and on what topics will of course create bias to anyone who reads what I have written. And in turn, my choices on what to criticize have been made because of my personal framing of the issues.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think this an important idea for prominent bloggers to think about before writing. They are in a special position of power to frame issues to their readership. Their framing doesn't just affect them. It will be spread by their readership out from their blog to "enemy" blogs and vice versa.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Although we all get angry and want to criticize those we disagree with it seems to me that many of these debates could be resolved if top level bloggers did their best to frame debates in neutral non-inflammatory ways. A little time taken at the start to try to understand the other side could prevent issues from exploding in a giant internet fireball. I fully agree with Dr. Novella's principal of debate that we should always frame our opponents argument in the best possible light.</div>
Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-75392886780094495812013-02-21T16:43:00.000-08:002013-02-21T16:47:44.931-08:00Un-Labeling GMOs part II: Why I am Pro GMO<a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2012/05/un-labelling-gmos.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Last spring I wrote a criticism of proposition 37 in California</span></a>, a law that if it had passed would have forced any food containing GMO's to be labeled. Luckily, this legislation failed. However, the fight has not ended and now, in my home state of Washington, an eerily similar GMO labeling law is moving through the legislature.<br />
<br />
Since this issue is arising again I want to address the issue. I already discussed why GMOs are likely safe, why wanting to know if something is in food isn't enough to require labeling, and why GMO labeling would actually harm the ability of consumers to make an informed choice.<br />
<br />
Rather than repeat my previous arguments I want to explain why I am pro GMO and clear up some misunderstandings of GMOs that I have noticed when reading attacks on GMOs by those who are anti-GMO. My post is not intended to be exhaustive on these subjects. I merely intend this as a starting point and encourage everyone to do their own research on the issue, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food" target="_blank">wikipedia has some sources that make a great starting point</a>.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>I am pro GMO because I am an environmentalist and believe in food safety</b>.<br />
I am pro GMO because I believe in protecting the environment.<br />
<br />
Imagine if we could find a way to use less pesticides when growing food. Imagine if we could grow more food while using less land and less fertilizer. Imagine if we could make foods that had more vitamins and fewer unhealthy ingredients.<br />
<br />
Genetic engineering (GMOs) have the promise to bring all these things. I admit, the science is not perfect, their will be mistakes, and it will take time to get things right. I also admit that many companies may abuse GMOs for their own profit.<br />
<br />
But genetic engineering has so much potential to protect our environment that those of us who call ourselves environmentalists do injustice to the planet by fighting GMOs. I believe it is wrong to stop research merely because some people are abusing that research. Instead, why don't we fight the abusers directly. And many people are using genetic engineering primarily to benefit the world. Look at golden rice, a product that is designed to provide vitamin A to people who have vitamin deficiencies. Today, 670,000 children under age 5 die every year from vitamin A deficiency. I find it hard to justify fighting a product that has the potential to save many of these children's lives just because I don't like Monsanto.<br />
<br />
<b>GMO is not an ingredient</b><br />
"I have a right to know if GMO is in my food." -anti GMO belief<br />
<br />
GMO is not an ingredient in food. If we look at the mandatory FDA labeling on a food package we will find a list of ingredients and nutritional facts. GMO will never be listed because it is not an ingredient.<br />
<br />
<b>Then what is GMO?</b><br />
GMO is a process. It is a process for changing the genetics of plants and animals by directly changing the genes.<br />
<br />
You may not realize it but all food today has been genetically engineered through selective breeding. We have all seen the results of selective breeding in man's best friend--dogs. We have a wide variety of dogs from big to small, short hair to long hair that have all been created by humans. We created these dogs by changing the genes of dogs through breeding dogs that had the traits we wanted. Short haired dogs were bread with other short haired dogs to get short hair genes into baby dogs. This is a messy process of genetic engineering that takes a long time.<br />
<br />
Nearly all of the food we eat today has gone through this same process of gene selection. In fact, humans have been selectively breeding plants for thousands of years. From the early days of farming humans have been using selective breeding to genetically engineer better foods.<br />
<br />
Modern GMOs are simply a faster and more direct way to achieve this same result. Rather than using selective breeding to insert genes, the genes are inserted directly into the next generation.<br />
<br />
So remember all food has been genetically engineered. If you fear what is in modern GMOs you have just as much reason to fear all other foods that were created by selective breeding.<br />
<br />
<b>Every GMO is Different</b><br />
Every single GMO is different. Some genetically engineered foods may have natural pesticides inserted into their genetics while others may simply have vitamins increased. In addition, some GMOs may have been thoroughly tested and shown to be safe.<br />
<br />
It makes little sense to be anti-GMO as a whole because all GMOs are different. We all should oppose genetically engineered foods that turn out to be dangerous. But, every GMO needs to be tested on its own to find out if it is dangerous.<br />
<br />
<b>GMO labeling requirements will apply to all GMOs, even ones shown to be safe.</b><br />
If we force labeling of GMOs it will apply to all GMOs even safe ones. This is hardly fair. Imagine that a company decides to thoroughly safety test its food. Even once the company proves its food is safe it will still have to sell the food under a "contains GMO" label.<br />
<br />
This means that a law forcing labeling of GMOs will actually encourage companies like Monsanto not to test their food because testing will provide them no benefit since they have to label anyways. Shouldn't we promote good behavior by companies by not discouraging testing?<br />
<br />
<b>I agree Monsanto has shady business practices</b><br />
Monsanto and other big businesses tend to use practices to generate profits that many of us disagree with. I'll totally agree that profiteering can lead to misuse of GMOs.<br />
<br />
But, that isn't a good reason to oppose all GMOs. Instead we should target the manipulative business practices and try to convince our legislature to prevent these abuses.<br />
<br />
<b>Not Every GMO is made by Monsanto</b><br />
Big businesses aren't the only ones making GMOs. Universities and non-profits are also trying to make GMOs to help save lives and protect our environment. So next time you knock all GMOs remember that you are also attacking people who are very likely doing more than the rest of us to save our planet.<br />
<br />
<b>Should we use sustainable farming techniques instead of GMOs?</b><br />
"We shouldn't use GMOs because they use monocultures that destroy the environment" anti-GMO belief<br />
<br />
This statement is misleading because we should use sustainable farming techniques <i>and</i> GMOs. Unsustainable farming techniques aren't a symptom of GMOs, they are a symptom of corporate profiteering. Even if you take GMOs out of the picture corporations are still likely to only see the short term and use unsustainable farming techniques. Again, if you don't like these practices contact your legislature to tell them to stop short sighted farming practices.<br />
<br />
Remember, we can use sustainable farming and GMOs to do even more to protect the environment.<br />
<br />
<b>Myth: "I heard that rats fed GMOs developed tumors!"</b><br />
There was a recent study that claimed to show that feeding rats GMOs caused those rats to develop tumors. But it was a shady study and I don't say that lightly. <a href="http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-gm-corn-rat-study/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Here are some things that the authors of the study did</span></a>:<br />
<ul>
<li>They studied rats that are normally used for cancer research because they tend to get tumors after two years. In fact, it is considered inhumane to let this breed of rat live beyond two years because tumors are so common.</li>
<li>They used manipulative statistics and research techniques to make it look like the tumors were caused by GMOs.</li>
<li>They released their study to reporters prior to having it reviewed by other researchers in the field.</li>
<li>They forbid reporters from seeking outside comment on their research. Reporters were required to sign an agreement stating that they would report what they were told and could not ask for other researchers to comment on the paper.</li>
</ul>
Imagine what you would say if you heard Monsanto performed this study where they used manipulative statistics and forced reporters to report the findings without talking to other researchers. You would be shouting "conspiracy to hide the truth!" I would just ask that you apply that same level of skepticism to this study.<br />
<br />
<b>How can I tell if a GMO is healthy?</b><br />
What makes a food healthy or unhealthy is what is in the food. Every food is made of chemicals, some chemicals are bad some are good. Don't be scared by the word chemical. Remember, water is a chemical with two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom to make a water molecule or H20. Water is a perfectly healthy chemical just like all the other healthy chemicals in foods we eat.<br />
<br />
Every ingredient in food whether natural or artificial has a chemical structure just like water does. When we look at any food we need to wonder whether it is full of healthy chemicals or whether it also has dangerous chemicals. It takes a lot of research to determine what chemicals are in food.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>I just want to avoid GMOs because genetic engineering is new technology and I want to wait to find out if it is safe.</b><br />
First, remember that all foods have been genetically modified through selective breeding. Modern genetic engineering is not that different from these older procedures. In fact, there are many foods that have only been recently produced by selective breeding. If you fear GMOs then you should also fear all other foods.<br />
<br />
Singling out GMOs as potentially worse than other foods only makes sense if we limit our selection to untested GMOs that have been engineered in a way that adds chemicals that could be dangerous to human health. If we want to label GMOs why not label GMO foods that introduce a new or known dangerous chemical instead of labeling all GMOs.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>But GMOs aren't tested are they?</b><br />
<a href="http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Actually GMOs are fairly well tested and have been shown to be safe</span></a>. And producers of GMOs have good reason to test. Most of us complain that we live in a litigious culture where everyone sues everyone else when they get injured. Companies that sell GMOs stand to lose a lot of money if they put a product on the market that causes harm to consumers. Of course, this will be a cost benefit analysis to them. They will look at the cost of potential lawsuits and perform only the most cost effective testing to ensure safety. But this also means they will likely test for any obvious or potential risk because they don't want to sell a dangerous product. Of course, companies will have little incentive to research long term health effects that are difficult to detect. But, those kinds of risks are just as likely to exist in traditional foods.<br />
<br />
A surprising fact about GMOs is that they are actually tested far more thoroughly than traditional foods. Thus, it is likely that they will be safer than traditional foods because there will have been testing for long term risks.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
The question whether any food is safe must be done on a case by case basis whether that food is a GMO or it is a traditional food. We should of course encourage testing of new products like GMOs. But, we shouldn't fear GMOs for bad reasons such as being anti-Monsanto or based on bad research.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-2456138278783653512013-02-18T16:24:00.001-08:002013-02-21T14:54:29.426-08:00Does PZ Myers support rape?I am over PZ. PZ was one of the first atheist bloggers I started following but I just can't do it anymore. I've been checking PZ's sources more and more only to discover that he often writes inflammatory posts attacking others that are based on misleading information. Today, I found one such case that was so ridiculous that I just can't read PZ anymore.<br />
<br />
Well, as I did with my last criticism of PZ I want to start with the history leading up to PZ's post so here it is:<br />
<br />
First read <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/over-it_b_1089013.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">this Poem By Eve Ensler entitled <i>Over It</i></span></a>.<br />
<br />
Second read about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Billion_Rising" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">the one billing rising movement at wikipedia</span></a>.<br />
<br />
Third, read <a href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/over_it/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Ben Radford's criticism of the One billing rising movement</span></a>.<br />
<br />
Fourth, read <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/02/16/you-dont-get-to-be-over-rape/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">PZ's article</span></a>.<br />
<br />
Finally, read the two sources PZ cited:<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/natalie-gyte/one-billion-rising-why-i-wont-support_b_2684595.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;"> Natalie Gyte's criticism of the one billion rising movement</span></a> and <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/02/he-is-over-the/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Ophelia Benson's criticism of Radford's article</span></a>.<br />
<br />
-pause-<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Ok, sorry that was a lot of reading material but if you read it all I think you'll be noticing what I immediately noticed. It doesn't look like PZ thoroughly read any of the history. The problem is that the lack of reading caused him to misrepresent Ben Radford's position.<br /><br />Before I start I want to apologize for my inflammatory title. I generally stay away from these, but I am criticizing an article by PZ that uses a misleading title so I decided to do the same to prove a point. Now PZ has not outright stated that he supports rape, but if you take his argument to the logical conclusion based on a literal reading it looks like he is supporting rape. I don't think he actually does support rape, I think he just failed to read and understand material he was quoting thus leading to his statements that make it appear he supports rape.<br />
<br />
PZ blog post title tells us that Ben Radford doesn't get to be "over rape." Well, when Radford said "I'm over rape" he was actually quoting Eve Ensler's poem. Radford was writing his own poem following Ensler's poetic format. The obvious intent of the words "I'm over rape" for both Radford and Ensler was to say "it is time to stop rape." Both "over it" poems are essentially poem's used to vent ones frustrations with things that they dislike in the world they see. When Radford says he is over rape he is thus saying that he is so tired of the fact that rape is still occurring and that we haven't stopped it yet. It's a statement against rape. In fact Radford's if we read the next sentence after "I'm over rape" we see:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I'm over rape. I join mothers, sisters, fathers, brothers, and lovers in condemning rape and all manner of violence against women.</blockquote>
Thus, PZ saying Radford doesn't get to be over rape is essentially a statement in support of rape. If we take PZ myers article at face value he appears to be saying you don't get to condemn rape.<br />
<br />
That being said. I don't think PZ really supports rape. I think he is just a busy man and is taking shortcuts by assuming what Radford meant rather than actually reading and understanding. PZ seems to have misinterpreted "over it" to mean that Radford doesn't care about rape anymore. Had PZ read Radford's article he might have discovered Radford was in fact arguing the opposite. PZ's lack of reading and understanding is apparent throughout the entirety of PZ's article and I want to use three examples to demonstrate this.<br />
<br />
<b>Example 1</b><br />
PZ says this of Radford:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I have to mention that I agree with him on one thing: this One Billion Rising stuff leaves me cold, for reasons that <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/natalie-gyte/one-billion-rising-why-i-wont-support_b_2684595.html">Natalie Gyte articulates so well</a>. Radford’s reasons, though, are classic hyperskepticism. </blockquote>
So PZ agrees with Natlie Gyte's reason but disagrees with Radfords. The problem is, both Gyte and Radford cite the same reason for being against the march: that it is slactivism, activism that is unlikely to solve problems but just makes the participant feel good. Seriously, read Radford and Gyte, you'll notice that they really do have the same concern. Although Gyte expressed it more eloquently they actually are both concerned about slactivism.<br />
<br />
In addition, PZ links to Ophelia Benson's criticism of Radford. To start, I want to say that Benson has spot on criticism, she nails Radford for straw manning feminism and good for her. But despite being highly critical of his straw man arguments Radford still stated that she had no problem with Radford's criticism of one-billion. As she states in the comments of her article:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Ok. Ensler’s idea leaves me cold too. If Radford’s post had stopped with [his criticism of one-billion rising], I would have had no issue with it. But Radford made a great many more sweeping generalizations after he was finished with Ensler, and I took issue with many of those. Not all of them, but many of them.</blockquote>
So PZ has shown not only that he didn't read or understand Radford's article but he also cites sources that don't support his criticism.<br />
<br />
<b>Example 2</b><br />
If you read PZ's article you will notice that he tries really hard to make it look like Radford's primary criticism of one-billion rising was that it used statistical flaws. However, I think that is misleading and disingenuous. Radford's only stated reason for being against one-billion rising is that it is slactivisim, the same reason that Benson and Gyte used for being cold to one-billion rising.<br />
<br />
When Radford mentions statistics he simply says that they have lead him to question Ensler's causes and that he prefers real statistics to be used because the real statistics are "alarming enough without exaggerating them." He never states that his objection to one-million rising is that their statistics were wrong. This is simply a fabrication by PZ.<br />
<br />
<b>Example 3</b><br />
This example also deals with PZ's discussion of statistics. PZ criticizes Radford for being "hyperskeptical" of statistics used to support causes. To start I want to cite Radford's actually quote about statistics:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I am over exaggerated and alarmist statistics being used to scare the public about any social agenda-whether I agree with that agenda or not. The real numbers are alarming enough without exaggerating them. One rape is just as much of an injustice as a billion rapes; one rape is too many.</blockquote>
Radfords quote has a footnote that points out that one-billion rising used a statistic that one-third of women will be raped or beaten. Radford argues that the statistic is a little misleading because it also includes things like verbal abuse. At the end of the footnote Radford says:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
All these are serious, legitimate problems, but not all of them are physical beatings or rape (nor even involve men). This is important because mischaracterizing the statistic as reflecting women either being "raped or beaten" harms victimized women instead of empowering them by not reflecting the true diversity of forms of abuse.</blockquote>
If we read Radford in context he appears to be making a simple complaint about statistics. He thinks we should use accurate statistics because they are more powerful statement and are better for raising awareness of the issues.<br />
<br />
Somehow PZ twists this into:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Radford’s hyperskepticism is so fierce that he objects to Ensler using 3 general words — raped, beaten, violated — instead of 26 more specific words, but is willing to overlook the horrific truth that she is correct and one billion women will suffer for their sex in their lifetime.</blockquote>
I cannot see how PZ made the leap of logic from Radford's statements to the idea that Radford "is willing to overlook the horrific truth that she is correct and one billion women will suffer for their sex in their lifetime." Radford never says anything remotely like this. In fact, he states the exact opposite, when he says things like:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"All these are serious, legitimate problems."</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
and </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I join mothers, sisters, fathers, brothers, and lovers in condemning rape and all manner of violence against women."</blockquote>
<div>
<b>Conclusion:</b></div>
<br />
PZ's failure to read and understand isn't just his own failure. He has spread this misunderstanding to all of his readership. PZ didn't even give a link to Radford's article so how are his readers supposed to discover that PZ was misleading them.<br />
<br />
Try digging through the comments and you will see the same errors in reasoning made by PZ repeated over and over again. This is the exact same problem I was discussing in my last few posts. This is why I am going to stop reading PZ and I hope others will as well. Its not worth the risk of being biased by PZ's poor reasoning.<br />
<br />
If I were to write my own "over it" poem right now it would start with:<br />
<br />
"I'm over debates caused by bloggers who fail to read the original sources."<br />
<br />
<b>Sources:</b><br />
<a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/02/16/you-dont-get-to-be-over-rape/">http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/02/16/you-dont-get-to-be-over-rape/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/02/he-is-over-the/">http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/02/he-is-over-the/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/over_it/">http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/over_it/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/natalie-gyte/one-billion-rising-why-i-wont-support_b_2684595.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/natalie-gyte/one-billion-rising-why-i-wont-support_b_2684595.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/over-it_b_1089013.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eve-ensler/over-it_b_1089013.html</a>Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-58894888887694548852013-02-15T18:06:00.002-08:002013-02-21T15:19:21.599-08:00PZ's witch huntThis is the third piece in my discussion on skeptical fails in the skeptical movement. If you haven't read my first two pieces discussing<span style="color: blue;"> <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2013/02/ive-been-waiting-to-write-about-recent.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Ophelia Benson</span></a></span> and <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2013/02/shermer-its-not-guy-thing.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Michael Shermer</span></a> you might want to go back and read these articles because I reference them here. I would ask that at the least you go back and read the original sources I will be discussing which are listed in my first piece. The reason is that I don't want my views and interpretations here to bias your views.<br />
<br />
Here's the reading list before I continue: first watch <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5pmvv_-Lew" target="_blank">this video starting at 11:30</a>. Then read <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=benson_33_1" target="_blank">1</a>, <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature" target="_blank">2</a>, and <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/12/thats-not-a-response-michael-its-a-denial/" target="_blank">3</a>.<br />
<div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div>
PZ Myers is one of the most prominent atheist bloggers and thus he has the ability to reach a large audience and influence their views on an issue. Which is why I chose to address his contributions to this debate rather than limiting myself to the primary debate between Shermer and Benson.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, lets start by looking at what PZ wrote (again please read his article prior to my interpretation so I don't bias you). PZ starts his post by telling us that "Ophelia Benson called out Michael Shermer for a sexist remark he made." Then he tells us that Shermer doesn't actually respond to Benson's accusation but instead dodges the issue. After this he gets ready to give us Shermer's quote by stating "here's what Shermer was <i>caught</i> saying . . ." I added italics to this quote to emphasize the word caught. By stating that Shermer made a sexist remark, dodged the issue, and that he was "caught" PZ has already primed us to view the quote as being sexist. Now, PZ's framing isn't yet as Bad as Benson's was. However, PZ goes further.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
PZ gives us Shermer's quote but uses the identical quote mine as Benson which I already addressed <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2013/02/ive-been-waiting-to-write-about-recent.html" target="_blank">here</a> and follows it by stating:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
You know what? That is a great big hairy naked sexist remark. It's a plain assumption that men are intrinsically better suited to leading skepticism and atheism. You can't get much plainer than "It's more of a guy thing."</blockquote>
<div>
Again, I already addressed this when discussing Benson. This is problematic because Shermer's quote was ambiguous and PZ has interpreted the quote in an inflammatory manner that clearly was not intended by Shermer. I won't go any further since I already discussed this issue in the Benson context. What I really want to get into is PZ's next statement:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
A good response would have been to admit that he’d made an unthinking, stupid remark and that he’d like to retract it. But that’s not what he does. Instead, he argues that he really does think the split in participation is 50/50, and points to TAM as having roughly equal numbers of men and women speaking.</blockquote>
Here PZ gives us the shut up and apologize argument. This "shut up and apologize" attitude is something that I have seen cropping up in many other blogs and comments that criticize Shermer. This argument seems to revolve around the idea that when a man makes a "sexist" comment and is criticized for it, the only acceptable response is an apology. In fact, the mere act of arguing against a woman after being accused of sexism often results in being called sexist because you disagreed with a woman. Apparently women are always right so the only way you can disagree is if you are sexist. If you don't believe me, I wrote about one example of this in my article <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2013/02/time-to-stop-overusing-sexist-bomb.html">Disagreement ≠ sexism</a>. As another example check out <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/01/24/when-half-the-atheosphere-dogpiles-on-you/#comment-100747">Greta Christina's statement in response to a Shermer defender at comment 78 here</a> where she says:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">
When you say something sexist, racist, homophobic, whatever, and someone calls you out on it... you apologize Full stop. Even if the person calling you out got something slightly wrong.. you let that pass. . . . The expectation that critics of sexist behavior always get everything absolutely right — and if they don't, they should expect the targets of their criticism to react horribly — is, itself, unbelievably sexist.</blockquote>
This is the kind of attitude that stops conversations. It is the argument that: you are wrong, you need to admit you are wrong, but I can make whatever mistakes I want, and if you criticize me for my mistakes, well, then you're a sexist.<br />
<br />
I fail to see why this double standard on absolute political correctness is acceptable here. Clearly, I agree sexist behavior should be stopped, people should apologize when they say something sexist, and people should choose their words carefully to avoid sexist statements. But, why is it that the same reasoning doesn't apply to those who shout <i>sexist!</i>?<i> </i>Shouldn't they apologize as well? Shouldn't they use care with their words to make sure they don't make a false accusation? It appears that merely by uttering the accusation of sexism you somehow insulate yourself from any criticism because criticism would itself be sexist.<br />
<br />
I want to voice my strong disagreement to this attitude. If you are going to make a serious accusation such as "you are sexist" you should do your best to make sure your accusation is accurate and not exaggerated. If you exaggerate your claim the accused has every right to defend their name by demonstrating that they did not do what they were accused of. Otherwise, we live in the witch hunt world that <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature" target="_blank">Shermer described </a>where an accusation equals guilt and the right to prove your innocence is non-existent. Any defense is simply further evidence of sexism.<br />
<br />
The greatest irony of those who attacked Shermer for defending himself (such as PZ) is that they proved his very point, that an accusation of sexism is like a witch hunt where your only option is to apologize or risk being accused of further sexism for defending yourself.<br />
<br />
Now coming back to PZ's argument on this issue. It might make sense to PZ, from his personal perspective that Shermer should retract his comment and shut up. From PZ's view, Shermer made a sexist remark, thus, the obvious solution is to admit guilt and apologize. However, PZ is just looking at the original sexist remark and ignoring the fact that Benson also quote mined and straw manned Shermer's position.<br />
<br />
PZ is coming from a biased perspective and thus ignores a giant problem. Shermer isn't really defending his comment, he is attacking the misinterpretation of his comment. Remember, Benson didn't just say that Shermer made a sexist comment, she accused Shermer of saying "women don't do thinky" which Shermer never actually said.<br />
<br />
Thus PZ's request appears a bit ridiculous. PZ is asking Shermer to just apologize for his remark and ignore the fact that Benson not only quote mined him but also straw manned his position and framed the issue in a seriously misleading manner. As skeptics we generally defend our position when it is mischaracterized. Thus, it is unjust for PZ to frame this issue as a situation where Shermer should just apologize.<br />
<br />
What if Shermer really did say, sorry I was sexist, didn't mean to be and then shut up? He would, of course, be implicitly admitting that Benson's interpretation of his comment was correct. Thus, in PZ's world Shermer's only option is to plead guilty to something that he doesn't believe he did. I would like to see any case where PZ himself chose to apologize for something that he didn't do rather than trying to correct misunderstandings of his position.<br />
<br />
Now, if Benson had made legitimate criticisms of Shermer's position then, Shermer could have been rightly criticized for failing to apologize. If she had said "hey Shermer, you know, that statement could be interpreted as a sexist stereotype" then Shermer could have been criticized for failing to apologize. But, as I already discussed, she didn't say that, she accused him of saying something much worse. She accused him of saying women are less intelligent than men. When she skewed Shermer's words this way, I believe she created a right for Shermer to not only defend himself, but to also point out a problem that exists in the atheist/skeptical movement today.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
As I discussed in my last <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2013/02/shermer-its-not-guy-thing.html" target="_blank">post</a>, sexism is a broad word ranging from stating a true, but nevertheless sexist stereotype, to actively oppressing women. <i>Sexist</i> therefore carries a special power just like <i>Nazi </i>(though not to the same extent) to carry serious social stigma. Any accusation of sexism has the potential to tarnish the name of the accused beyond the act actually committed. This is why it is so important to allow the accused to defend himself. Especially when there are reasonable grounds to show that his position was misrepresented as was the case with "it's a guy thing."<br />
<br />
In any other field of inquiry we would support debate over word choice. However, when it comes to sexism an accusation seems to be sufficient to establish guilt and require the guilty part to forgo a defense. In fact, if you read <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Shermer's response to Benson</span></a> you can see that he is directly addressing this same problem. Too bad PZ didn't take home the meaning of Shermer's piece and instead decided to give Shermer the perfect example of the witch hunt he had just finished complaining about.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-12701145078351499782013-02-12T16:08:00.001-08:002013-02-21T15:15:33.676-08:00Shermer, it's not a guy thingThis is part two of my discussion of the Shermer vs. Benson debate, where I talk about the mistakes made by Michael Shermer. If you haven't read<a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2013/02/ive-been-waiting-to-write-about-recent.html" target="_blank"> <span style="color: blue;">part one</span></a> you'll be missing a large part of the conversation and the history. As I mentioned at the start of that article I am responding to a number of different blog posts and in order to avoid biasing others opinions I ask that everyone read the source material in order before reading my posts.<br />
<br />
So again here is the list: First watch <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5pmvv_-Lew" target="_blank">this video starting at 11:30</a>. Then read <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=benson_33_1" target="_blank">1</a>, <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature" target="_blank">2</a>, and <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/12/thats-not-a-response-michael-its-a-denial/" target="_blank">3</a>.<br />
<br />
Now, here's a short pause for those who haven't followed this yet...<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Ok, now that you've see the video I want to get into a discussion of both his original comments and <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature" target="_blank">his response</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Shermer's Comments</b><br />
To start I want to put Shermer's comments down on paper. In a video, Shermer was asked why the male/female ratio in atheism was not closer to 50/50 and additionally, the moderator asked why she had such a hard time finding women to come on her show. Shermer answered:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I think it probably really is 50/50. It’s who wants stand up and talk about, go on shows about it, go on conferences and speak about it, you know, who is intellectually active about it. It’s more of a guy thing.</blockquote>
As I discussed in my last post, Benson's criticism of this comment were far off mark and seriously problematic from a skeptical point of view. Thus, what I want to do is analyze this comment from a neutral standpoint (by neutral I mean how Shermer has told us he intended the comment). Before I get into the issue of whether this is sexist I want to answer whether it is problematic.<br />
<br />
<b>Was Shermer's Comment Problematic?</b><br />
The quick answer is: yes, it is problematic. Right now we in the atheist movement are trying to fight the image that <i>it's a guy thing</i>! So all I have to say is, seriously Shermer, you should have known not to simply restate the stereotype that we are trying so hard to fight right now.<br />
<br />
I understand that, perhaps, the stereotype could be considered factually correct. If there are more men who are active in the atheist movement that would mean that on average it is a guy thing. But, just because something is factually correct doesn't mean you should say it out loud because poorly phrased factual statements can have unintended negative consequences. Political correctness does have its critics, but there are real reasons supporting it.<br />
<br />
The big issue we worry about when someone repeats a stereotype (even one that is true when looking at averages) is that it perpetuates the stereotype we are trying to stop. How are women supposed to break into the atheist movement when even the prominent members of the group keep telling us its a guy thing? I don't care whether the statement was "sexist" because even if we drop that accusatory language we can show that it is in fact problematic because it perpetuates stereotypes.<br />
<br />
Another problem with stereotypes is that they demean and ignore those who break the stereotype. Take for example the stereotype that some races (I refuse to use examples because I do not want to perpetuate stereotypes) are more likely to commit crimes than others. These stereotypes cause those who don't commit crimes to be subject to the same social scorn as those who do merely because they fit the stereotype. Thus, it demeans their value as a human merely because they are a member of a group.<br />
<br />
Shermer had an opportunity to put this debate back on track if he had simply addressed this problematic aspect of his comment and apologized for it. In fact, he could have done so in his response article without changing anything else because his other arguments stood on their own. In fact, if he had done so, he could have argued from the higher moral ground in this case.<br />
<br />
Instead Shermer simply failed to address the problematic aspect of his comment. However, as I will discuss in my upcoming post about <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/12/thats-not-a-response-michael-its-a-denial/" target="_blank">PZ</a>'s contribution to this debate, Shermer had a rather good reason for not apologizing. He wasn't accused of making a problematic statement, he was accused of saying something that he says he didn't say. Thus, Shermer had the opportunity to take the high ground, but simply missed it in his attempt to defend himself from Benson's problematic attack.<br />
<br />
Alright, now that I've shown how Shermer's statement was problematic I want to delve into the more complicated issue of sexism.<br />
<br />
<b>Was Shermer's Statement Sexist?</b><br />
To start, I want to say that Benson has stated that she <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/12/michael-shermer-was-not-quoted-inaccurately/" target="_blank">"didn't label him a sexist or a misogynist."</a> That instead she just said he made disparaging remarks. However, I feel this is a bit disingenuous. The accusation that Shermer stereotyped women as not doing "thinky" is an accusation of, at the very least, unconscious sexism. Thus, if Benson wants to say that Shermer disparaged women, she needs to at least admit she is accusing him of being sexist.<br />
<br />
So on to the question: was it sexist? This is a bit of a complicated question. The first issue is the ambiguity in Shermer's statement. Did he mean women are less than men as Benson interpreted it, or did he mean that numerically speaking there are more men than women active in atheism (as he told us)? It would seem easy to simply accept what Shermer told us his meaning was. However, we need to remember that part of good speaking is to make sure your words are clear and not open to misinterpretation. Clearly Benson interpreted it differently so we know that it was ambiguous to at least one person.<br />
<br />
Luckily, this first bit of confusion is easy to get around. Under Benson's interpretation, clearly the statement was sexist so I won't even bother discussing this interpretation of Shermer's statement. And, I already discussed in my <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2013/02/ive-been-waiting-to-write-about-recent.html" target="_blank">previous post</a> why I found Benson's accusation and interpretation to be problematic. If we view his statement the way Shermer intended it the issue gets more complicated.<br />
<br />
Sexism generally is defined as prejudice or discrimination against women. Many (But not all) people believe that stating a negative stereotype is also considered to be sexist. This disagreement over definition is why the issue is complicated. People who say that citing a difference between the sexes that can factually be measured would not say Shermer's remark was sexist. However, on the other hand, people who say that negative stereotypes are sexist would say his remark was sexist.<br />
<br />
This divide over what constitutes sexism can create a language barrier that I have noticed cropping up over and over again in this debate. One side says: no it isn't sexist and the other says: yes it is. The real disagreement, however, is over the definition of the term <i>sexism</i>.<br />
<br />
There are good reasons both to include and exclude negative stereotyping from the term sexism. On the side of inclusion, many stereotypes really do arise out of prejudice and are simply evidence of internal bias. Even allegedly factually correct stereotypes<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 110%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 8.0pt;">—</span>stereotypes that are true on average<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 110%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 8.0pt;">—</span>are problematic for the reasons I discussed above.<br />
<br />
On the other hand broadening sexism from prejudice and discrimination can be a bit like dropping the Nazi bomb (as seen from this debate). If we include simply citing a correct stereotype as full blown sexism we allow serious negative association and condemnation of the accused. Its the problem that if you accuse someone of making a sexist remark it is unclear whether you are saying: A) they deliberately are discriminating against women, B) they believe women are inferior to men, or C) they are stating a stereotype that, although correct on average, might perpetuate negative views about women.<br />
<br />
I would say that person A and B are far worse than person C. A and B are actively against women's rights whereas C is simply disconnected from the consequences of his word choice and may actually support women's rights.<br />
<br />
This lack of clarity on which version of "sexist" is being used is the big problem that I see with labeling every case of stereotyping"sexist." Clearly some stereotypes are sexist (i.e. women are dumb) because they are simply attacks on women. However, the stereotype that more men than women are active atheists could actually be a factual statement. It of course takes a lack of tact and lack of knowledge about feminism to make such a statement. But, from my perspective, it is on an entirely different scale than deliberate derogatory sexism such as discrimination and prejudice.<br />
<br />
So, I want to move on and ask that people change their language. Instead of shouting "sexist" or "sexism" when someone makes an unthinking stereotype that isn't a type A or type B stereotype tell them that they are using a negative stereotype.<br />
<br />
<b>The reason I make this request.</b><br />
I fully accept that many people will disagree with me on this point and say that obviously such a stereotype is sexism. But, for the sake of conversation I would ask that you choose different language than calling someone a sexist. As I stated above saying someone (or something someone says) is sexist instantly causes that person to become negatively associated with type A or type B sexists who actually do think less of women.<br />
<br />
The natural reaction of most people who are accused of being sexist in this sense is to jump in and defend themselves. They think: "hey wait, I'm not a sexist, I think women are equal and I believe in women's rights." They fail to realize that you are simply pointing out that they perpetuated a negative stereotype. Its that whole issue of miscommunication again. Of course, some people are able to take the higher ground and admit that they were wrong. However, in most men's eyes you have intentionally associated them with men that they despise. And in their eyes admitting that they made a sexist remark would be tantamount to admitting that they are type A or type B sexists.<br />
<br />
If your goal is to facilitate understanding and communication then using the word <i>sexist</i> in these cases is not helping. You of course have the right to use that word but realize that it likely won't get the reaction you want. In fact, if you change your language just a little you probably could get the reaction you want.<br />
<br />
Lets take the Shermer vs. Benson debate as an example. I believe either side could have fixed the debate if they had said something like this.<br />
<br />
<b>Benson could have said</b>: Shermer made an unthinking off the cuff remark and used a problematic stereotype that perpetuates the image that skepticism is only for men. Perhaps there are more men than women active in the skeptical movement but Shermer should have realized that this is the exact image we are trying to fight. Whether he intended to be sexist or not, having a prominent skeptic repeat the idea that skepticism "is a guy thing" is not helping this movement. I would ask that Shermer clarify his response so we can know that he was not intentionally trying to be sexist with this remark.<br />
<br />
<b>Shermer could have said:</b> I made an off the cuff, unthinking remark. At the time it seemed to make sense as an answer to the question I was posed. But looking back on my answer I realize that it perpetuates negative stereotypes and reinforces the very problem we are facing in the skeptical movement. I understand that my words were ambiguous but I want to emphasize that I did not mean my words in the way Benson has stated. The ambiguity was caused, again, by poor word choice on my part.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
I think that this debate in a large part has been a problem of poor word choice. First, Shermer poorly chose his words when he said "its a guy thing." Benson then poorly chose her words when she criticized Shermer. This resulted in a debate where both sides talked around each other and nothing good has been accomplished. If either party had paused to ask "how will this sound to those listening who have differing viewpoints." The debate might have been avoided.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Update: Read the third post in this series entitled<span style="color: blue;"> <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2013/02/pzs-witch-hunt.html" target="_blank">PZ's Witch Hunt here</a></span>.<br />
<br />Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-23434737952584490092013-02-11T15:32:00.002-08:002013-02-11T17:06:31.237-08:00Disagreement ≠ SexismWhen researching for my posts about the Shermer vs. Benson debate I have found a common problematic thread running through the arguments that I want to discuss. That issue is this: just because I disagree with you does not mean I am sexist. If you respond to my disagreement by calling me sexist you derail the conversation and I can no longer say anything (and no longer take you seriously).<br />
<br />
Before I go further I want to show you an example of what I am talking about. As context, Ophelia Benson has responded to accusations that she lied in her original article on "It's a guy thing" here in this <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/12/michael-shermer-was-not-quoted-inaccurately/" target="_blank">blogpost</a>. In the comments one poster pointed out that Benson had made factually unsupported allegations against Shermer and that Shermer responded with clarifications.<br />
<br />
The problem is, that a later poster (comment #26) decided to take this comment that didn't contain sexism and then make it sexist by adding her own words thereby implicitly accusing the original poster of sexism (the additions are in italics):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
Ophelia made a factually unsupported allegation against Michael – <i>because she’s a girl.</i><br />
<br />
Michael, quite reasonably, responded to this with clarification, well-supported refutation and a clear explanation of the broader problems of which he considers this symptomatic –<i> because he’s a boy.</i><br />
<br />
<i>/fixed for you.</i><br />
<i>…and you know, when defending the indefensible, you coild least try using less flowery, long winded and turgid explanation and just get straight to the point, lol.</i></blockquote>
Let me start by saying, please, don't do this!<br />
<br />
This type of argument makes it impossible to debate these issues because any time a man disagrees with a woman people can simply say "oh he just doesn't agree because he's sexist." So instead of saying we disagree because we're sexist, tell us why we are wrong. Then, if we do say something that is actually sexist, tell us! Just, don't accuse us of being sexist merely because we disagree.<br />
<br />
Otherwise, how can a man ever hope to enter a debate when faced with this sort of attitude. It suddenly feels like an us vs. them world. We are stuck listening, and when we see problems with an argument we aren't allowed to say anything because we are told criticizing a woman is the equivalent to saying women aren't as smart as men. Trust me, were not saying this. I'll I ask is that you wait until someone explicitly says that to accuse them of it.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-1048596107151223992013-02-11T12:52:00.002-08:002013-02-16T14:34:38.805-08:00Lack of Skepticism in the Skeptical Movement<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #444444;">I’ve been waiting to write about the recent </span><a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature"><span style="color: blue;">Shermer </span></a><span style="color: #444444;">vs. </span><a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=benson_33_1"><span style="color: blue;">Benson
</span></a><span style="color: #444444;">showdown and the related </span><a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/12/thats-not-a-response-michael-its-a-denial/"><span style="color: blue;">PZ
Myers Cameo</span></a><span style="color: #444444;">. This recent debate brings up two issues that I have begun to
notice more and more within the skeptical movement which are:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">1. Prominent bloggers
(like all of us) fail to properly use skepticism when they write about issues
they are passionate about. In this case that issue is sexism within the
skeptical movement.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">2. There is lack of
skepticism applied to blog posts written by prominent bloggers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Now, before I discuss the problems and these issues there is
<i>a lot</i> of background material. I would
request that everyone—even those familiar with this debate—to review the
history I will be discussing before reading what I write. I ask this both
because I don’t want to prejudice your views with my discussion and because I
believe reading the history in chronological order can prevent people from
being biased by other bloggers views.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Without further ado here is the reading material:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b style="color: #444444;">First:</b><span style="color: #444444;"> Listen to
the question posed to Michael Shermer and his response starting at 11 minutes
30 seconds in </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5pmvv_-Lew"><span style="color: blue;">this video</span></a><span style="color: #444444;">.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b style="color: #444444;">Second:</b><span style="color: #444444;"> Read
Ophelia Benson’s response to Shermer’s comment entitled </span><a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=benson_33_1"><span style="color: blue;">Nontheism
and Feminism: Why the Disconnect?</span></a><span style="color: #444444;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b style="color: #444444;">Third:</b><span style="color: #444444;"> Read Shermer’s
response to Benson entitled </span><a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature"><span style="color: blue;">Feminism Disconnected:
A response to Ophelia Benson and a Caution on Tribalism in Secularism</span></a><span style="color: #444444;">. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b style="color: #444444;">Last:</b><span style="color: #444444;"> Read PZ
Myers response to Shermer entitled </span><a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/12/thats-not-a-response-michael-its-a-denial/"><span style="color: blue;">That’s
not a “response,” Michael, it’s a “denial.”</span></a><span style="color: #444444;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><b>Note:</b> this debate
is rounded out by numerous other blog posts but I’m going to limit myself to
the posts listed above as I think they are the best examples of problems by
prominent bloggers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<h2>
<b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Discussion</span></b></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">I want to begin with a few general things I believe most
skeptics agree on.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><b>Quote Mining: </b>We
call people out on quote mining. When someone fails to include important parts
of quotes we call them out on failing to interpret a quote in context.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><b>Straw Man: </b>When a
writer attacks someone by inventing a position that person does not hold we
criticize them for doing so. We know that we can’t have a debate on an issue if
the other party insists on mischaracterizing our own position.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><b>Misleading Rhetoric:</b>
When someone uses misleading rhetoric to frame an issue in an inflammatory way
we point out the misleading use of rhetoric and try to frame the issue
neutrally.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><b style="color: #444444;">What we hear first
sticks:</b><span style="color: #444444;"> When the first information we hear on a topic is incorrect it is </span><a href="http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/journals/pspi/misinformation1.html"><span style="color: blue;">difficult
to correct that misinformation</span></a><span style="color: #444444;">. This is a huge problem skeptics face when
the media puts forth misleading or incorrect articles and then we are left with
the mess of trying to correct public perception.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><b>Defense:</b> When our
own positions are criticized with quote mines, straw men, and misleading rhetoric
we defend our position. We may apologize for being unclear but we then respond
by trying to correct others views on our opinion.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">With these common skeptical themes in mind I want to discuss
Benson, Shermer, and PZ Myers writings. In this post I’m going to start with
Benson, then address Shermer and PZ in upcoming posts.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><b>Ophelia Benson:</b>
Nontheism and Feminism<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">I’m going to start discussing Benson’s views with agreement
on one point (primarily to avoid having my position straw manned). I agree that
there is an unfortunate and problematic stereotype that men are thinkers and
women are emotional. This stereotype is harmful and we should be careful with
our words to avoid perpetuating this stereotype.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">With that out of the way I’ll address the issues with Benson’s
post and explain why it is so problematic. First I want to quote Shermer in
full. Shermer was asked why the male/female split in atheism was not 50/50. The
host then pointed out that she had trouble finding women who wanted to go on
her show. Shermer then said:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">I think it probably really is 50/50. It’s who wants stand
up and talk about, go on shows about it, go on conferences and speak about it, you
know, who is intellectually active about it. It’s more of a guy thing. -Michael Shermer</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">A few minutes later in the conversation Shermer goes on to
point out that at James Randi’s most recent conference there were more women
than men speakers.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Now let’s look at Benson’s interpretation of what Shermer
said. I reorder Benson’s quote to fully show what she is stating about Shermer.
I have noted my reordering so that it is clear.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Shermer said exactly that …(order flipped)… women are too
stupid to do nontheism. Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do
thinky, because “that’s a guy thing.”</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Now at this point in Benson’s article she has not linked to
Shermer’s quote, nor has she quoted Shermer in full. Thus, at this point Benson
has made her first two skeptical fails. First she framed the issue in a
non-neutral inflammatory manner. Second, she straw manned Shermer’s position. In fact, Benson approaches a lie about his
position due to her use of the word “exactly.” Using “exactly” implies that she
is either directly quoting Shermer or stating the only reasonable interpretation
of Shermer’s position. (As discussed below Shermer’s statement is ambiguous and
open to multiple interpretations.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Benson’s audience at this point has been primed with the
idea that Shermer made a seriously derogatory comment about women. And, she has
already told her audience exactly what Shermer meant by his quote. With this
priming in effect Benson goes on to quote Shermer. But, she skeptically fails
again when she quote mines Shermer. She fails to include Shermer’s short statement
“It probably really is closer to 50/50.” Which turns out to be important. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">After quote mining Shermer, Benson again restates her straw
man of Shermer’s position stating:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 110%;">It’s all there—women don’t do thinky, they
don’t speak up, they don’t talk at conferences, they don’t get involved—it’s “a
guy thing,” like football and porn and washing the car.</span> –Ophelia Benson</span></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Benson’s quote mine is fairly important here. The only
reason Benson can accuse Shermer of saying women “don’t talk at conferences” is
because she omitted Shermer’s 50/50 remark and his statement that more women
spoke at Randi’s conference.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Now, Shermer’s statement really was ambiguous. It could be
interpreted in different ways and, as I will discuss in my following article,
it really was problematic even under a neutral interpretation. The <i>big issue</i> here is that Benson has framed
Shermer’s statement in the most inflammatory way possible and made sure that
her audience will interpret Shermer’s statement in that manner. To make matters
worse, she has framed the issue using techniques most skeptics would criticize including
quote mining and straw manning.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #444444;">Shermer, is then left to try to overcome the huge problem of
initial bias created by Benson’s accusation. Which Shermer addresses in his
article </span><a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a><span style="color: #444444;"> (the
same article that I had you read earlier).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Now, Benson is of course entitled to interpret statements by
others in any manner she wants. Thus, she can choose to believe that Shermer “exactly
stated” that women don’t do thinky. This is because words are ambiguous and we
can each interpret what we hear in whatever manner we want. However, it is
difficult to have a conversation when we interpret ambiguity in a manner that
is very likely not the way it was intended by the speaker. And, if we look at
the context around what Shermer said we find that there is not enough
information to come to the conclusion that Shermer really was disparaging
women.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">From reading comments surrounding this incident I have read
numerous posts by people who claim to have logically deduced the only possible
thing Shermer could have meant. The strange thing is people have come to
exactly opposite conclusions. Well, not so strange really. Because, they all
fail to remember something critically important: a person can make logically
inconsistent statements. We all know people misspeak or poorly phrase their
words, especially when speaking off the cuff, thus we can only guess at exact
meaning.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Benson has told us that Shermer disparaged women. His quote
could be interpreted that way. But, it could also be interpreted as simply
restating the premise of the question he was posed which was “it appears that
more men are active in skepticism.” In fact, if we read Shermer’s <a href="http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature">article </a>it appears
that the later was closer to his intent.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">This brings me to my criticism of Benson. She has completely
derailed the possibility of a reasonable debate by firing up her readership
with quote mining, straw manning, inflammatory language, and failing to
directly link to the quote she attacked.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">This is a big issue because Benson has made a serious
accusation against Shermer. She has told us he disparaged women by insulting their
intellectual ability. This type of accusation is likely to make a lot of people
angry at Shermer and thus carries potential to seriously harm Shermer’s
reputation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Now Benson has put Shermer in that difficult position we as
skeptics find ourselves in all too often of fighting the uphill battle against initial
incorrect information. We as skeptics should be critical of this even when the
problematic statement comes from a skeptic. As I will discuss in my next piece,
Benson actually had grounds to criticize Shermer and if she had stuck to those
grounds the whole debate that arose may have been avoided.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><span style="line-height: 110%;">Prominent
bloggers have serious power to frame issues and frame their readership's view of
an issue. As skeptics I would dare to say that we value neutrality and we hope
that leaders in the movement would keep their arguments free of the rhetoric
that we so often criticize as skeptics. That is why I find it so disappointing to
see Benson, someone I usually trust and respect, using such misleading
arguments. The big problem I noticed when reading comments on this issue is that skeptics tend to take sides with their favorite blogger rather than using a skeptical view to look at their points. But taking sides is not a skeptical thing to do as we all know. I even found myself initially caught up in this because I often disagree with Shermer's </span><span style="line-height: 17px;">libertarian</span><span style="line-height: 110%;"> views and I uncritically assumed he had been sexist. It was only after checking up on source material that I realized Benson manufactured this issue.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Thus, this whole debate has been a little reminder to myself to always check an
author’s sources and to distrust those who don’t link to primary material.
Even when the author is a fellow skeptic.</span></span><br />
<span style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="line-height: 110%;"><span style="color: #444444; font-family: inherit;">Update: Read my next post in this series entitled</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: blue;"> <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2013/02/shermer-its-not-guy-thing.html" target="_blank">Shermer, it's not a guy thing here</a></span><span style="color: #444444;">.</span></span></span>Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-32632953219674368202012-11-15T15:32:00.005-08:002012-11-15T15:43:17.901-08:00Republicans fight reality with rhetoric once againThe Republican Joint Economic Committee recently released an article entitled: <a href="http://www.jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?p=Studies&ContentRecord_id=e523a7a6-5387-4ee5-b6e4-932d29984e06&ContentType_id=11c26666-579d-432b-a65f-dab5849a0fce&Group_id=74fc1c2f-4d37-4b97-b74f-5ee72cff4880&MonthDisplay=11&YearDisplay=2012" target="_blank">Historical Tax Rates: Rhetoric vs. Reality</a>. This article was an attempt to attack a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report which found that changing the top marginal tax rate had little effect on the economy. The problem is, that despite this article's title alleging combating rhetoric with reality, the Republican article is full of its own rhetoric and its own misleading statistics. But to be nice I will start with the one thing that they correctly stated:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
While the effective marginal income tax rate is more relevant than the top statutory income tax rate, neither rate fully reflects the overall burden of taxation on the economy. A comprehensive measure would include every kind of tax (income, sales, property, estate, etc.) collected at every level of government (federal, state, and local). Without a more complete measure,<i> it is impossible to accurately determine how much or how little taxes affect the economy</i>. (emphasis added)</blockquote>
You would think that after pointing out that it is impossible to accurately determine how taxes affect the economy without comprehensive analysis that Republicans would stop their parties mantra that increasing tax rates will negatively impact the economy. You would also think that they would then advocate doing more research to determine the effects of higher taxes on the economy. But rather than waiting for that sort of analysis they put on their hypocrite pants and state:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Given the much greater share of income now subject to the top [tax] rate, any future [tax] rate increase will have a much greater effect on the economy.</blockquote>
It doesn't get much worse than this when an article waits only 4 paragraphs to completely contradict itself. I wonder whether the authors merely forgot that they wrote it was impossible to accurately determine how much or little taxes effect the economy without more data or whether they are just so trapped in their own ideological world that they forgot reality also applies to them.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Unfortunately for the authors of this piece, actually the article actually does get worse. They turn the whole article into a misleading word game based on the maximum tax rates set in 1945 and in 2011. The main argument of the GOP appears to be that the maximum tax rates in the past only affected a few people. However, this ignores the fact that tax rates in the past were generally higher for <i>everyone</i> and higher tax rates started at lower incomes. It also ignores the analysis done by the CRS comparing average tax rates of the wealthy to economic success.<br />
<br />
The GOP wants to claim the reason higher taxes didn't hurt the economy was because only a few people were paying the maximum tax rate. This of course ignores the fact that most people were paying higher taxes. To show why the GOP's analysis is so misleading lets look at this flabbergasting quote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Georgia","serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 110%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-font-kerning: 8.0pt;">When the top rate exceeded 90 percent, the economic effects [of higher taxes] were small because the share of income affected was small. But that is no longer the case. Successive rounds of tax reform have lowered the top [tax] rate and expanded the share of income subject to it.</span></blockquote>
You might be wondering what is so ridiculous about this quote but give me a moment to explain. In the 1940s there used to be tax rates as high as 94%. These tax rates however only applied to income above $2,493,107 (indexed for inflation). Under 2011 rates the maximum tax rate was 35% and kicked in at $379,150. The Republican committee is arguing that if we raise taxes on the highest earners now it will have a larger effect on the economy than previous high tax rates because there are currently more taxpayers who pay the maximum tax rate.<br />
<br />
This is absolutely true there are many more people who are paying the maximum tax rate than there were in 1945. But that is because the maximum tax rate in 1945 started at $2.5 million dollars instead of the $.4 Million it starts at today. Of course there are currently more tax payers paying the maximum rate because the maximum rate is lower and starts much earlier.<br />
<br />
Thus, the Republican committee is trying to bamboozle us with an obvious fact. If you lower the starting point for the maximum rate, then more people will pay the maximum tax rate. If you are still confused by why the Republican committee is being so misleading let me use one more example.<br />
<br />
In 1945 there were a lot more tax brackets than there are today. But lets look at today's top tax rate of 35%. Currently our tax rate of 35% only applies to those who make more than $379,150. 1945 didn't have a 35% rate bracket but they did have a 37% rate bracket. If we account for inflation that rate bracket started at $99,724. In other words, in 1945 the 35% rate bracket applied to much poorer people than it does today.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLLoNvpke3UZpQwa2JQUN-hFHWoRKz6YaA_7etUWXZ9sxlVFEpvi4S4sXfX2O8b9Qe-bx-6XCqygTeoSRaqzkBROK17B89g_KRXqlSMNcjgm12vp1hJ2_7s18vBD953wS0wX62PHkBBQk/s1600/Edited+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLLoNvpke3UZpQwa2JQUN-hFHWoRKz6YaA_7etUWXZ9sxlVFEpvi4S4sXfX2O8b9Qe-bx-6XCqygTeoSRaqzkBROK17B89g_KRXqlSMNcjgm12vp1hJ2_7s18vBD953wS0wX62PHkBBQk/s400/Edited+2.jpg" width="342" /></a>This comparison of tax rates makes much more sense. What we can see from this is that the 37% rate bracket in 1945 which is comparable to today's maximum tax rate would apply to many more people today.<br />
<br />
If you look at the table to the right I have compared 1945's tax rates (adjusted for inflation) to today's tax rates. The table shows how today's top tax rate started at a much higher amount than it did in 1945. The Republicans don't want you to think of it this way. They want you to compare today's 35% rate to yesterdays 94% rate that started at $2.5 million.<br />
<br />
Thus, the Republican argument that we can't raise the maximum tax rate because it would affect many more people is just a word game. Yes, more people might be affected by the maximum tax rate today. But that's because the maximum tax rate is lower and starts at lower incomes. In effect the Republicans really appear to be arguing that we should be creating whole new rate brackets for higher income earners that would only apply to higher incomes. Maybe they are right, maybe we do need more income brackets like there were in 1945.<br />
<br />
I want to address one more misleading item in the Republican committee article before I finish. The GOP article states that the share of adjusted gross income reported by taxpayers subject to the top marginal rate peaked in 2007 prior to the last recession as shown by the chart taken from the GOP report below.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?p=Studies&ContentRecord_id=e523a7a6-5387-4ee5-b6e4-932d29984e06&ContentType_id=11c26666-579d-432b-a65f-dab5849a0fce&Group_id=74fc1c2f-4d37-4b97-b74f-5ee72cff4880&MonthDisplay=11&YearDisplay=2012" target="_blank"><img border="0" height="100" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgpBs3HDkb6G8pS4RTa8UfAgATQSaTBn1XKWyq3Yys5KUef-wHuzl-uhNE7sgX0WhrNH3tKZ64xdIccltlTc4fJCnROpYV1lU_8nW_8fcEWl3SWQDJhfaW793kB5omjTIOJAvu8hXjROB4/s400/Capture.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
It is totally unclear why the GOP would even post this. It is an obvious result of a recession. When the country goes into a recession we would expect less people to pay the maximum tax rate because fewer people will earn enough to be taxed at that rate. Perhaps the GOP is trying to show that when more people pay higher taxes it hurts the economy. But that isn't what the table shows. It just shows that fewer people will be subject to the maximum bracket if people make less.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
I want to point out that I agree with this Republican committee on one point. It will take more research that accounts for many variables to determine what effects taxes have on economic growth. The CRS report they criticize is just one report and it will take more like it to develop a clear picture of the relationship between taxes and economic growth. But this street goes both ways. If the GOP wishes to criticize the CRS for failure to account for all variables before reporting they should also cease their political party tagline that lower taxes boost the economy. They can't have it both ways.<br />
<br />
It is hypocritical for the GOP to criticize the CRS for drawing conclusions from an incomplete data set but then continue to claim that taxes hurt the economy without presenting their own data analysis. I am not arguing that the GOP are wrong. It is very possible that higher taxes could harm the economy. But, they cannot claim that without providing solid evidence.<br />
<br />
The biggest irony of this article is that the Republican committee stated that when we tax the wealthiest at very high rates (such as 90%) it will have little effect on the economy because it only affects a few people. As the GOP committee said: "Exorbitant tax rates don't have much effect on the economy if they don't affect much income." Thus, if we ignore the rhetoric and misleading statements the take away is that it wouldn't hurt the economy too much if we taxed the extremely wealthy at high rates.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-78482273768864761982012-11-01T11:22:00.000-07:002012-11-06T12:57:02.408-08:00Lets Redefine Marriage<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
American progress has been characterized by redefining our
notions of equality. When we founded this nation equality was limited to white
males and freedom was limited by the color of your skin. As we have grown as a
nation we have redefined these words and we are better for it. Slowly, we
changed our understanding of freedom to include all races not just people of
European descent. If we had not changed our definition of freedom to include
all people we would still have slaves today.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We also changed our definitions of equality. No longer do we
treat only white men as equal. We have expanded our definition of equality to
include all races, women, and men. If we had not women would still be forbidden
from voting and segregation would still plague our society.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Social progress is itself defined as changing the
definitions of our most sacred institutions to create a more equal and loving
society. This is one of the greatest things about our Nation. Despite our history
of discrimination and hate, we have grown as a nation to become more accepting
of outsiders and different points of view. Over and over we have redefined
words such as equality and freedom to become more inclusive of the differences
between us.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And history has not looked kindly upon those who have fought
to maintain the status quo. We look back with disgust upon those who refused to
redefine freedom because they wanted to own slaves. We look back with shame
upon those who believed the word equality could not handle people of different
races coexisting. And today we remember with embarrassment those who thought
equality did not include the voting rights of women.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Redefining words has been the driving force of American
history and progress. The next step is to redefine Marriage to make that word
more inclusive. Those who oppose redefining marriage try to hide their hate and
bigotry through thinly veiled excuses. If history is any sign, future
generations will not remember their excuses but they will remember their hate
and look back with shame upon those who fought equality.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So let us redefine marriage today. Let us redefine it to be
more inclusive of all people. Perhaps marriage was traditionally between a man
and a woman. But, we as a society can grow beyond that and show our gay and
lesbian brothers, sisters, friends, acquaintances, and strangers that they are
equal members of our society. Let us redefine marriage to show them that we
respect their love and commitment to each other. Let us redefine marriage to
show that we respect their relationship as being equal to ours. And let us
redefine marriage so that our children will grow up in a more loving and
accepting community.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And lets not listen to the excuses that people use to hide
their hate and bigotry. Gays and Lesbians will continue to raise children
whether or not we grant them the right to be equal and marry. The law does not
prohibit people from adopting children or raising their own out of wedlock children
based on who they love. Churches and the religious who oppose gay marriage will
not be forced to change their own beliefs. Even if the state recognizes gay marriage that does not force churches to marry everyone or force the
religious to change their beliefs about marriage. And children will continue to
be taught in school about gay couples whether or not they have marriages or
domestic partnerships. Preventing gay marriage does not simply remove from
society all the loving gay and lesbian partnerships that exist. They will continue to love each other whether or not we as a society grant them the right to marry. These are merely excuses
used by bigots to cover up the fact that they want to deny equal rights to gays
and lesbians because they disapprove of their lifestyle. So if you are planning
to vote against redefining marriage at least be honest with yourself that you
are doing so out of your own personal bigotry and ask yourself whether you really want
to be on that side of history.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For those of us who choose not to vote for or against gay
marriage because we are not gay and don’t have a stake in the fight, think
again. What if those who did not own slaves and were not slaves chose to be apathetic and not fight
to redefine freedom? What if Lincoln decided that since he wasn't a slave he didn't have to do anything about it? What if those people who did not face segregation simply
ignored it and did not support fighting to redefine equality? What if those who
could vote didn't use their vote to elect officials who would change the
definition of voter to include women? An integral part of the American fight
for positive change is the support of those who already have equal rights and are
in power. Every person who does not have a stake in the fight and fails to vote
for equal rights actually votes against equal rights. Because the bigots who fight against
equality for minorities are going to vote and the only way to protect the rights of
minorities is for those of us in the majority to join in and fight for their
rights.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Opponents of marriage equality say that we can’t change
marriage because it would redefine the word marriage. Well I say yes, let us
redefine marriage. Senseless adherence
to a tradition that harms people is wrong and not the American way. Our social
progress has been punctuated by those moments where we have redefined words
away from their traditional non-inclusive meanings. So let us support the greatest
American tradition of progress by redefining marriage to be more inclusive by voting
yes on Referendum 74.<o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmU51eem1ynzsX_zRMZTdpWc4I9hpU3hCR4p8kiijIXxaEd2wKqyNAREk9_nm-jnef3rPOCCkaNgzMnutu7Mt0Gl_oHHBJljZr_jW4Fl08cIT1aosC7C3_GrBYS1GWYCNrwwTTY_KPYHY/s1600/Ref74.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Approve Referendum 74" border="0" height="139" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmU51eem1ynzsX_zRMZTdpWc4I9hpU3hCR4p8kiijIXxaEd2wKqyNAREk9_nm-jnef3rPOCCkaNgzMnutu7Mt0Gl_oHHBJljZr_jW4Fl08cIT1aosC7C3_GrBYS1GWYCNrwwTTY_KPYHY/s200/Ref74.jpg" title="Approve Referendum 74" width="200" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-86977244344306797742012-08-22T11:22:00.003-07:002013-03-04T11:22:43.331-08:00Vanderbilt all-comers rule<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">I recently saw a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGPZQKpzYac&feature=player_embedded#!" target="_blank">video </a>that pulled the classic dishonest straw man trick. The video discusses a policy at Vanderbilt university called an "all-comers" policy. This policy is a non-discrimination policy and applies equally to all university student groups (but not fraternities and sororities). The policy has sparked a debate by christian student groups who dishonestly claim that the policy prevents them from choosing their members based on religious belief. But, before we get into the debate lets look at the policy itself.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The <a href="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/student_handbook/student-engagement#nondiscrimination" target="_blank">policy </a>itself is simple</span><b><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">—</span></i></b><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">student groups must allow any student to join and also "must permit all members in good standing to <i>seek </i>leadership posts." (emphasis added) Overall, this policy prevents groups from discriminating based on race, political views, or sexual orientation. This is a <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/03/22/149141095/vanderbilt-rule-rankles-faith-based-student-groups" target="_blank">longstanding policy</a> at the University but has now become an issue as it is starting to be enforced.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">It is important to remember that this policy only applies to official student groups that are sponsored by the university. If student groups wish to discriminate, they can simply stop being sponsored by the University. Thus, this rule is designed to prevent the University form sponsoring student groups that choose to discriminate. So this rule does not impinge on the right of students to choose who they will associate with. But it does prevent them from discriminating if they want to use university resources and claim affiliation with the university.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The other important thing to remember is that this rule only requires student groups to accept members and allow any member to <i>seek </i>office. The word "seek" is important here. The individual members of these groups are still free to vote based on their beliefs when choosing officers. They are only required to allow any member to seek office, they aren't required to vote for them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">However, despite the obvious non-discrimination nature of the policy a number of christian groups are protesting this policy by claiming that it is religious discrimination. The perfect example of this is the video that I linked to at the beginning of this post titled <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGPZQKpzYac&feature=player_embedded#!" target="_blank">Exiled from Vanderbilt: How colleges are Driving Religious Groups off Campus</a>. This video uses a straw man argument to make the policy look worse than it really is.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This video argues that religious groups have been "forced off campus" and implies that the policy will prevent them from voting for group officials based on belief. If you watch the video you will notice that they repeatedly state that the christian groups specifically have been forced off campus while failing to point out that every group must comply with the same policy so the policy in no way singles out Christians.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The straw man argument put forward by this video is that the University is discriminating specifically against Christians with this policy. It's not. All groups must obey this policy. In fact this rule prevents discrimination so the complaints by Christians are rather ironic. They are claiming that the University is discriminating against them when in fact the University is simply preventing them from discriminating.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This is related to one I have discussed before <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2012/02/why-do-religious-think-they-deserve.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2012/03/birth-control-mandate-has-nothing-to-do.html" target="_blank">here</a>. It is an argument that individuals should have a right to discriminate if they wish to. The problem in this case Christians are being asked for the right to discriminate but at the same time requesting that the University sponsor their groups. The argument put forward by these religious groups is a bit harder to swallow when presented in a more accurate light. These groups have willingly chosen to become unregistered student organizations in order to protect their right to discriminate. That's a perfectly fine choice for these groups to make. But if they want to claim they have been kicked off campus they need to be more honest and explain that the reason is that they want the right to discriminate and that the policy applies to all.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Now, I must agree with one point made by the video. This policy does create the possibility of a hostile takeover of an organization. If a group must accept any student as a member and allow any student to apply for office then it would be possible for a large number of students to seek membership and then vote their members into office. But again, this could happen to any group. So to frame this policy as discrimination against Christians is simply dishonest. The university should seek to find some way to prevent hostile take overs while at the same time promoting non-discrimination.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">This debate is a perfect example of framing an issue to make it look worse than it is by creating a false picture of your opponents argument. The Vanderbilt christian groups have attempted to make it look like they are being persecuted when in fact everyone is subject to the same rule. Not only that, these Christian groups are seeking to gain recognition from the University while at the same time retain their right to discriminate. Also, it appears that some students think the real issue is that these christian groups <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/03/22/149141095/vanderbilt-rule-rankles-faith-based-student-groups" target="_blank">may be trying to discriminate against gay individuals</a>. However, it is hard to know if this truly is a primary factor in the dispute over this rule.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">The Christian groups have done a good job of making this issue look worse than it is by claiming they are being discriminated against. Its time the University took its own stand and pointed out that these groups are fighting for their right to have the school sponsor their discrimination.</span>Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-87472687578093427262012-06-29T10:00:00.000-07:002012-06-29T10:02:10.295-07:00Where can you get Universal Health Care?Its been a while since I posted anything but a recent CNN health article titled "<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/health/countries-health-care/index.html?hpt=wo_t2" target="_blank">Where in the world can you get universal health care?</a>" gave me the need to post again. This CNN article talks about some of the countries that have universal health care but by using the simple rhetorical trick of omitting facts the article makes it appear that universal health care is not widely used in the first world when in fact it is the most common health care system in the first world. The health care debate in the U.S. is at a peak right now after the recent supreme court ruling upholding the new health care bill. Thus, this CNN article discussing the countries where universal health care exists is timely. However, the article is also highly misleading due to its rather absurd omissions.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
First a little background. <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/#" target="_blank"> Nearly every first world country has some form of universal or socialized health care</a> but the United States has been one of the few hold outs refusing to obtain universal health care. Now before you get excited and think that our lack of universal health care is a good thing lets look at the facts. The united states ranks <a href="http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/" target="_blank">37th worldwide in health car</a>e and most of the countries ahead of the US are countries with universal healthcare. But it gets worse. Not only are we 37th in healthcare, we also pay way more on health care than any other nation but end up with worse results than most nations that have universal health care. Obviously we are doing something wrong and our system needs fixing. The solution seems easy since we have plenty of examples of countries with universal health care who are doing way better than us <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization_ranking_of_health_systems" target="_blank">like Germany, France, Japan, and Norwa</a>y.<br />
<br />
Now lets get back to the CNN article and see what is so misleading about the article. The article starts off pointing out that America doesn't have universal health coverage but it also says "neither do most other countries." Right out of the gate the article hits us with a misleading statement by omission. The article should have stated: "neither do most third world countries, but in the first world America is the glaring exception to the general trend of countries utilizing universal health care." The article is of course technically correct that most countries do not have universal health care but it is highly misleading because it makes it appear that the US is one among many that lack universal healthcare.<br />
<br />
This introduction becomes even more dishonest with what follows. The article proceeds to casually mention that the UK and Canada have universal Health care but then goes on to give other examples of countries with universal healthcare, under bold headings, including: Brazil, Rwanda, Thailand, South Korea, Moldova, Kuwait, Chile, and China. Out of the eight counties listed only Chile is ranked higher than the US in health care with Chile ranked 33 to the US ranking of 37. Looking at the ratings for other countries we see that China is rated 144 and Rwanda is rated 172. It seems bizarre that the article wouldn't list more prominent examples of universal health care like France (ranked 1 in health care), Italy (ranked 2), or Spain (ranked 7). But it isn't so odd if the article is trying to be misleading.<br />
<br />
The general expectation that we as readers have when reading an article is that prominent examples of countries with universal health care would be listed first. Thus, when we read CNN's list including Brazil, Rwanda, and Thailand we incorrectly assume this means more prominent countries like France and Germany probably don't have universal healthcare. This wrong assumption is especially likely after we were just told that most countries don't have universal healthcare. This misleading set up creates the false image that universal health care isn't used in most other first world countries because if it was we would have expected the article to list more familiar countries like France, Germany, or Spain.<br />
<br />
This story is a perfect example of how leaving out facts and framing the issue can give a distorted picture of reality. Imagine if we saw this same sort of article in a different context like sports. Imagine you go to a school with a track team that performs fairly poorly and its fastest runners generally place near last. You pick up a copy of the school newspaper and see an article titled "Our school has faster track times than other schools." You start reading about the race times of your track team and see that your track team has faster times than the runners listed from other schools with better track teams. However, what you don't know is that your school newspaper only listed the slowest runners from the other schools and didn't list the times of any fast runners from other schools. Our usual assumption is that the newspaper would list the fastest runners from each school and thus we wrongly assume that the runners at our school are the fastest runners. This is the same sort of misleading use of facts that the CNN article is using. CNN has listed the slow runners in Universal Healthcare rather than the fastest runners and thus misleads us into believing that other first world countries don't have universal healthcare.<br /><br />I of course cannot say why CNN chose to present the countries that have universal health care in such a misleading way. What I can say is that the structure of the article is likely to give a misleading view of the prevalence of universal health care in first world nations. CNN should be more careful in its writing in the future.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-51857458671547049832012-05-29T10:10:00.000-07:002012-05-30T10:27:20.149-07:00Un-Labelling GMOs<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvxM8tXZV-GQvOzIChcRHxSt22niWm46P5rSU8rmzSJ2bDhXNLCaKEVkf1PL_oM5nJ1xCJ-veM9iZ4a-8_v1tzD-8F8YRoIKBsM3HNxBmDNLsm_us6NcKsrnVaVaCtskud4WF9zys60eg/s1600/banana2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvxM8tXZV-GQvOzIChcRHxSt22niWm46P5rSU8rmzSJ2bDhXNLCaKEVkf1PL_oM5nJ1xCJ-veM9iZ4a-8_v1tzD-8F8YRoIKBsM3HNxBmDNLsm_us6NcKsrnVaVaCtskud4WF9zys60eg/s200/banana2.jpg" width="168" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="font-size: 13px; text-align: center;">figure 1.<br />
Modern banana (top)<br />
Wild banana (bottom)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In case you are new to the debate, GMO standards for Genetically Modified Organisms (sometimes called GE<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">—</span>Genetically Engineered) and refers to plants and animals whose DNA have been modified by Humans. The term <i>GMO</i> is itself a bit of a misnomer; not because it is inaccurate but instead because it is misleading. In reality every living thing has been genetically modified by evolution which is constantly modifying the DNA of animals through the process of natural selection. Additionally, nearly all food we eat today has been genetically modified through the process of artificial selection—we have been selectively breeding plants for thousands of years and most of us would not recognize the natural versions of many of the foods we eat today (such as the banana that has been drastically changed by selective breeding). Thus, the term <i>GMO</i> when applied only to foods modified by humans is a misnomer because it suggests that only synthetically modified foods are genetically modified when in fact all foods have been genetically modified either through natural or artificial selection. So to use the term GMO correctly we should say that every living thing is a GMO. However, to avoid confusion I will use GMO in the modern sense of the word that refers only to those living things that have had their DNA modified directly by humans.<br />
<br />
Now that we have the definition of GMOs out of the way lets move to the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/science/dispute-over-labeling-of-genetically-modified-food.html" target="_blank">current debate</a>. Despite the fact that current research is showing that GMOs are safe to eat and are a promising avenue for achieving more environmentally friendly farming techniques there are many groups against GMOs. One thing these groups are fighting for is to force foods containing GMOs to be labeled so that consumers can choose not to buy them. Many countries already have such regulations and some countries have even forbidden the selling of GMOs. In the U.S. this battle is just now starting in places like <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/california-gmo-labeling-initiative-headed-for-ballot-right-to-know-campaign-turns-in-nearly-one-million-signatures-2012-05-02" target="_blank">California</a> where enough signatures were gathered to put up a measure on the ballot this November. But remember, all food we eat is genetically modified. Thus it appears a bit absurd to force sellers to label these foods as GMOs unless there is a health difference.<br />
<br />
Is there then a reason that we should force GMOs to be labeled? This question raises up three primary issues: 1. is there any evidence that GMOs are dangerous and thus should be labeled for safety reasons; 2. do consumer's have a right to force labeling merely because they want it; and 3. does consumer choice create a right to know what is in food?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>1. GMOs appear to be Safe.</b><br />
Some things that we eat are good for us. Some things that we eat are bad for us. The factor that determines whether a certain type of food is healthy is the chemical contents of that food. All food is made up of chemicals. I know <i>chemicals</i> is a bit of a loaded word because many people use it to refer to dangerous industrial chemicals. But in the scientific use of the word <i>chemical </i>everything is made up of chemicals. Even water is a chemical made up of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.<br />
<br />
Thus, when we look at food safety the question is whether there is any chemical in the food that when placed in our bodies at the dose contained in that food will have a harmful effect. Every individual food needs to be tested to determine whether that food is healthy or not. Thus, it is possible that one GMO could be healthy and another one unhealthy. Likewise it is possible that a non-GMO food could be unhealthy.<br />
<br />
GMO foods <a href="http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/agbio-articles/myths.html" target="_blank">have been tested</a> and shown to not contain any more chemicals that are dangerous to human health than non-GMO food. Additionally, if we think about it logically we should wonder why genetic modification would be more likely to produce dangerous food than things like artificial selection. As discussed above genetic modfication is something that has been done through artificial selection for thousands of years. Artificial selection is just as likely to produce new chemicals in food as are GMO techniques.<br />
<br />
Scientists can test GMO foods and determine whether they do in fact contain any novel chemicals or ones that have been shown to be dangerous. Thus, they can determine whether such foods are safe. No such techniques existed for artificially selected foods other than trial and error over years of use by humans. Thus today we can test GMOs much more quickly than those who artificially selected food and ate it without having any idea what was in their food.<br />
<br />
The real issue here is that the burden is on the anti-GMO activists to show why and how GMOs are dangerous to human health. The problem is that they have not presented any such evidence. They just cling to conspiracy theories that the food wasn't actually properly tested or simply assume that GMOs are inherently dangerous. Of course we should make sure that GMOs are tested to ensure that they are safe just like any other food. But my point is that if anti-GMO activists want to point at GMOs specifically and say they are dangerous they need some sort of evidence to back their claims.<br />
<br />
<b>2. The Right to Label Food.</b><br />
Before I get into the question of whether consumer's have a right to force food to be labeled merely because they want it to be let me start with an example:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Lets go back fifty or one-hundred years and imagine a group of white racists that decide they don't want to eat food produced by people other than white farmers. They then begin a campaign to force all food to contain a label stating what races of people worked on the farms that produced the food. Do they have a right to have that labeling merely because they want consumer choice?</i></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Ok, I admit, this example is extreme. But I am trying to prove a point. It seems absurd that we should just allow a group of consumers to force labeling merely because they want it. There ought to be a good reason before we place a restriction on manufacturers. So lets go to a bit more reasonable example:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Imagine that a group of people believes that it is unhealthy for food to ever touch metal. They have no research supporting this position they just believe it to be true. They begin a campaign to force the labeling of all food that has ever touched metal while it was being processed. </i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Do they have a right to have that labeling merely because they want consumer choice?</i></div>
<b><br /></b><br />
I've been a bit more reasonable in my example this time and I hope you can start to see the problem. Imagine if we forced foods to be labeled with every little thing that people had concerns about. By forcing labeling we are not only putting a burden on the producers of food who must add a label but also on the consumers who will be forced to read through countless warnings. This seems especially absurd when those who sell products that do not contain things like GMOs could very easily label their products as "<i>GMO free"</i>.<br />
<br />
There is also another underlying issue with forced labeling. The fact that something is placed on the label can be confusing to those who don't understand the issue. Imagine if you had never heard the debate about GMO vs. GMO free foods. The mere fact that there is a label is likely to make people believe that GMOs are dangerous and should be avoided. This adds another burden on those who sell GMO foods as it may deter people from buying such foods even though they really are safe. It seems highly unfair to place such a burden on a seller of foods unless it can actually be shown that these foods are dangerous.<br />
<br />
Thus, unless a group can show that a product really does have some health difference it seems wrong to force labeling. Otherwise racists could claim they have a right to know who produced food in order to protect their desire to discriminate. The mere fact that a group wants food labeled isn't enough. They need to demonstrate a reason that the label should go on the food. Labeling food as GMO is of course not as repulsive as the hypothetical racist labeling of food. But it is a cheap way to attack the credentials of food and force the unsupported opinions of a single group onto all sellers and consumers. Anti-GMO activists are trying to take a short cut around proving GMOs are dangerous and jump straight to labeling under the guise of a right to know.<br />
<br />
<b>3. Consumer Choice.</b><br />
Anti-GMO groups want to frame the GMO labeling debate as merely one of consumer choice. They argue that consumers have a right to know what is in the food they are eating so that they can make an informed choice. This seems like a reasonable argument on first glance but when we dig deeper it falls apart.<br />
<br />
To explain why this argument falls apart let me start with the ultimate consumer choice label. Imagine a label that contained every single chemical found in the food you were eating along with a description of the average quantity of that chemical in every serving. Every food we eat is made up of huge numbers of different chemicals and thus our labels would contain long lists of every single chemical in that food. These lists would be much longer than the current lists that just include ingredients because each ingredient in food is made up of numerous different chemicals. This label would be the ultimate consumer choice label because it tells consumers exactly what they are eating. Or would it really be? <br />
<br />
How many consumers really know what every chemical compound is, how it is digested, and what affects it has on the human body. The answer is almost none. Only a few scientists are likely to be able to read such labels and I highly doubt even they could decide whether food is healthy based on such a label without doing significant research on each ingredient.<br />
<br />
The point I am trying to make is that consumer choice is only improved when meaningful labels are placed on food that allow consumers to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy food. Any labels that consumers do not understand or that are confusing do not actually benefit consumer choice. The only time consumer choice is benefited is when a label actually tells the consumer something useful about how healthy the food is (or other relevant information such as whether the food was farmed in an environmentally friendly manner).<br />
<br />
The problem for anti-GMO activists is that they are trying to avoid the whole step of proving that GMOs are dangerous by simply throwing a label on food and allowing consumer's to guess for themselves. Thus, a <i>contains GMO</i> label isn't actually increasing consumer choice. Instead it is increasing consumer confusion by removing the debate from the scientific arena to one of public guessing<i> </i>what is healthy.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion.</b><br />
Remember, GMOs haven't been shown to be unhealthy and there is no reason for us to believe that they would be less healthy than other food. Additionally, we really need to examine every food on its own, the mere fact that food is genetically modified does not make it unhealthy. It is possible that some GMOs may be unhealthy while others are healthy just as it is possible for non-GMOs to be healthy or unhealthy. If we want to use labels we should use meaningful ones that point out specific harmful properties of food that have been detected with research.<br />
<br />
If anti-GMO groups were able to show that there is something about GMOs that cause them to be less healthy as a group then at that point they should be able to force labeling of GMOs. However, they haven't done that. Right now they are a group with a belief unsupported by evidence and they are trying to force that belief onto all consumers. Consumers have a right to choose what food they buy and to be given enough information to make an informed choice. But, at the same time, every consumer has the right to be free from misleading and unnecessary labels. A <i>contains GMO</i> label is misleading and unnecessary and we all, as consumers, have a right to not be presented with these types of misleading labels.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-10178264143643678422012-05-24T21:53:00.000-07:002012-05-24T21:56:50.431-07:00Is there really a Bengal tiger in Puyallup?Breaking News: Bengal tiger spotted in Puyallup! If you live in Washington you've probably heard this exaggerated headline. The problem is that no one actually even claims to have seen a tiger. But yet we see headlines like these: <a href="http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/dpps/news/offbeat/tiger-on-the-loose-in-washington-state-dpgonc-km-20120524_20216071" target="_blank">Tiger on the loose in Washington State</a>; <a href="http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/05/24/2156953/tiger-on-the-prowl-near-puyallup.html?storylink=mrc" target="_blank">Tiger on the prowl between Tacoma, Puyallup</a>; or <a href="http://mynorthwest.com/11/683313/Bengal-tiger-possibly-on-the-loose-near-Puyallup" target="_blank">Tiger sighting reported in Pierce County</a>.<br />
<br />
As usual this appears to be a case of exaggerated news reporting. It is of course possible that people did see a tiger, but from the facts being reported so far it sounds a little far fetched. In fact there were only two reports of sightings and it appears that neither sightings claimed that it was a tiger just that they saw a "<a href="http://www.seattlepi.com/local/komo/article/Tiger-reportedly-on-loose-near-Puyallup-3584150.php" target="_blank">fairly large" cat</a>.<br />
<br />
One witness even <a href="http://www.king5.com/news/cities/tacoma/Bengal-tiger-Puyallup-Pierce-County--153803855.html" target="_blank">stated</a>: "it was a blond animal with black stripes, that's all I said." Animal control then took this description and said it "sounded like" a tiger. But if we look further at the description given by the witness we have some clues to what this really might have been.<br />
<br />
The witness stated that he saw a large cat walking away from him in the tall grass that was blond with black stripes. In Washington we do not have native Bengal Tigers, but we do have native cougars that are known to range widely. Tiger's are orange in coloration whereas cougars tend to be tan, or blondish. Imagine what a cougar would look like walking through tall grass on a sunny day... it would be a blondish big cat with black stripes from the shadows cast by the grass. So what is more likely, that the man saw a non-native Bengal Tiger or that he saw a native cougar walking through tall grass dappled with shadows? Remember that this man did not even claim to have seen a tiger, he claimed to have seen a large cat. It was only animal control who added the tiger label. I of course am making my judgments based off of minimal information only having seen a brief interview of the man. Thus, perhaps there was more information that lead animal control to believe it could be a Bengal Tiger.<br />
<br />
But from the man's statement: "that's all I said" it appears he may even have been surprised by the Tiger claim. Additionally, we have to wonder who hasn't at least seen pictures or video of a tiger if not seen one at a local zoo. Thus, I would assume the man who saw the cat knows what a tiger looks like and if he didn't think it was a tiger on his own I find it hardly plausible that animal control could identify it as a tiger based on his description.<br />
<br />
This sounds like a case of exaggeration and misidentification. It is of course possible that there is a Bengal Tiger on the loose, but judging from the statements being released by the news outlets it sounds much more likely that a cougar was simply wandering through the neighborhood. Apparently sensationalism dictates that news outlets should should state, as fact, the most implausible explanation for an event and then make sure that the implausible explanation becomes the bold lettered title of the story.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-71105927050701665982012-04-24T17:07:00.000-07:002012-04-25T14:30:03.059-07:00What is "nothing"?<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The definition of a fundamental word is often the most
important part of a philosophical debate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is especially the case in the debate over how “something” arose
from “nothing.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> The word <em>nothing</em> is the tricky word here because it is hard to imagine what "nothingness" would actually be or what we actually mean when we say the word nothing. This difficulty can be seen in a recent criticism of a book by Lawrence Krauss.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span>Lawrence Krauss recently
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335306096&sr=1-1" target="_blank">wrote a book</a> </span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">
explaining how modern cosmology and quantum mechanics can answer the question of how our universe could have arisen from empty space.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, this book is not
without criticism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>David Albert
submitted <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1" target="_blank">one such criticism as a book review in the New York Times</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem is Albert failed to fully think
through his argument.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Let’s start with a basic introduction to Kraus’s argument—a
very basic introduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Kraus points
out that quantum mechanics shows us that particles can spontaneously appear
from what we would consider empty space and that this may be a way to explain
how something arises from nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Albert
criticizes this by using his own definition of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nothing</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He argues that
because particles can actually arise out of this empty space that it is not
actually “nothing” because something must exist from which these particles can
arise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Albert correctly points out that
in this empty space the laws of physics that allow particles to spontaneously
appear must still exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, Albert is
stating that because the empty space had <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">potential</i>
to become something that in fact it was not really nothing at any point.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here, Albert has defined nothing to require
that it be some sort of emptiness that has no natural potential to become
something.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">You may have already noticed the fatal flaw in this argument:
as Albert has defined it, “nothingness” cannot exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there was such a nothingness then something
could not have come from it because by definition the potential to become
something makes it not nothing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">If my repeated use of the words <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">something</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nothing</i> is
a bit confusing let me try to explain this in another way. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Albert’s argument will apply to any
explanation of how something came from nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Say for example I claim that god created the universe from “nothing.” <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Albert would point out that the universe didn’t
in fact come from nothing; it came from the already existing god.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Additionally, whatever God created the
universe from wasn’t really nothing either because it had the potential to be
turned into something by god.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus
whatever god turned into something could not have been nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any time someone tries to explain how
something came from nothing Albert can simply point out that there was never
really nothing in the first place because the possibility that it could turn
into something always existed.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Albert’s problem is that he has defined the word “nothing”
in a way that makes it impossible for there ever to have been a state of “nothingness”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that the universe currently exists means
that there was always the potential for something to arise and thus by Albert’s
definition there has always been something.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">What this illustrates is the difficulty of using the word “nothing.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idea of “nothingness” may not even make
sense when applied to the existence of our universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Generally we use the word nothing in everyday
contexts rather than to explain our world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For example, when we say: “the bucket has <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nothing </i>in it” we mean that it is not carrying anything like water,
dirt, garbage, etc.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the bucket
still has air in it so if we use an absolute sense of the word “nothing” we
must say that the bucket has something (air) in it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">What if we remove all the air in our bucket and just have
empty space?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Krauss points out this
empty space will still occasionally be filled with fields that have the
potential to spontaneously create particles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Thus, Albert will say that our bucket is still not empty because of this
ability for particles to be spontaneously created.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What then would we need to do for the bucket
to be full of actual “nothingness?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To
be honest I don’t know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact I don’t
think anyone knows because there is no way we can define nothing in this sense.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Let’s hypothetically imagine what we would need to say there
is absolutely nothing in the bucket.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>First there would have to be no potential for particles to be created.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Next, let us wonder whether we could fill the
bucket with water.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What happens when water
hits the space filled with nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does
the water just disappear because there is nothing there or does the water take
over the space that was previously nothing?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This creates a problem; if water can go into the bucket then we can’t
say there was nothing there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ability to fill the bucket
means that the nothingness had a size and shape that could be replaced with
water and that it also had some sort of properties that let it be replaced by
water.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The problem still exists if the
water disappears when it touches the nothingness. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If something disappears when it hits nothing
then the nothing has the property of removing physical things like water and
thus it is really something rather than nothing.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The point I am trying to get to is that the idea of absolute
“nothing” doesn’t really make sense; this is what Albert should have realized
when he wrote his book review.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The word “nothing”
when used in the debate of how the universe arose from nothing is really just a
placeholder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothingness refers to those
things that we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">To explain my claim that “nothing” is a placeholder let’s use
an example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s say that there was <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nothing </i>before the big bang.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you think about it we don’t really mean <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">absolute </i>nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What we really mean is we do not understand
what there was before the big bang.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Because something must have existed that had the potential to turn into
our universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is what I mean when I
say “nothing” is a placeholder for those things we do not understand.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In the past people said that an empty bucket had “nothing”
in it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We solved that mystery and
learned that it was full of air.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>People
have also said that empty space is nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But we now know that even empty space not only has the ability to be
filled with objects but also that particles can spontaneously arise in this
empty space.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our previous use of the
word nothing was a placeholder we used to explain what appeared empty to us but
that we now know is not empty at all.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Now to return to Albert’s criticism of Krauss.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Albert criticizes Krauss for claiming that physics
may have explained how something came from nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a sense they are both correct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Krauss correctly points out that modern
science might be able to explain how our universe could arise from empty space.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we are gracious to Albert and accept his definition of nothing we can say he is
also correct.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Albert points out that the
potential to become something is actually something itself and thus Krauss’s
nothing was never really nothing. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
remember, our universe does exist so whatever came before our universe had the potential to become something, thus there was never really nothing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus Albert’s
problem is that he has just defined nothingness out of existence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-63385824722392710252012-03-08T15:58:00.000-08:002012-03-08T15:58:43.576-08:00CAM trying to break into OregonComplimentary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is a belief system based on faulty reasoning and poor logic. Take for example <a href="http://www.thelundreport.org/resource/author_believes_complementary_and_alternative_medicine_belong_in_ccos" target="_blank">this article</a> discussing integrating CAM into the Oregon healthcare system. As usual the article is full of non-sequiturs arguments that sound compelling but do not really support the overall claim. The reason CAM promoters use non-sequiturs is that an actual discussion of whether CAM treatments worked would lead any reasonable person to choose to not use CAM.<br />
<br />
Remember the first question we should ask prior to using a treatment is: does it work? Then if it does work we should implement it. The problem is that most of CAM has not been proven to work and for much of it to work it would need to contradict some of our most trusted scientific ideas.<br />
<br />
Jamie Sewell, the author of <a href="http://www.thelundreport.org/resource/author_believes_complementary_and_alternative_medicine_belong_in_ccos" target="_blank">an article</a> discussing Oregon's new Coordinated Care organizations (CCOs) (part of Oregon's Health care system) wants to see CAM used in these new CCOs. Her reasons are all flawed. First she cites the flawed idea that CAM treats the whole patient where modern medicine does not. This is simply a misunderstanding of modern medicine. Modern medicine treats underlying cause of disease when possible and when not it treats the symptoms. CAM often claims to provide treatments for things that modern medicine currently cannot treat. But when closely scrutinized these CAM treatments are almost universally shown to not work. In reality CAM preys upon those who desperately want treatment when none exists by offering them false hope. Sewell points out that Oregon's CCOs are designed to reduce costs. Providing useless CAM treatments won't make patients any better and will just increase costs. Hardly the outcome intended by the CCOs.<br />
<br />
Sewell also points out that CAM often costs less and often results in better patient satisfaction. Well, even if true those points are not relevant. If a cheap treatment doesn't work then every penny paid for it was a waste. A patient who is "satisfied" by a fraudulent CAM cancer cure is no healthier than a person who took no cure at all. Even worse, they may have delayed getting real medical treatment and thus decreased their chances of surviving.<br />
<br />
Science has weighed in on CAM and shown most of it to not work. Thus, CAM has retreated to using rhetoric rather than evidence to support its position. Those promoting CAM need to stop and take a deep look at their arguments. If all your arguments are based on misleading rhetoric it might be time to change your opinion.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-623592114535925322012-03-08T15:33:00.000-08:002012-03-08T15:33:27.384-08:00The birth control mandate has nothing to do with religionA common news topic in this election year is the controversy surrounding the birth control mandate in Obama's health care bill. The religious, especially Catholics, claim that the mandate to provide health insurance that covers birth control free of charge violates their religious rights because it goes against their beliefs. Well, they are wrong it does not violate their religious rights.<br />
<br />
The bill does not tell Catholics that they must change their beliefs. It does not require them to use the contraception that would be provided free of charge. It does not even require them to personally provide such contraception. It merely says they must have a health insurance plan that provides birth control for those who wish to have it. The Catholics thus are mostly complaining that their funds might be used to cover something they don't believe in <i>but that their employees want</i>.<br />
<br />
Well, we have plenty of history of forcing people to do things they don't believe in. We forced racist employers to stop discriminating when hiring. We all need to pay taxes which support wars and public programs many do not believe in. Part of being in a society is realizing that we will not all agree on every program that is ran by our government. That is not to say that we should not fight those programs that we believe are wrong. But claiming that a law discriminates against you because it violates your beliefs shouldn't be taken seriously. The proper argument is to try to show that your beliefs should be accepted by society as a whole.<br />
<br />
The Catholic church faces a problem. Society as a whole is largely beginning to disagree with them on the issue of contraception. They cannot win the battle against contraception so they have fallen back and are desperately clinging to a sinking ship and trying to plug the round hole with the square peg of a religious discrimination claim.<br />
<br />
Think about what the Catholics are trying to deny. If they have employees who want birth control they want to reduce access to birth control for those employees. They are thus attacking the right of those who believe in birth control to use birth control. If Catholics wish to claim that their religion is being discriminated against they must also admit that they wish to discriminate against their employees who believe in and wish to use birth control.<br />
<br />
But discrimination is really not the issue here. This is simply an issue of social policy debate: is universal access to birth control and other contraceptives a good thing and should we mandate it? That is the true debate. The issue of religious discrimination is merely a sideshow attempt to draw attention away from the real issue because that battle is one the Catholics likely cannot win.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-56197843241916213072012-02-24T12:14:00.003-08:002012-04-23T12:00:53.521-07:00Am I agnostic or atheist? Well I'm both and yes that does make sense...In <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html" target="_blank">a recent debate </a>Richard Dawkins (who has become a common subject on this blog) stated that he was not 100% sure that a god does not exist to the extreme surprise of the moderator. This is a position he has often stated and anyone who has read his books will know this is Dawkins' position. However, most people assume that an "atheist" completely denies the possibility of any god's existence. This is a general misunderstanding of the position of most skeptical atheists. By skeptical atheist I mean one who comes to atheism due to scientific skepticism.<br />
<br />
I call myself a skeptical atheist by which I mean I do not believe in god because I have never found any evidence presented to prove his existence to be convincing even in the slightest. However, at the same time I call myself an agnostic because I cannot know for sure whether or not a god exists. This is not a contradiction or a paradox though, on its face, it may seem to be one. To explain lets start with the definition of each:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Atheist: a person who does not <i>believe</i> in god.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Agnostic: a person who does not <i>know </i>whether god exists</li>
</ul>
<br />
Note the difference. Atheism is a statement of <i>belief</i> while agnosticism is a statement of <i>knowledge</i>. There is a somewhat nuanced difference between these two terms. The difference lies in the degree of certainty we apply to each. We generally say <i>believe</i> when we are less than certain about the truth of an issue because we lack the evidence to really be sure we are correct. <i>Knowledge</i> on the other hand generally refers to ideas that are supported by so much evidence that we feel absolutely sure they are true.<br />
<br />
Take Santa Cause for example. I do not believe in Santa Clause and most adults would say that they do not believe in Santa clause. On the other hand most children do believe in Santa Clause. But can we say that we <i>know</i> Santa is not real? Some people might say yes because Santa is obviously a fictional human invention. I would disagree. Despite the fact that the modern version of Santa as a Jolly old white bearded man living at the north pole was an invention of fiction this does not mean he does not exist...<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>It is possible that our stories of Santa arose from people who actually had knowledge of this real Santa. They had seen him and spoke with him and wrote stories about him but pretended they did not believe so others would not question their sanity. Perhaps there is an old man at the North Pole who flies around in a sleigh on the night of Christmas Eve and delivers presents. Perhaps he does leave presents under trees. When both mother and father pretend to not have delivered the present they both assume the other purchased it and thus Santa's secret delivery goes unnoticed because we simply assume someone else left the gift.<br />
<br />
How then could we possibly prove that Santa does not exist? No matter what we do a believer could continue to invent ways by which Santa has eluded our detection. We could scour the whole north pole looking for his secret toy factory. However, it would be nearly impossible to cover the entire vast expanse of the north pole. Even while we diligently traverse the snow covered expanse of the pole the Santa believers could laugh at our efforts and say that Santa has hidden his base so well that we will never find it.<br />
<br />
Maybe we could disprove Santa's existence by showing that reindeer cannot fly and that one person could not possibly deliver presents all over the world. Again the Santa believer could claim Santa has powers that science cannot understand. We could dismiss Santa saying that he is just a fictional story. But again the believer points out that the fiction was based on truth and points to all the children who believe in Santa. They clearly do not agree that he is fictional. No matter what we do we cannot prove that Santa does not exist thus we cannot <i>know </i>that he does not exist.<br />
<br />
At the same time why should we <i>believe </i>Santa exists? The Santa story is just one out of millions of stories written by men. Should we be required to disprove each and every store before we say we do not believe? The answer is no. Even though we do not know for sure that each and every story is false we can simply refuse to <i>believe</i> these stories until there is some sort of evidence showing that they are, in fact, true.<br />
<br />
This is the theory of infinite hypotheses. Human minds can invent nearly an infinite number of different stories. So what then separates the fact from the fiction? The answer is evidence. We do not believe in Santa because there is no evidence that he exists just as we do not believe in Harry Potter because there is not sufficient evidence of his existence.<br />
<br />
Religion is one of these infinite hypotheses. Imagine how many different religions exist across the world: Hinduism, Buddhism, Catholicism, Islam, or any other belief among the vast number of religions that have existed or still exist today. Then imagine the diversity of beliefs even within a single religion. The different sects of Christianity provide the perfect example where, out of a single set of books, a vast array of very different beliefs have arisen. Some Christians believe their belief allows birth control while others claim it does not. Some Christians believe homosexuality is immoral others do not. Even within a single sect you can find individuals with very different beliefs.<br />
<br />
Each one of these beliefs is an individual hypothesis on what God is. Do we <i>know </i>that any of them are true? That is a question each of us must answer personally. I of course have not seen enough evidence to justify saying that I know god does not exist, thus I am an agnostic. But, on the other hand to me God is just one of many hypothesis about our world no different than the hypothesis that Santa clause exists. Until evidence of Santa or God is produced I choose not to believe in either and I will remain an atheist.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-9498440728954618042012-02-21T10:02:00.001-08:002012-02-21T10:03:31.611-08:00The ghost owl...A few nights ago I awoke from a deep sleep, groggily looked around my room, and found a pair of menacing dark orange eyes staring at me from outside my window. After a few moments it faded away. My initial thought was that I must be imagining it but when I cleared my eyes and looked again the eyes had returned, yet again they only lasted a second before they disappeared. After a few more repetitions of the disappearing and reappearing eyes occurring at regular intervals I decided it must be caused by a reflection in the window from a light in my room. So I jumped up and looked around. Immediately when I stood up the eyes disappeared yet no lights were pointed at the window so I sat, pondering for a second.<br />
<div><a name='more'></a></div><div><br />
</div><div>If I had been more credulous I might have attributed my experience to a ghost flipped on a light and rearranged things in my room such that I would not have discovered the cause. As it was I searched cautiously for a second more and realized a light from my computer was reflecting off my phone and hitting the window just right so that it only appeared as eyes from my bed.</div><div><br />
</div><div>I tested my theory by blocking first the lights from my computer which stopped the eyes from appearing. Next I covered my phone screen and again no eyes. Mystery solved. Here is what I saw:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGTJCzecH9TMhEYsSKGEI9W3_cR0c6vAqiAGmoj_hydkn_fWeO6kIQbNz_Rq_sPPCC8Puibdm0pt6RJnHNnBhA6lQ_Lz29aSv8Gs85hdJ4kUrozXJqz5NnzW2FpaqMd1jySDwL13QNcbI/s1600/P1010642.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="255" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGTJCzecH9TMhEYsSKGEI9W3_cR0c6vAqiAGmoj_hydkn_fWeO6kIQbNz_Rq_sPPCC8Puibdm0pt6RJnHNnBhA6lQ_Lz29aSv8Gs85hdJ4kUrozXJqz5NnzW2FpaqMd1jySDwL13QNcbI/s320/P1010642.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br />
</div><div>Note the faint red blurry dots. This is one of those times I wish I had a tripod so I could have taken a better picture though perhaps a blurry picture is appropriate considering the quality of most pictures of alleged ghosts. You cannot see it in the picture but the two eye like dots are surrounded by a glow that to me appeared to be a menacing face.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Now, the whole time I was fumbling around my room trying to solve my midnight mystery and snap some pictures, my girlfriend slept somehow totally undisturbed. Excited by my discovery I of course gently woke her up, explained the reflection and how uncannily it looked like ghost eyes. She looked up, said "oh, that's nice, look a friendly little ghost owl" and promptly went back to sleep. I looked back up at it, and suddenly the menacing face was gone and all I saw was her happy little ghost owl.</div><div><br />
</div><div>The next night my girlfriend asked if the ghost owl was back. I tried to position my phone right but just couldn't quite get the right positioning to get the reflection so I guess the ghost owl might not return for another night time visit.</div><div><br />
</div><div>I found this to be a great example of how people can be fooled by strange phenomena caused by very specific conditions. Everything in my room needed to be set just right to cause the ghost owl effect. Luckily the ghost owl was caused by a repeating light thus allowing me to take the time to search and discover the cause. But I imagine how something temporary (like a passing car) could cause such an illusion and leave someone feeling like they saw a ghost with no way to determine the exact cause.</div><div><br />
</div><div>To me this is another reminder that when I see something that seems strange I shouldn't immediately leap to a supernatural conclusion. Human perception is fallible. My mind turned the blurry glowing image into a menacing face while my girlfriend turned it into an owl. Another reminder that what we see often isn't what really is. When we take time to investigate phenomena like this natural explanations often emerge. Even if I had not discovered the natural explanation in this case that would not have been enough for me to believe it was a ghost, it would have been just enough for me to say I saw an unexplained light. </div><div><br />
</div><div>Here is a comparison of night to day of the ghost owl.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzWg5wODe7OC4-EzzGTSCHUUpEYnkzTgBLAmZgkIDrzGIBOyAyTs1WGIKgQURCnxSiSzEolh6zxstHh21zqURQvz4kuqTCEf5gZf5vvkj9xeQJX1iRYNqE0bKgfmRqvohe2GUPSj4GKN4/s1600/Ghost+Owl.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="155" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzWg5wODe7OC4-EzzGTSCHUUpEYnkzTgBLAmZgkIDrzGIBOyAyTs1WGIKgQURCnxSiSzEolh6zxstHh21zqURQvz4kuqTCEf5gZf5vvkj9xeQJX1iRYNqE0bKgfmRqvohe2GUPSj4GKN4/s400/Ghost+Owl.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div>Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-69600926061358985472012-02-20T16:33:00.000-08:002012-02-20T16:33:48.662-08:00Outlandish Rhetoric of the week: Lord CareyAll week long I have been reading ridiculously dishonest, misleading, or just plain incorrect articles (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html" target="_blank">such as this one</a>) by people promoting or representing religion. My frustration at reading these poorly thought out articles in major publications has left me wondering which ones are worse, more dishonest, misleading, and wrong. So I decided to make an award for the most outlandish rhetoric of the week to award the person who makes the most dishonest, misleading, or simply incorrect argument of the week. I know it is Monday and thus the beginning of the week but I have to start sometime so I'll start today.<br />
<br />
Today's choice was a tough one. On the one hand there was a<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9091007/Slaves-at-the-root-of-the-fortune-that-created-Richard-Dawkins-family-estate.html" target="_blank"> Daily Telegraph article</a> trying to smear Richard Dawkins with the absurd connection that he had a single extremely distant ancestor who owned slaves. I almost picked this one, but as absurd and dishonest as that was I have to give the award to Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey for his <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103583/Lord-Carey-tells-David-Cameron-Letting-gays-marry-wrong.html" target="_blank">recent comment on the movement in the UK to legalize same sex marriage</a>. He says:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">I was baffled because this Government’s proposal [to legal same sex marriage] constitutes one of the greatest political power grabs in history.<br />
‘The state does not own marriage... The honourable estate of matrimony precedes both the state and the church, and neither of these institutions have the right to redefine it in such a fundamental way.</blockquote>This trumps the misleading Dawkins slavery smear merely because of the absolute absurdity of Carey's misleading statement. At least the Dawkins smear was based in truth even if it was completely irrelevant and dishonest.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Carey says that "the state does not own marriage." First, marriage is not a physical thing and thus no one can own it. Second, even if Carey is using "own" in a metaphorical sense then he is absolutely wrong because, in fact, the State does own marriage. The state created a legal institution of marriage that grants rights and creates responsibilities for people who become married. If the State is making a "power grab" by redefining marriage then this power grab was made long ago when the state first invoked its right to legally marry people. Thus, Carey, you are a little late to make this complaint.<br />
<br />
The State, by granting a marriage, is giving legal rights and thus they have every right to determine who may have such legal rights. The State was the one to define legal marriage in the first place and thus there is no issue with its redefinition. Carey has made an absurd and idiotic statement that the State cannot redefine marriage when all that changing the definition requires is passage of a law that changes a few words in a book of statutes; governments do this all the time.<br />
<br />
It seems that Carey imagines that marriage is some ethereal thing floating around in some unseen dimension and that the state is bound to follow this mysterious idea of marriage. Well, perhaps he is right and his mysterious definition does exist, the problem is that words can have more than one meaning. Thus, the State has every right to use their definition of marriage and allow gay people to marry if it so decides. By doing so the State does not prevent Carey from using his definition of marriage because, if he really wants to, Carey can still claim that a Married gay couple is not married under his definition.<br />
<br />
Carey says he was "baffled" by the State's proposal. Well, perhaps he should have taken a second to realize what a legal marriage by the State really is. If he had done that he might have figured it out and not made such an outlandish claim.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-32425319354512718062012-02-20T01:25:00.000-08:002012-02-20T01:36:57.913-08:00Hutton and Dawkins separated by equivocationA<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/19/religion-secularism-atheism-hutton-dawkins?INTCMP=SRCH" target="_blank"> recent article at the Observer</a> covers a short debate between Will Hutton and Richard Dawkins. The two spar back and forth (among other things) over the issue of whether secularism requires atheism. However, reading their arguments I see that they really just differ on their definition of secularism. If either had taken the time to define the word they wouldn't have had the argument. So before I provide you with quotes from each let me show you the definition of secularism being used by each.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>Dawkins' definition of secularism</b>: the idea that governments should not take a stance on religion and should not support any single religion. This is essentially the idea that church and state should be separate. However, this theory of secularism also believes that government should not interfere with personal belief and should allow all to believe what they wish.<br />
<br />
<b>Hutton's definition of secularism</b>: the idea that religion should not have a role in public life.<br />
<br />
With those introductory definitions completed lest look at their respective arguments starting with Dawkins:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">my foundation is campaigning for secularism, not atheism. There are many religious secularists, including Gandhi, Martin Luther King, plenty of clergy, JF Kennedy and indeed every religious American who upholds the constitution.</blockquote>Clearly Dawkins is referring to secularism as separation of church from state because he describes religious people who fought for separation of church and state.<br />
<br />
Now lets move on to Hutton:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">I ... think your distinction between atheism and secularism is sleight of hand. Secularism unsupported by atheism is nonsensical. The reason why a secularist objects so strongly about the extension of religion into the public sphere – and even its private practice – is because its adherents are delusional, and, using your own words, imposing a delusional set of values and practices on others.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">...</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Nor do I understand what you mean by religious secularists: it sounds like "expansionary fiscal contraction" – a contradiction in terms. Martin Luther King and Gandhi certainly had secular ambitions, but their inspiration and inner strength came from religious conviction. You've made your reputation by being one of the country's most articulate atheists. Don't muddy the waters!</blockquote>Clearly Hutton is referring to the definition of secularism that religion should't play a role in public life. Because obviously religious figures like Martin Luther King Jr. believed that religion should be part of people's belief system in their public actions.<br />
<br />
So in reality both Richard and Hutton are correct when viewed under their understanding of Secularism but wrong when viewed under the other's view of secularism. This is once again a case of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation" target="_blank">equivocation</a>: where a word has two meanings and each person is using a different meaning. If either Dawkins or Hutton had taken the time to define their term or pause to ask what definition the other was using this debate would not have happened.<br />
<br />
Now since Dawkins first used the term secularism and his usage is really the more common one I think the fault here really lies with Hutton for switching to a different definition of secularism. Dawkins' definition of secularism is extremely common and for Hutton to ignore Dawkins' obvious invoking of this definition is either dishonest or simply careless. Of course on the other hand, Dawkins could have explicitly pointed out the ambiguity and equivocation after Hutton misunderstood. But, no matter the fault, the argument could have been avoided by clearly defining terms.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-80115268273937805332012-02-18T14:34:00.000-08:002012-02-20T01:42:16.193-08:00Why do the religious think they deserve special treatment?There's been a lot of demands recently by the religious (most recently the Catholics) for special treatment. For some reason they do not feel the need to obey the laws of our society and think that because they have religious beliefs that they should not have to obey the law. This is utterly ridiculous. Religious belief does not and should not excuse unlawful behavior.<br />
<br />
These ridiculous claims for special treatment have arisen today in both the UK and the US. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17074114" target="_blank">In the UK Catholics complain</a> that rules requiring providing of adoption services for gay couples should not apply to them.<a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-is-religious-discrimination.html" target="_blank"> In the US Catholics complain</a> that rules requiring provision of birth control under employer insurance plans should not apply to them. This absurd plea for special treatment should not be respected but should instead be ridiculed for the absurdity it is.<br />
<br />
We generally do not allow special treatment based on beliefs. A person who does not believe in taxes still has to pay their taxes (religious institutions in the US noticeably do not pay taxes but this is not due to a lack in belief in taxes but due to a belief in separation of church and state). A person who believes in free access to art is still liable for copyright violations when they illegally download movies.<br />
<br />
Even religious belief does not grant special privileges. Those whose religion requires the use of drugs for religious ceremonies do not get to use drugs. Those whose religion allows polygamy do not get to engage in polygamy. Those whose religion requires the stoning to death of disobedient children are still liable for murder. These things are self-evident, the mere fact that one's beliefs run counter to a law does not grant a special right to break that law because the law applies equally to all.<br />
<br />
Laws requiring provision of birth control or provision of adoption services may seem different than laws prohibiting behavior such as polygamy. Rather than prohibiting behavior these laws require a person to behave in a certain way. But if you think about it we generally do not allow personal beliefs to be used to avoid such laws. Racists restaurant owners are not allowed to discriminate against customers and thus avoid anti-discrimination laws merely because they hold racist beliefs. We find it acceptable that society can force these owners to serve people of all races no matter if it contradicts their personal beliefs.<br />
<br />
Imagine if we give in to the Catholics and say that a person does not have to obey the law if it runs counter to their beliefs. First, if we allow the religious to escape the law because of the belief we must allow all to escape the law due to belief. It is unconstitutional to make a law that favors the religious. Thus, an exemption based on religious belief would be unconstitutional. The only constitutional way to allow an exception would be to allow everyone who disbelieves in a law to be exempt. When it comes to laws that require behavior this would castrate the law, no one would follow it but the people who already perform the behavior, and again racists restaurant owners would be allowed to discriminate.<br />
<br />
This is the absurd result that the Catholics are arguing for. Even more absurd is the claim that these laws are religious discrimination. I addressed this issue <a href="http://skeptorical.blogspot.com/2012/02/what-is-religious-discrimination.html" target="_blank">here</a>. These laws clearly do not discriminate against the religious because they apply equally to all citizens. Discrimination requires singling out a group for special treatment. Thus, the irony is, the Catholics are actually asking for religious discrimination against all other belief systems when they demand to be exempt from the law.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-3719435179342619302012-02-15T09:35:00.000-08:002012-02-15T09:41:26.882-08:00A single quote does not make a conspiracyBack in 2009 we were presented with the Climategate scandal which, at first, appeared to be a scandal involving climate change scientists but in fact turned out to be a news media scandal of poor and perhaps even dishonest reporting. Hacked emails were released to the public and out of 3,000 documents and emails spanning 14 years the news media latched on to two or three sentences that when read out of context sounded damning. Today the Heartland Institute (famous for fighting against global warming science) has now had some of <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism?newsfeed=true" target="_blank">its own documents released which are being used to imply a scandal</a>.<br />
<div><br />
</div><div>The original Climategate scandal turned out to be nothing but an embarrassment for the media. They should have been clued in by the fact that the day to day emails being sent back and forth showed no controversy and that they could only find a controversy by cherry picking a minuscule fraction of what was written. Additionally, the news media failed to take the time to do proper journalistic research and determine what the quotes meant before releasing them. Instead <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/24/john-lott-climate-change-emails-copenhagen/" target="_blank">they promoted the idea that there was a controversy</a>.<br />
<div><br />
</div><div>Thus, when the investigations into the scandal were said and done it turned out that the there was nothing controversial going at all and we learned that climategate was, as the New York Times called it, merely a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/opinion/11sun2.html" target="_blank">manufactured controversy</a>. The reason this controversy existed was because people jumped on the bandwagon too quickly and assumed what single quotes meant rather than taking the time to learn what was being said.</div><div><br />
<a name='more'></a></div><div>There are serious problems with trying to pick out single quotes as evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up. First, if we look at single quotes we can never really be sure what they mean in the whole context of not only the document but also the general conversation going on between two people. People who work closely together or communicate often on a subject will have a history that cannot be understood by people looking in from the outside. This history is part of the context we need to understand what is being said in private communication and often times a quote that we might see as scandalous might in the context of that history actually be innocent. Another problem is that no one is perfect. We don't always type exactly what we mean, and sometimes we make mistakes especially in private conversations where we expect our colleagues and friends to understand what we actually mean. When we look at these problems together we should realize that a few suspicious quotes is not enough to evidence to prove a controversy.</div><div><br />
</div><div>If only a few lines point to a conspiracy we should wonder why the whole doesn't point to a controversy. Perhaps the reason is that the conspiracy is well covered up. But at the same time, we should wonder why we cannot find more of a pattern of suspicious behavior in internal documents. Of course, the whole point of a conspiracy is that it is covered up and thus we cannot really know whether one exists or not.</div><div><br />
</div><div>In the current leak of Heartland Institute documents<a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/" target="_blank"> people seem to be latching on to this quote</a>:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain – two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science.</blockquote><div>Specifically people point out that it says "dissuading teachers from teaching science." My point here is that we cannot know what this really means. It might be damning, but at the same time it might be innocent. Perhaps if we understood the history of the writers we would know what it meant. Perhaps it is a typo. The only sure answer right now is that we can't know what it means so lets not fall into the same trap that embarrassed the media during the Climategate scandal.</div><div><br />
</div><div>The scientific evidence for global warming is sufficient to prove that it is actually occurring. Thus, we shouldn't need to resort to jumping on single quotes until there has been time to investigate. We have all seen that the primary tactics of global warming deniers is to use rhetoric rather than evidence. However, lets be better than them. Lets give them the chance to explain their quote before we claim it is incriminating. It might feel good to be able to point out the irony and parade around their suspicious quote. But, in the end, climate change is about the science so lets stick to the science and take the time to see how this pans out.</div><div><br />
</div></div>Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-76913998314697363122012-02-14T12:38:00.000-08:002012-02-14T18:01:14.073-08:00How Buffett Rule critics try to dodge the 30% tax rate by referencing the marginal rateOne of Obama's proposed tax policies for 2013 is the implementation of the Buffet Rule. This rule is fairly simple, it sets a minimum tax rate for those who make more than $1 Million at 30%. The reason we need this rule is to plug up loopholes in the tax code that tax dividends and capital gains at 15%. These loopholes allow people who have massive amounts of assets to essentially pay a 15% tax rate on all of their income because these people can structure their income as capital gains and dividends rather than ordinary income.<br />
<br />
The current tax system vastly favors investors over average workers by taxing pure investors at lower rates. The Buffett rule tries to plug this loophole for those making more than a $1 million by requiring them to pay at least 30% of their income in taxes.<br />
<br />
The tax foundation has<a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27972.html" target="_blank"> an article in its Tax policy Blog with the inflammatory title: "Buffet Rule would Cause Marginal Tax Rate of 90%."</a> Before you become mislead by that title remember that the buffet rule actually sets a tax rate of 30%. The use of the number 90% in the title is totally misleading because the actual tax rate is 30%. So where do they get this misleading 90% tax rate? Well for simplicity's sake let me dive in with a simpler example than they use that shows just how absurd their argument is.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Imagine that a person is taxed at 15% on all their income. If they make $100,000 then they pay $15,000 of taxes. If they make $500,000 they pay $75,000 in taxes. If they make $999,999.99 they pay nearly $150,000 in taxes which is 15% of their income. Now, under the buffet rule the second they jump up to $1 Million they suddenly pay 30% in taxes which results in $300,000. You would be right to say "wow" because earning one extra penny doubles the taxes!<br />
<br />
So now that you understand that I'll explain to you what the Tax Foundation does to reach their 90% tax rate. They start with the assumption that the actual tax rate on every penny up to $999,999.99 is taxed at 15%. Thus they say that $150,000 of taxes is attributable to that first $999,999.99. We can calculate the tax rate by dividing the amount of taxes paid by the income taxed. Thus, if we pay $150,000 in taxes on $999,999.99 of income we are paying a 15% tax rate.<br />
<br />
Ok so what does the tax foundation do next? They essentially say that since that last penny jumps the rate up to 30% that the second $150,000 in taxes is completely attributable to that lone penny. Lets calculate the tax rate on that penny which equals $150,000 in taxes divided by $.01 giving us a 1.5 Billion% tax on that lone penny. Wow, crazy isn't it! The government wants to impose a 1.5 Billion percent tax on a single penny. A tax greater than 100% means you are paying more than you are earning. But, wait, remember the actual tax total tax rate is 30% and thus this use of a 1.5 Billion percent tax rate is really just a way of manipulating the numbers to make it look like the tax rate is absurdly higher than it really is.<br />
<br />
So in my example the tax rate on that lone penny is 1.5 Billion percent. You might wonder how this relates to the tax rate of 90% listed by the tax foundation. <strike>Well, the tax foundation likely knows we would see through their tricky math if they used ridiculous numbers like a 1.5 Billion percent tax rate on a single penny. So they actually change Obama's proposed tax and make it phase in between incomes of $1 to $2 Million. </strike> <strike>They then say</strike> <span style="color: #ea9999;">(<b>Correction: </b>The Tax Foundation was quoting Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's proposed implementation of the buffet rule and not proposing its own implementation. Thus my statement that "they ... change Obama's proposed tax" is misleading. They have simply chosen to interpret Whitehouse's proposed implementation of the plan. I interpreted the use of the passive voice "proposed solution" as a solution they were proposing to the cliff problem instead of Sheldon Whitehouse's. I wish to apologize for my unintended confusion and state that I stand corrected on this issue. Thank you Nick Kasprak for the correction.).</span><span style="color: #f4cccc;"> </span>The tax foundation used Sheldon Whitehouse's plan for how to implement the buffet rule. Under this plan you pay 0% of this 30% tax at $1 Million and 100% of the 30% tax at $2 Million. A bit confusing, I know, but the end result is to make it so that the tax gradually increases up to 30% rather than instantly rising from 15% to 30%. The result of using a gradual increase in tax rate rather than a sudden change is to reduce the tax rate on that final penny by spreading out the increase over your income. Thus instead of having a 1.5 billion percent tax on a penny, <strike>they find</strike> there is a 90% tax on an income increase from $1.80 to $1.81 million dollars. But don't forget the actual amount of tax being paid is still 30%. It appears that a primary purpose for showing this manipulated 90% number is to inflame you into thinking the government is charging a 90% tax rate, which they are not, they are charging a 30% tax rate.<br />
<br />
Now lets take a step back and remember what the initial problem was: that people making millions of dollars were paying only a 15% tax rate when people making less than $100,000 pay up to 28%. This is hardly a fair scenario where the extremely wealthy are paying less tax than many people making less. The tax policy group's technique shifts the issue away from this disparity and will lead people to see only the 90% tax rate that would seem high and unfair.<br />
<br />
I want to change gears now and go to the actual problem. The tax policy group correctly points out that there is going to be a "cliff" in taxes at $1 million where your taxes due suddenly jump from $150,000 to $300,000. This means that a person who makes more than $1 million will take home less in some cases than a person who makes under $1 million. The difference is greatest right at that one penny before $1 million where on the low side you take home $850,000 and at the million mark you take home $700,000. Making $150,000 less because you earned one penny more hardly seems fair and looks like it would cause many people to arbitrarily limit their income until they get high enough above $1 million so that they actually make more than they lose. If we do the math a person taxed at 15% making just below $1 million will take home more after tax income than anyone making $1.21 Million or less. Thus, the incentive is to never make between $1 and 1.21 million.<br />
<br />
This is an actual problem with a policy like this. It unfairly imposes a giant tax jump at an arbitrarily determined number. So how do we solve this? Well the most fair way would be to simply to tax <i>all income under the same rate structure</i> regardless of how it was earned. Thus we would do away with the low 15% tax on capital gains and dividends and tax these gains at ordinary income tax rates. Remember we have decided to give investors a beneficial low tax bracket of 15%. Thus, they should hardly complain when they are made to pay at the same rate as others who have the same income.<br />
<br />
However, simply removing the preferential capital gains and dividends rates is problematic too. The reason we have these low rates is to encourage people to invest in property and businesses thus we do not want to simply do away with these encouraging rates. Thus we have two competing policies: 1) that people who make more should pay more in taxes versus 2) our desire to encourage investment with low tax rates.<br />
<br />
The Buffett rule is one solution to these competing policies and it does have a large cliff (tax rate jump) problem. The tax foundation states that there is no way the Buffett Rule can get around this tax cliff problem absent using long range phase ins. Well, they might be correct that the Buffett rule can't avoid the cliff problem but the real issue is: do we care? The tax rates for those making over a million in dividends is absurdly low compared to general income tax rates. The real way to look at this is not that people making more than $1 million are being punished, they aren't, they are still paying less than they would if they had earned income instead of dividends. Instead we should remember that we are giving a benefit to lower income investors and thus encouraging their investment.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2645900688928066934.post-15879755758224545942012-02-10T13:58:00.002-08:002012-03-21T12:22:12.351-07:00How to debate alternative medicineI am an outspoken skeptic and when I hear someone mention alternative medicine I have never been afraid to express my doubts about whether a particular alternative treatment actually works. As a skeptic I generally disbelieve in most alternative medicine because most of it is at the least unsupported if not outright contradicted by evidence and research. Thus I try to show others this lack of evidence to help them avoid risks to their health and the potential waste of money and time.<br />
<br />
However, no matter how much evidence I used to support my claims I could not change peoples minds. I could describe cognitive biases, the placebo effect, and the importance of non-anecdotal evidence all day but even if I could manage to draw out agreement on a few points people always jumped back to "it worked for me." I debated like this for a long time and my success rates were near 0%. Even some people who I thought I had convinced I later heard going back to their original beliefs.<br />
<br />
So what was the problem? Why doesn't presenting evidence change peoples minds? Well lets go back to peoples final answer: "it worked for me." People "knew" alternative treatments work because it worked for them. Thus in their minds I am clearly wrong; their experience "proves" it works and no matter what point I might make there must be something wrong because they know it works.<br />
<br />
Even worse I am attacking them personally. They just told me that the know it works because of personal experience. My response in their ears is "you are delusional." Even though I might be clearly saying we all have problems with bias and perception, the fact is, I am attacking their specific belief and they will take it as an accusation of being delusional.<br />
<br />
So who is going to listen to you when you accuse them of being delusion then refuse to listen to what they know is "obviously true?" The answer to this rhetorical question is, of course, nobody; nobody will listen to you when what they hear is an attack on their credibility and beliefs.<br />
<br />
The reason I write this post is to explain how I have tried to get around this problem with mixed success. There is no sure technique that will convince everyone and some people are beyond convincing. So without further ado lets get into this...<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: large;">The non-skeptic view of life</span><br />
Before you can bring someone to a skeptical point of view you first need to understand where they are coming from. Most people do not understand science: they do not understand how science works, what it tells us, why we should trust it, or why it is the best tool we have yet developed for pulling truth out of the world around us. This lack of understanding of science can lead to distrust and disbelief. Thus providing citations to scientific research to a person who doesn't understand science is unlikely to be convincing.<br />
<br />
Additionally, the average person you talk to will hold a simplistic view of how the world works. I do not mean simplistic in any sort of demeaning sense and by no means am I saying they are unintelligent. What I am pointing out is that most people do not stop to consider all aspects of a thought they have nor do they pause to examine the details of every phenomena they experience. Thus most people never go through the process of learning how complex the real world is. Such simplifications abound: Criminals are bad, a hero is good (criminals often do good, and many heroes do bad things); we need air to breath to live (we don't need to breath we just need enough oxygen in our blood); or the assumption that the earth is flat at short distances when looking at maps (it might be useful but it ignores that the world is round). We all make these simplifying assumptions in our daily life and it is a necessary part of perceiving and making quick decisions in a complex the world.<br />
<br />
Simplifying assumptions become problematic when we use them outside the context where they are useful. Take for example the claim that we should avoid eating chemicals because they are dangerous. This myth arises from the fact that there are many synthetic chemicals that are dangerous. People often use the word "chemicals" to specifically refer to dangerous synthetic chemicals and fail to realize that everything is made out of chemicals. They also fail to realize that there are many naturally occurring chemicals that are just as dangerous as synthetic chemicals. Thus this simplistic belief that we should avoid chemicals makes sense when we talk about potentially dangerous synthetic chemicals, but starts to lose its usefulness when we apply it to less dangerous chemicals. In other words this simplified view saves time by assuming all synthetic chemicals are dangerous rather than analyzing each chemical on its own.<br />
<br />
A third problem, as I discussed above, is the fact that people tend to believe strongly in alternative medicine because it is true to them. They have experiences that, in their belief system, seem to be extremely convincing evidence. Additionally, they do not understand cognitive biases and problems with perception. Thus they are less likely to be receptive of you pointing these things out. Even those of us who know of these problems often forget that we have these biases and faults. We are all prideful and most of us believe that we perceive the world in a neutral way and that our perceptions and memories are just as reliable as a video camera. Someone who attacks our perceptions is therefore attacking our credibility and calling us a liar or delusional.<br />
<br />
So again the four obstacles most people have to understanding problems with alternative medicine are: 1) they don't understand or trust science, 2) they look at the world in a simplistic way that doesn't take into account real world complexities, 3) they trust their perceptions, and 4) they assume any description of perception issues is an attack on their credibility.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Letting others find skepticism</span><br />
As I mentioned before not only have I had trouble convincing people alternative medicine does not work but also the people I have convinced have often gone back. The reason is likely because they were mostly convinced by my rhetoric and they failed to understand the underlying reasons why I distrust alternative medicine. Attacking any specific belief is likely to be unsuccessful. Not only do people hold these beliefs dear they also are unlikely to understand your underlying reasoning. The specific beliefs aren't important anyway. The important step is the process we use to achieve our beliefs. If a person does not have the tools to be skeptical then the next person with a rhetorically persuasive though illogical argument will pull them right back.<br />
<br />
The solution I have found is letting others find skepticism. I chose these words carefully. If you try to "lead" someone to skepticism it may be treated as patronizing. As it is "letting others find skepticism" is still patronizing but, I hope less patronizing than leading. And I would make sure to never tell someone that I was leading them to skepticism, I want them to achieve it on their own. The process of learning by thinking every idea through is much more powerful than having someone else explain it to you.<br />
<br />
So how then do we start the process of skeptical thinking? Here is one way. It is by no means the right way and I am sure there are many situations to which it will not apply because as we should remember the world is a complex place.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 1:</b> change the subject away from their belief. When a person tells me that they have been going to an acupuncturist and its been great in healing their back pain I make sure not to attack that belief. I make sure I don't say: "actually that was probably the placebo effect" which they interpret as "you're delusional." Instead I say: "wow that's great, I'm glad you got rid of your back pain" and thus I don't lie about my disbelief in acupuncture while at the same time showing that I do believe that they feel better. After that, its time to divert.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 2: </b> figure out where to divert. This is the hardest step and there is no specific advice I can give. You don't want to step in and start criticizing acupuncture because they'll go on the defensive. Additionally, picking out any specific alternative belief is risky because you don't know what they believe and what they don't believe. Instead what you want to do is try to find a neutral subject and then address one of the problems I discuss above. Perhaps you find out they believe in global warming. That's a perfect place to start. If you can keep them interested in this subject then keep going on it.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 3:</b> Discuss: science, simplified views, or cognitive biases. If they believe in global warming bring up one of the opinion pieces signed by "scientists" and discuss how that isn't how science is done and try to do as much as you can to explain and discuss how science is done and why it is a powerful tool. Or discuss how people's simplified views of the world prevent them from understanding the difference between climate and weather. Or go into how people become biased against global warming due to political views and thus have a hard time accepting the evidence of global warming.<br />
<br />
<b>Step 4:</b> Get them interested in something. Find some subject they find interesting that they want to question and encourage them to research it more. Say that you are going to research it too. The if you have a chance to discuss it again you can come back and explain why you believed certain sources and discounted other ones. <br />
<br />
<b>Step 5:</b> Be ready to let it go but also try to find a way to bring it back. People are only willing to listen to a subject so long before they tune out. Learn to recognize this point and back off so you don't annoy or bother them. If you can, do your best to get them interested. Some people genuinely want to learn more and you can often leave the conversation with "lets do this again sometime!" or "I'm out of time but I'd love to meet up for coffee to talk more." You will never convince someone in a few minutes. Generally, teaching something as complicated skepticism takes a lot of talking and giving them their own time to think things through.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Conclusion</span><br />
Although I outlined steps above for teaching skepticism I think it is much more important to simply remember that most people don't understand science and skepticism. Our goal isn't to convince them that acupuncture and homeopathy are really just snake oil. What we want to do is give them the tools to explain to us how acupuncture and homeopathy are not supported by evidence and in fact contradict vast amounts of scientifically accumulated knowledge.Aidan Cauthornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16620225233350342326noreply@blogger.com0