Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk by Massimo Pigliucci

I completed reading this book about two weeks ago, but have been grappling with how to review it. For starters, the title threw me off somewhat, as the contents eventually revealed what I was not expecting.The book is not composed of the typical science versus pseudoscience and non-science debate, that is characteristic of books of this type.

Instead, Massimo Pigliucci focuses on uncovering in some detail what the true nature of science is and indeed what it is not. To this end his discussions involve looking at the history of science from pre-Socratic to modern times, attempting to distinguish between hard and soft sciences, and also what he terms “almost-science.” Further, he looks at the philosophy of science and its proponents such as Popper, and delves into what constitutes an expert in a field of science, and ends with a critique of Postmodernism.

Massimo uses many real-life examples to further his discussions, sometimes going unnecessarily too deep into them as in the case of his criticism of Bjorn Lambourg’s views on climate change. However, overall one sees the necessity of using these examples as in the case of the tiresome Creationist, and patently dishonest Intelligent Design belief systems, to make clear the distinctions between science, pseudoscience and plain bunk.

An eye-opener for me was the revelation that being a skeptic is not necessarily the intellectually superior position it is made out to be by some proponents as Shermer and Randi. Indeed, there are many skeptics out there who have taken positions that are contrary to widely accepted scientific findings, and peddle either pseudoscience or plain nonsense.

Ultimately though, even though scientists are fallible, one comes away convinced that science works because it is self-regulating, being subject to peer review, while pseudoscience and non-science are not.

I think the best way to get an insight into what the book offers is through some quotes which I have selected:

1. Clearly, human senses can be misleading, which is plainly shown by the kind of dream that feels real while it is happening or by phenomena like mirages. Even human reasoning is faulty, again as shown by the fact that we can be absolutely convinced of the soundness of an argument only to be ruthlessly shown wrong by someone who has looked at it more carefully or from a different angle.

2. What interests us here, however, is the potential for fruitful interactions between science and philosophy when it comes to a joint defense against the assault from pseudoscientific quarters.

3. Moreover, it is important to note that it was scientists who uncovered the hoax, not creationists, which is both an immense credit to the self-correcting nature of science and yet another indication that creationism is only a religious doctrine with no power of discovery.

4. We shall see later on how science itself can still claim a high degree of quasi-objectivity, despite the fact that its practitioners are not objective machines, but instead are emotionally and subjectively after the same three universal rewards sought by humankind: fame, money (or material resources), and sex (not necessarily in that order).

5. Objecting to such procedure on moral grounds would be similar to objecting to vaccination on the ground that God wants us to suffer from the diseases He invented (the absurdity of which has not stopped people from actually defending such “reasoning”).

6. To expect a scientist to be more objective than average is the same as to expect a moral philosopher to be a saint: it may happen, but don’t count on it.

7. Everyone has a right to be irrational, but rampant irrationality in a society on the grounds that ‘it doesn’t hurt anyone’ is, well, not a very rational position to take.

8. But the beauty of science is that it so often shows our intuitions to be wrong.

9. Then again, arguably this peculiar relationship between science and philosophy is nothing new. Philosophy has often been the placeholder for areas of intellectual inquiry that have subsequently moved to the domain of science.

The Vampire Diaries does not suck after all…

I started buying these DVD box sets a while ago. Initially, because of my utter delight with the antics of Jeremy Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May, on the BBC production Top Gear, I bought everything I could find related to that series.

At the same time, I started collecting fascinating documentaries such as David Attenborough’s Life series and The Incredible Human Journey and British Comedy box sets such as Fawlty Towers, among other BBC productions. Then one day about a two months ago, I strayed into the TV drama section of my favorite DVD store, and came across Dexter, Season 1.

About the only thing I can bear to watch on television these days is sport, normally just football, rugby and the occasional game of cricket; recently I have been somewhat put off the game of  cricket with the introduction of that atrocious format of the game known as 20-20. I catch my movies on DVD, or in the cinema when first released, when I can summon up the will to share an auditorium with juvenile popcorn-mascerating delinquents.

I don’t watch drama series on television; I have over the years lost the necessary patience and discipline required to stick to a weekly viewing schedule. I did try with Prison Break, but I failed, and that was to my mind the most compelling television I had ever watched, until I found Dexter. I had heard the series being mentioned on a local radio station, and was intrigued, so that made the decision to buy, a little easier; and boy, am I glad I did.

The writers and producers of this series are pure genius; especially the writers. Visual entertainment allows us to escape our invariably dull real lives; it allows us to relate to the characters on-screen and  fantasize for a little while. In this particular case, Dexter, the anti-hero, even allows one to seriously re-examine the suffocating limits of morality; the extremist black and white limits set by religious bigotry can now be challenged. Dexter demonstrates that bad, can be good! I readily admit to fantacizing about applying the gory disposal techniques demonstrated by Dexter, to certain deceitful, arrogant and corrupt members of our own government, here in South Africa.

Dexter, Season 1 went by all too quickly; a testament to how enthralled I was. Recently I found myself looking for Season 2, but could not find it; I did find Season 3, which leaves me delighted in anticipation. However, not finding Season 2, on the shelves, I came across The Vampire Diaries Season 1 and made a rash decision to purchase it; being swayed by the recent public fascination with Vampire movies.

At this point, I need to make it quite clear that I’m a Skeptic and proudly consider myself a member of the community of critical thinkers; which means that I not only have no interest in the occult or supernatural, I find beliefs in them to be rather disturbing. And I did not fail to notice the plethora of television drama series concerned with the supernatural, which fills the shelves of my DVD retailer. It’s actually quite concerting that the supernatural is such a popular theme.

But that just leaves me to explain why I chose to buy The Vampire Diaries. Well, it’s simple. I confess to a secret desire to live forever; and sucking on pretty girl’s necks for a lifetime does seem to be a particuarly pleasurable way to live through eternity. Off course, my aversion to direct sunshine, and the fact that blood-sucking reminds me of politicians, are other reasons.

Anyway, to continue my tale of entertainment seduction; I watched the first episode of The Vampire Diaries a few weeks ago and was utterly disappointed. My first impression was that it was made specifically for love-struck teenagers. The mushy romance permeating through the first episode left me feeling nauseated. I switched off, and threw the DVD box into a cupboard in disgust.

However, a few days ago I happened to be downloading some new software I purchased from Cyberlink, and did not have anything to do, what with my not-so-broad, broadband link informing me that the download would take all off 7 hours. With my internet connection being commandeered for that interminable duration, I turned to my DVD collection. Having already watched Dexter Season 1 and everything else, I turned to the discarded Vampire Diaries in utter desperation.

To cut a tedious story short, I was pleasantly surprised, as Episode 2 seemed to develop beyond my expectations, and so did the following Episodes. The mushy romance is still there, but the introduction of witches and more Vampires has sparked a new interest for me; especially the witches as I have a special empathy for those persecuted by religious bigots.

Anyway, there’s no hope for me now; I’m hooked on The Vampire Diaries too…

Proof that UFO’s do exist

The internet was abuzz last week over a video captured of the sky above Moscow, evidently showing a UFO.

Clearly, Unbelievably Freakish Occurrences (UFO’s) do exist, and Unbelievably Fantastic Opportunities (UFO’s) to capture them on film abound. Unfortunately, Amazingly Stupid Sense (ASS) is later made of it by uncritical, perhaps superstitiously inclined people.

Remember the hands of god email that is probably still circulating, which I wrote about in Another Religious Lie That Came Through My EMail? Well, before a screen-shot of this video does the email rounds (cleverly touched up) as either the eye of god, the rectum of Zeus, a Venusian mothership disguised as a cloud, or something equally ridiculous, I’d like to suggest that it’s nothing more than a meteorological phenomena; albeit a visually fantastic one.

Like so many things in life, which elicits awe and demands answers, the tendency to proffer a supernatural solution, creates even more complicated questions. It’s always best to treat everything we don’t understand that well, with skepticism and doubt.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

While on my recent road trip, I did manage to find time to finally finish reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which was recommended to me as a book about critical thinking.

When I first read this book as a school kid many years ago, I thought it was just a great adventure story, like so many other kids at the time. Now, many years later, and with a more mature outlook on the world, several new layers are revealed beneath the tale of a boy (Huck Finn) and a runaway slave (Jim), and their journey down the Mississippi River, on a raft.

When originally released around 1885 in the USA, the book was criticised for its course or crude language and even banned by several libraries. Later it was criticized even further for the use of racial stereotypes. However, the cunning use of these stereotypes by Mark Twain, was meant to highlight one of the many themes of the book; that of racism. It was also meant to be a commentary on slavery, which was entrenched in the period the book was written about.

Perhaps the most important underlying theme of the book explores how Huck is in constant moral conflict with the  prejudicial values that the society of the time inflicted on people. And this is where intense self-evaluation (and critical thinking) enables him to ultimately make the right moral choices.

Notable Quote:

Mornings, before daylight, I slipped into corn fields and borrowed a watermelon, or a mushmelon, or a punkin, or some new corn, or things of that kind. Pap always said it warn’t no harm to borrow things, if you was meaning to pay them back, sometime; but the widow said it warn’t anything but a soft name for stealing, and no decent body would do it. Jim said he reckoned the widow was partly right and pap was partly right; so the best way would be for us to pick out two or three things from the list and say we wouldn’t borrow them any more – then he reckoned it wouldn’t be no harm to borrow the others. So we talked it over all one night, drifting along down the river, trying to make up our minds whether to drop the watermelons, or the cantelopes, or the mushmelons, or what. But towards daylight we got it all settled satisfactory and concluded to drop crabapples and p’simmons. We warn’t feeling just right, before that, but it was all comfortable now. I was glad the way it come out, too, because crabapples ain’t ever good, and the p’simmons wouldn’t be ripe for two or three months yet.

The problem with religion, cults, ideology, atheism even

I recently read through [well almost :-)] a 62-page document on atheism, titled Thank God, There is No God, by a fellow-atheist. It contained the usual arguments about belief and non-belief that you would find in hundreds of books and on-line resources; nothing new.

However, after going through the document, I came to realise what is most probably the real problem with religion and even atheism. While religion is dogmatic beyond a shadow of a doubt, atheism is slowly following the same path. Atheists have the same fascination for non-belief as theists have for their various religions and cults. We make the same mistakes as believers; having discovered the real possibility that a god or supernatural entity probably does not exist, we become mesmerized by this idea, and wind up being stuck in the same place, unable to move further. I should know; I’ve been guilty myself.

While the discovery of non-belief (atheism) should have been a mind-liberating event, too often we atheists are guilty of becoming fascinated with, and entwined in the very concept. Atheism should be the springboard to greater things like critical and liberated thinking, understanding humanity, and accepting that thinking must change with the receipt of new information.

It is for this reason that I can now admit that there was a time I was convinced that belief in a god was indicative of irrational thinking. But recently, thanks to another atheist friend, Daniel S, and a book I’m reading [by Sharon M Kaye] on critical thinking, I’ve come to accept that “human beings are born with the natural ability to reason logically. But we are also born with the propensity to make logical errors.” I now realize that critical thinking enables one with the tools to minimise or eliminate the logical errors we make while thinking.

You live and learn, but therein is a new problem; you don’t unfortunately live long enough to learn enough.

Science is not against religion

While viewing some old videos posted on the thesciencenetwork website, about a discussion program, held at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in November 2006, I came across an interesting quote about science and religion.

Entitled Beyond Belief: Science, Reason, Religion & Survival, the program featured several well known scientists, skeptics, atheists and apologists alike. The quote I’m referring to was made by  prominent physicist and Nobel laureate, Steven Weinberg:

Science does not make it impossible to believe in God. It just makes it possible to NOT believe in God.

The connotations from this simple quote are really thought-provoking:

• Science does not advocate that one may not believe in a god
• Science in not concerned with proving or disproving the existence of a god
• Science provides one with the tools (through reasoning, logic and critical thinking among others) to deduce through lack of evidence, that a god may not exist
• Science compels one to arrive at the above conclusion, but does not compel one to believe through any form of coercion
• There is no imperative to choose one or the other

One other thing that stood out for me in Professor Weinberg’s presentation was the reference he made to influence in science: science does not have any authority figure or prophet, rather science has experts and heroes.

The purpose of life…for the uncritical thinker

Found this marvellous quote attributed to Ayn Rand, while poking through a discussion forum on Google Groups.

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence…Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God… Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith….The purpose of man’s life…is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question.

Love your life, live your life, for there is probably nothing after death

Are you one of those people who are just waiting to die so that you can cash in your “morally good” life, in exchange for a place in heaven, partying with your particular version of god? And perhaps some of you in this group, who are a little apprehensive about hell, are right now tearing your hair out trying to be “good.”

Or perhaps you are one of those fatalistic people who are “exceedingly good” and believe that you will be spared the agony of death, to be raptured into heaven on a winged horse or something equally spectacular. And perhaps right now, you are fervently praying for the second coming.

Or maybe you are one of those people who is naturally hard on himself or herself, and are just waiting for death so that you can get on with your next life or re-incarnation. And perhaps some in this last mentioned group who are just a little apprehensive about what form their next incarnation might be, are right now spending an awful lot of time trying to be “good.”

Or perhaps you, like me, are none of the above, and have “discovered” through critical thinking that life is all we have, and we need to own it, love it and live it. There is absolutely no evidence for anything spectacular or painful or even mundane, after death; and thus there is no reason to think about it, worry about it or dream about it. Rather, think about life, dream about life, even worry about life, if you must. Or better still; touch it, feel it, share it.

Perhaps the following words of wisdom supposedly written by an old man, sent to me only recently by a work colleague will help to contextualize my plea:

First, I was dying to finish my high school and start college

And then I was dying to finish college and start working

Then I was dying to marry and have children

Then I was dying for my children to grow old enough so I could go back to work

But then I was dying to retire

And now I am dying…

And suddenly I realized I forgot to live