science

Is it just me, or are these the same faces?

Carl Sagan

David Lee Roth

If it weren't for Carl's untimely departure, I'd have to ask whether the beloved astronomer was ever spotted shouting "Bill-ions upon bill-ions of stars!" while doing high-jump splits off a Cornell podium.

The Age's article Beyond Belief, an overview of "new atheism" and atheism in general, is generating comment over a few points that don't ring true with actual atheists. (See Michael Bachelard's story on the New Atheism - a response by Russell Blackford.) 

My instant beef with the article was one small claim. This:

The new atheism is bigger, more organised, and much more assertive than ever before. It's based on the belief that science explains everything we need to know about the world so there's no need for religion. 

Bollocks. No one sane claims that "science explains everything"; we all know there are things that remain very unexplained, and even the most ardent admirer of science (with its incredible record of explaining so much) must admit that some mysteries might always remain outside our grasp. 

Atheism is not based on the belief that science explains everything. Rather, it's based on the demonstrable fact that religion and faith explain nothing.

Oh, and one more small beef, though it's a common flaw not at all confined to the Beyond Belief article. The discussion is the usual one about atheism vs belief in God. As in, singular God. That false dichotomy is so common we usually let it pass, but we shouldn't.

There are still believers in whole pantheons of gods; we have no business handing Abrahamic monotheists the standard as the sole representatives of religion. Any monotheists expecting to automatically advance to the final debate with belief in no gods need to first settle their dispute with belief in three gods and four gods and a hundred gods and so on. We, in turn, should force those warring parties to slug it out every time.

Shadow People! 

Shadow People?

Yes, Shadow People! They could be creeping up behind you... right now!

I think the recent Skeptoid podcast episode on Shadow People was the first I'd heard of this new (?) supernatural threat. We've probably all had the experience of thinking we see a flicker of movement in a dark shadow; some people even claim to have seen ghostly humanoid figures in their darkened bedrooms at night. Therefore: Shadow People, those spectral demons (or interdimensional beings, or ghosts of the departed, or something) that haunt the living (or flit away to avoid the living, or astrally project themselves into random places, or something).

They often wear hats. Really.

There's no need to rehash Shadow People details here; as you'd expect, thoughtful discussions of the topic quickly begin and end with the damning fact that there's no evidence for such a thing. And that's pretty much the end of that story, until someone can show the smoking gun (or smoky fedora, as many stories would have it).

Rather, what interested me about the Skeptoid piece was that it goes into a topic that really fascinates me: the awesome power of the human brain to create its own reality – and the way in which "open-minded" believers in the supernatural are so often close-minded toward the brain's wonders. Readeth thou more

Recently, US President Obama spoke to the US National Acadeny of Sciences. Against a backdrop of health and energy crises, he said:

At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science. That support for research is somehow a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been. And if there was ever a day that reminded us of our shared stake in science and research, it’s today. (via Genomicron)

Who the heck would argue with that? Actually, some would. Readeth thou more

Science, Evolution, and Creationism
A great primer by the National Academy of Sciences. Free short version available for download.

Pharyngula
Updated at a mad pace by biologist PZ Myers, a heavyweight in the blogging world and lightning rod for the enemies of reason. (The guy's a hell of a good writer, too.) Great to have this fantastic site on "our side".

Richard Dawkins' site
Richard Dawkins is a renowned scientist and ardent champion of reason. This site is a major gathering place for friends of reason.

Skeptoid
"Skeptoid is a podcast dedicated to furthering knowledge by blasting away the widespread pseudosciences that infect popular culture." Popular and for good reason.

Creation, Power and Violence [religious persecution of science]

During the "The Enemies of Reason" interview between Richard Dawins and Professor Michael Baum, the latter makes a point that really resonates. Discussing double-blind testing and other scientific methods for conducting valid medical trials, he notes:

"It is scrupulously honest. And what many people don't understand about the scientific method is how scrupulously honest it is. We are not looking to constantly reinforce out prejudice. The opposite is the truth. We are actually putting at risk, or hazard, our pet belief systems. We're threatening our own belief systems. So this is an intellectually honest, and intellectually modest, approach..."

The gentlemen continue discussing along the topic; it's a great listen. 

What I love there is the focus on that word "honest". In descriptions of scientific methodology, we often hear the words "rational" and "evidence-based" and "replicable" and so on. As well as the word "honest", of course, but it's rarely shouted out as loudly and strongly as I'd like. 

If I had to pick one word as a synonym for the scientific method, it'd be honesty. It's the intellectual honesty that willingly pushes aside the easy answers and the pet beliefs. It's the honesty to mistrust one's own senses, and thus to defer to double-blind tests and peer reviews and constant revision. It's the honesty to say "That's the best explanation I have now for the evidence; I welcome any better explanations or new evidence to change my conclusion." 

It's a lot of things that, to me, all boil down to the single word honesty.

I'm only the zillionth person to point that out, and have nothing wise to add to the discussion. But I was compelled by Prof. Baum's comment to give a round of applause to his depiction of science as honesty. I'd love to see that word given prominence in any description of science and its methods!