Pharyngula: I'd wear that on a t-shirt

#1

Priceless.

Posted by: danley | January 21, 2008 8:27 AM

#2

As if by supernatural powers, somehow when I read the comic at XKCD this morning I knew I would find it here.

Posted by: No One of Consequence | January 21, 2008 8:28 AM

#3

The scary part about these people is that they ABSOLUTELY believe it.
In college I roomed with a guy who claimed that he and his family hunted daemons. He'd get called away on weekends occasionally he'd get called away for an emergency de-daemoning. (I never asked too much about the specifics because it was hard enough to keep from laughing the entire time.)
Yet he was absolutely resolute in his 'faith'. 100% convinced this was real and he was always seeking an excuse to go hunt his next daemon.

Posted by: Sparky | January 21, 2008 8:37 AM

#4

Sparky, I played D&D in college too.

Posted by: Moggie | January 21, 2008 8:38 AM

#5

Yep, that would be great on a t-shirt. I'd wear it too.

Posted by: vjack | January 21, 2008 8:46 AM

#6

If a few people write to Randall Munroe he'll probably make a T-shirt. He has with others. Or you could take advantage of Creative Commons and make your own.

Posted by: Matt Heath | January 21, 2008 8:52 AM

#7

There needs to be a third column labelled: Morons who still believe it anyway. Then it would be really true.

Ah, nothing like the "But we don't really *know*" argument!

Posted by: maxi | January 21, 2008 8:56 AM

#8

I'm not sure I believe it. Isn't it more accurate to say that no controlled experiment to date has been able to eliminate the null hypothesis (that the supposed supernatural power has a mundane explanation)? And there are plenty of sloppy, poorly controlled experiments which have confirmed supernatural powers.

Posted by: Blaise Pascal | January 21, 2008 8:58 AM

#9

I have to admit, I always wear an XKCD t-shirt to anti-stupidity events. I prefer the "Science. It works, bitches". Subtlety is rarely my strong point.

Posted by: petrilli | January 21, 2008 8:59 AM

#10

Can we get a Texas version that limits it to creationism? We need a surgical strike on the State Board of Education right now. All other efforts to get the demons out of the SBOE have proven not wholly effective.

Posted by: Ed Darrell | January 21, 2008 9:01 AM

#11

Maxi, (#7) maybe it's just the times in which we live, but I read your suggestion as "MORMONS" who still believe it anyway. Sheepish grin when I re-read your post, then I wondered if the one is more or less just a subset of the other...

Posted by: Sergeant Zim | January 21, 2008 9:05 AM

#12

Sometimes strange ideas jump the barrier and are found to be real. Of course, they stop being "supernatural" at that point and become part of science.

Unfortunately, the "Aluminum-foil-hat" crowd has a way of transferring validity from one area to another. If one idea is found to be true, it is seen as support for every goofy belief they ever held.

If a supplement is proven to help headaches, it will be touted as cure for everything from cancer to the common cold.

Posted by: Tony Popple | January 21, 2008 9:24 AM

#13

The one I've seen cited most often is Byrd:
[url]http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj1.html[/url]
which shows that the rate of a "bad" severity score among coronary patients was roughly 8% higher among un-prayed-for controls.

Wow.

Posted by: notthedroids | January 21, 2008 9:24 AM

#14

Re #7:
It's the "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument!

Works every time; but adherents of any one superstition think it should be applicable only to their's.

Posted by: jimvj | January 21, 2008 9:28 AM

#15

Sergeant Zim @11, I read it as Mormons too when it appeared on the thread. Had to look at it again to make sure I hadn't commited a typo (not that anyone would have noticed!).

jimvj @14, You've put it perfectly. I lived with a woman last year who knew of a lady that could tell you what was wrong with your horse if you sent her a piece of its tail hair. Not physically wrong, but any psychological problems it was having. It didn't take me long to shoot it down but her response was, "Well it must work if she's getting it right." Ummm yeah... because it's not like all domesticated horses have similar behavioural problems!

Posted by: maxi | January 21, 2008 9:45 AM

#16

Good Morning

Im just curious, what if you have a sense of something "supernatural". Like the feeling that there is something evil around you. Yet there is no way to "verify" your sense. Does that mean it does not exist? I would like to use my radio example. I hear music coming from my radio but I have no clue how it happens. I dont understand the "science" behind it. Does that mean it does not exist. I think not.

Posted by: John T. | January 21, 2008 9:52 AM

#17

Simple, clean, direct, forceful:

... And true?

Posted by: Wandapec | January 21, 2008 9:56 AM

#18

Suggetion:

Label the vertical axis "log n"

Posted by: Les Lane | January 21, 2008 10:07 AM

#19

maxi, if only you could have somehow procured a piece of tail hair from a dead horse to provide her for her "diagnosis." I'd love to know what she determined was wrong with that animal.

Posted by: fuzzyblue | January 21, 2008 10:08 AM

#20

John T.

There is a word for that. Not "paranormal", but "ignorance". You don't know how your radio works, but others actually do, and could show it to you. If they claimed it worked via psychic energy, the burden of proof would be on them, because we do have a more mundane explanation. As for your "feeling"... try this: keep a chart on your wall, of all the times you feel this way. Note when the feeling is or is not followed (within a standard unit of time) by a bad event. If your feeling goes the way all (every single one) of my students who have described the same thing, you will see that it is not predictive. It is... a feeling. Nothing more.

Posted by: Anon | January 21, 2008 10:14 AM

#21

Shame the Y-axis is not labeled.

Posted by: JVC | January 21, 2008 10:15 AM

#22

John T @ #16: "Im just curious, what if you have a sense of something "supernatural". Like the feeling that there is something evil around you. Yet there is no way to "verify" your sense. Does that mean it does not exist? I would like to use my radio example. I hear music coming from my radio but I have no clue how it happens. I dont understand the "science" behind it. Does that mean it does not exist. I think not."

Good question. Here are a few answers:

First off, the trouble is that humans have a well-observed habit of feeling very strongly that something is present, or about to happen, when it isn't. Very often I have strong 'premonitions' that today's going to be a bad day, or a particular person is going to ring me or is in trouble - and they very often turn out to be false. Of course sometimes the answer is unverifiable: if I feel there is an evil presence in the room no-one can prove there isn't, can they? But I have to think about it rationally and say "well, I often have these feelings which turn out to be false, so in this case where I can't prove it one way or the other I'm inclined to doubt my feeling until other evidence shows up."

As for the radio example, there are several answers to that. The first is the question of repeatability: feelings of presences or premonitions of events can come and go, and it's hard to say for certain that they weren't caused by half-remembering the dream I had last night, an upset stomach, my tired mind playing tricks on me, or one of many other factors which affect human thoughts. Music from the radio, on the other hand, is far less ephemeral: if I turn the radio on and tune it so, I will always get reception. The radio never starts playing by itself, never fails to play when I operate it correctly (or if it does it does so rarely, and there turns out to be some mechanical fault), and doesn't change station of its own whim. These things mean that I can build up a body of observations, and say with great confidence that my turning the knobs is what causes the music to come. With premonitions and feelings there are too many possible factors and not enough data to be sure.

Also, although you or I may not understand the science well enough to explain the radio's behavior in detail, there are people who do. It's a shame that we have to defer to experts on things like this - it would be nice to see how everything works oneself - but the field of human knowledge is just too broad for that. Sometimes we have to be content knowing that someone understands how it works, and, most importantly, that there is a system in place for checking that person is right. Physicists who study radio waves and the properties of electrical components publish their results publicly and have them reviewed by their peers: so, we trust that if they were wrong or lying it would be picked up on by the system of scientific peer review. Thus it's not just a case of saying "well, some guy in a white coat probably knows how it works"; the knowledge is public and is constantly subjected to review and testing.

Does that make sense?

Posted by: Olaf Davis | January 21, 2008 10:29 AM

#23

I would also like to add that radio transmission is measurable and reproducible.

Posted by: Mold | January 21, 2008 10:34 AM

#24

First thing in the morning, certain vision issues, glasses dirty, whatever, can't distinguish closely spaced vertical lines.....

So I saw this and said "Clams with super natural powers ... why is that funny?"

Posted by: Greg Laden | January 21, 2008 10:46 AM

#25

Re: radio transmission is measurable and reproducible

For a lot of us, every time we put something in the microwave and set the timer, we're doing just that.

...

Just curious about the general attitude:

Would it be a good thing, or a bad thing, if "psychics" and palm readers were made illegal?

Posted by: Hank Fox | January 21, 2008 10:58 AM

#26

I would be curious if anyone here differentiates between supernatural and paranormal. I trouble over the question myself because, while I am convinced there is no afterlife or alternate plane of existence, I find it hard to dismiss every claim out there of "ghostly" or paranormal experiences. I imagine there is much out in nature and within the human brain that we haven't met up with yet, but at what point do we say something may, possibly, be more than just bunk? Please keep in mind that I'm not a scientist, but to take UFOs for example--they are (most likely) not alien ships, but does it stand to reason that they aren't more than mere airplanes?

Posted by: monyNH | January 21, 2008 10:58 AM

#27

Another suggestions: break the natural claims column and add an inset with the Y-scale numbered 0, 1, 2, ... We can be pretty accurate with the number of supernatural claims demonstrated.

Posted by: Hugo | January 21, 2008 11:05 AM

#28

Since psychics and palm readers are really good observers of humans and are pretty decent armchair psychologists, I'd have to say no. Besides, illegal does not mean gone---ref drugs.

Posted by: Mold | January 21, 2008 11:06 AM

#29

I mean, break the column of refuted claims.

Posted by: Hugo | January 21, 2008 11:08 AM

#30

In response to monyNH # 26:

"take UFOs for example--they are (most likely) not alien ships, but does it stand to reason that they aren't more than mere airplanes?"

When discussing this topic I always come to two simple points. 1) Why would an alien race travel from distant stars and not make their presence known to us? If we assume for some reason they do not wish to be known, then 2) Any alien race possessing technology that could cross the vast distances of interstellar space should be capable of keeping their presence hidden.

However, I agree that these "sightings" are UFOs. That is to say they are Unidentified, Flying, and Objects, but not of alien origin. They are much more likely hallucinations, optical illusions, artifacts, misunderstood natural events, man made objects, or outright hoaxes. And if they aren't alien in nature, then UFOs quickly lose their mystique and become rather mundane.

Finally, an often overlooked fact about UFO sightings is that they never occurred until the advent of science fiction literature. It was after science fiction popularized the image of a flying saucer that sightings became common. So, it becomes a chicken and egg issue. Were they always there, but people didn't understand what they were seeing, or are the sightings an outgrowth of the introduction of science fiction into modern culture?

My money is on the latter.

-OEJ

Posted by: One Eyed Jack | January 21, 2008 11:41 AM

#31

I want to know the scale on the Y-axis. Has one claim been refuted? 10? 100? 1000? Perhaps a log scale would be best.

A clam with supernatural powers, on the other hand, would be highly amusing if demonstrated or even if the clam were examined and refuted.

Posted by: Dianne | January 21, 2008 11:51 AM

#32

I would suggest that, in practical terms, trying to distinguish "paranormal" and "supernatural" is to make a distinction without a difference. Certainly there are plenty of thrilling, unexplained phenomena in this world waiting to be discovered that will make us rethink our world, and maybe even some things we may never understand. However, Sasquatch, Bat Boy, and the Bermuda Triangle... well, those belong in a different category altogether. ;)

Posted by: j.t.delaney | January 21, 2008 11:55 AM

#33

A clam with supernatural powers, on the other hand, would be highly amusing if demonstrated or even if the clam were examined and refuted

If it had the right kind of supernatural powers, a never ending supply of clam chowder awaits you. That's eternal bliss.

Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 11:58 AM

#34

However, I agree that these "sightings" are UFOs. That is to say they are Unidentified, Flying, and Objects, but not of alien origin. They are much more likely hallucinations, optical illusions, artifacts, misunderstood natural events, man made objects, or outright hoaxes. And if they aren't alien in nature, then UFOs quickly lose their mystique and become rather mundane.

Or it could be, as Douglas Adams suggests, kids having fun with the locals. ;o)

Posted by: dogmeatib | January 21, 2008 11:58 AM

#35

But PZ, you can't deny your blogging Nemesis has superpowers!

(Very cool ones at that, even if totally useless!)

Posted by: Arnaud | January 21, 2008 1:09 PM

#36

#16 Wow, I hate to say it but your analogy is really, really bad. Are people this clueless?

Posted by: JimC | January 21, 2008 1:13 PM

#37

I would also like to add that radio transmission is measurable and reproducible.

So is evil. There's still a Mussolini in Italian politics, and the Bushes continue to breed here.

Well, reproducible at least.

Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 1:17 PM

#38

Guys - the y axis is obviously % from 0-100 with refuted claims at 100. ;)

*Great* cartoon, too.

Posted by: Robert S. | January 21, 2008 1:54 PM

#39

The real problem is that both the ID people and you folks misuse the word 'science.'

It's not a 'thing.' It's a process used to confirm ideas about how things work.

I've been a witch for quite a while now, but I take it just about a seriously as I did when I was a Methodist.

Any religion with dancing naked women is fine with me.

However, my ex was attempting to do 'scientific' witchcraft, by actually recording what was done, and what the result was. Unfortunately there were no clear results.

That said, I have seen and experienced some very interesting things which I couldn't find an explanation for, and some that I did find an explanation for.

An example of the first is that I have worked with people who's computers seemed to be constantly in need of cleaning & repair, who eventually told me that they thought their place might be haunted. In each case, a quick exorcism, "You're dead. Get on with it." Seemed to end the problems. Do I know why? No. Do I care? Well, a bit, but I'm oriented to engineering, and engineering doesn't care as much _why_ something works, just so long as it does. Will exorcism fix your computer? I don't know, perhaps, it takes little to try, and costs nothing if it fails.

There are far more cases of the second type, my favorite is the evening we were out walking and saw a ring of fire on the ground under some trees in the park a about a block away. The ring was on the close order of 25' in diameter and appeared to be a perfect circle. By the time we got to the circle, the flames were gone. upon closer examination I found that the ring smelled slightly of smoke, and that outside the ring the ground was covered with cottonwood seeds.

A quick experiment with my lighter found that you could indeed get a perfect circle of fire in the cottonwood seek fluff when their was no wind.

The only mystery is who started the fire? No one ever came forward, but I'm pretty certain that it wasn't God...

re #30
"Finally, an often overlooked fact about UFO sightings is that they never occurred until the advent of science fiction literature. It was after science fiction popularized the image of a flying saucer that sightings became common."

First of alll, UFO sightings have been reported for many cneturies, although the 'saucer-shape' became much more common after the 1920's--given that most recorded photos of UFO's are kinda shapeless blobs, anyone observing should be likely to see what they expect to see.

Second, there are many reasons which could be given as to why aliens might come all this way and not wish to be seen. And those are just OUR reasons: true aliens will have their own reasons.

Best is that interstellar flight capability automatically translates as "powerful enough to destroy us." Not a good thing to just drop on someone.

As far as spooks and strange feeling in the air, ultra-sound can do really marvelous things to your mind....

Posted by: Charles Barnard | January 21, 2008 1:57 PM

#40

The only mystery is who started the fire?

I'll take "Random idiot who tossed their cigarette away" for $100, Alex!

Posted by: Kesh | January 21, 2008 2:28 PM

#41

I think the better analogy is not to broadcast radio, but to radar. Radar is a very low-resolution sensory-processing system, and there's a lot of noise out there. Occasionally, some of that noise shows up as an artifact in your signal processing, and you get false positives. For example, if you look at a satellite weather map, you'll see areas with well-defined fronts and storms centers, but there will be a small number of little lit-up pixels randomly scattered across the map. Some of them might be highly localized weather phenomena, but for the most part it's just noise in the signal.

Human beings have a fairly high-resolution sensory-processing system, but occasional meaningless noise does get through as artifacts. When that happens, the conscious brain tries to interpret these artifacts in light of personal and cultural experience. That's why periods of random neural activity -- neural noise -- during sleep are remembered the next day as stories and images.

Sometimes there is random noise actually in the environment that shows up as a bogey on the radar screen of consciousness. We try to process this noise as though it were a signal (like we do with dreams), and we describe it as presences, ghosts, demons, UFOs, Sasquatch, etc.

My point is that the experience of these kinds of presences is very, very real to the person having the experience. There is no outside observer to verify the signal while it's happening. I like to put it this way: There's no such thing as ghosts, but hauntings are real.

I think rationalists and skeptics don't do themselves any favors by insulting people who've had experiences they cannot explain.

Posted by: HP | January 21, 2008 2:30 PM

#42

Im just curious, what if you have a sense of something "supernatural". Like the feeling that there is something evil around you. Yet there is no way to "verify" your sense. Does that mean it does not exist? I would like to use my radio example. I hear music coming from my radio but I have no clue how it happens. I dont understand the "science" behind it. Does that mean it does not exist. I think not.

Don't you mean you're just stupid? That's got to be one of the world's worst analogies. We can verify that there is music coming out of your radio, just by listening to it, or watching the speaker vibrating, or any number of other ways -- your understanding of the science is irrelevant. OTOH, while we can verify that there is evil around you for various definitions of evil (e.g., you're probably surrounded by Christians and other foul creatures), there's nothing "supernatural" about that.

Beyond that, "does that mean it doesn't exist" misses a fundamental point -- the burden isn't on us to show that something exists, the burden is on you to show that it does. Your question is the question of idiots; the answer is always "no, it doesn't mean that, but the question is irrelevant and you're a cretin for asking".

Posted by: truth machine | January 21, 2008 2:32 PM

#43

Thanks to Olaf and Anon

I understand you two completely when I use my rational mind. Unfortunately as a human I have another aspect to my brain that no one can completely tell me how it works. I truly believe that the world has an aspect that leaves us with mystery. We will not be able to verify or rationalize it while we exist in this temporal form. Whether we will at a later date is still up for debate :).

There was a time when religion thought it could explain the world, then came science, they both come up short.

Posted by: John T. | January 21, 2008 2:34 PM

#44

XKCD is the best thing to happen to the internet in like... forever.

Posted by: syntyche | January 21, 2008 2:35 PM

#45

"the burden isn't on us to show that something exists"

Make that "the burden isn't on us to show that something doesn't exist"

P.S. Looking really hard for something and not finding it is strong evidence that it doesn't exist (the "refuted" column), making the burden even heavier on those who claim it does.

Posted by: truth machine | January 21, 2008 2:35 PM

#46

Hey Truth machine

Why so angry? You dont even know me, yet you seem fit to call me names. Whats with that? By the way im just asking questions. Im not looking for a fight. If I was id go watch some UFC. lol. My wife wants to pick a fight with you though, so here goes. shes wondering why your mommy lets you play on the computer all by yourself? :P

Posted by: John T. | January 21, 2008 2:44 PM

#47

I understand you two completely when I use my rational mind.

I doubt that. And what makes you think your mind is rational?

Unfortunately as a human I have another aspect to my brain that no one can completely tell me how it works.

No one can tell you completely how any part of your brain works -- so fucking what? But if you're saying that you have another aspect of your brain that isn't rational -- why should anyone credit its conclusions?

. I truly believe that the world has an aspect that leaves us with mystery.

Why should anyone care what you "truly" believe, especially when you're so obviously stupid? In any case, the world has many aspects that are mysterious -- that's what drives scientists, solving mysteries.

We will not be able to verify or rationalize it while we exist in this temporal form. Whether we will at a later date is still up for debate :).

Like there's a debate about whether a fan still whirs after it's turned off.

There was a time when religion thought it could explain the world, then came science, they both come up short.

Only the stupidest of morons would consider "fails utterly" and "has not completely succeeded yet" to be equivalent.

Posted by: truth machine | January 21, 2008 2:44 PM

#48

Why so angry?

Why not?

You dont even know me, yet you seem fit to call me names.

I call the persona you express here what it is.

By the way im just asking questions. Im not looking for a fight.

Lying troll.

Posted by: truth machine | January 21, 2008 2:47 PM

#49

Thanks TM

Have a better day. I hope.

Posted by: John T. | January 21, 2008 2:48 PM

#50

Have a better day. I hope.

My day's great, and kicking your troll ass is just gravy.

Posted by: truth machine | January 21, 2008 2:50 PM

#51

I'm going to interpret John T's comment as non-trolling, and suggest that HP's comment is a pretty good explanation for the experiences he asks about.

Our minds are generally resistant (sans training) to making us aware of sensory data without creating some sort of narrative to explain it. Generally, the perception of sound or movement outside of or in conflict with the context in which it is experienced is interpreted as a potential threats. Further, our minds filter out and eliminate from our awareness sensory data it considers extranneous.

From this is should be taken that our minds are less than perfect recorders and interpretators of stimuli (optical or audio illusions are good examples of this, as are experiences under the influence of hallucigens or high fevers.)

So, no. Just because you think it or think you've experienced it doesn't mean it exists.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 21, 2008 2:59 PM

#52

I truly believe that the world has an aspect that leaves us with mystery.

Why the elevation of ignorance via the fetishization of mystery? I just don't get that.

Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 3:03 PM

#53

Hey guys

Thanks for the discussion. I take it you get a lot of Trolls on here. If my memory serves me well, a troll is a rather ugly looking creature under a bridge lol. I dont live under a bridge :) Question?

Do you think it incompatible to believe in God and evolution?

Posted by: John T. | January 21, 2008 3:13 PM

#54

Note that there are people here who speak of the way "the mind" works. It is every bit as irrational to speak of the mind as of god; both are "evidenced" only circularly, by the presence of things we presuppose that are caused by the very thing we are trying to prove. You may look around and see god's handiwork; another person thinks, and sees that as evidence of a mind. (yes, some speak of both mind and god metaphorically; I am not addressing them.)

Can one believe in god and evolution? Certainly; people do it all the time. But evolution does not require a god, just as thinking does not require a mind. Both get along just fine without the fictional cause in addition to the various natural causes.

My point is... Intelligent people are brought up believing in lots of things, some of which are supported by evidence, some of which are not. We do not question everything we believe, and what we do question is often determined by social factors (many people here question the existence of a god, but rather fewer question the existence of a mind). None of us are immune to irrational belief... but we do have a method for testing these beliefs, and that is what is important.

Posted by: Anon | January 21, 2008 3:32 PM

#55

I would like to use my radio example. I hear music coming from my radio but I have no clue how it happens. I dont understand the "science" behind it. Does that mean it does not exist. I think not.

Fuckwit.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | January 21, 2008 3:41 PM

#56

The comic is actually a lot funnier if you read it's title prior to seeing the comic: "The data so far"

Well, funnier to me.

Posted by: robbrown | January 21, 2008 3:56 PM

#57

Actually, John T., trolling is what one does when one dangles a baited line behind a boat in the hopes that something will bite.

That is the etymology of the expression.

On teh intarwebs, posting a lot of questions and then refusing to acknowledge the responses is also considered trolling.

What you are doing here is not discussion, but trolling. Unless you actually stick around to defend your claims, you won't be tolerated much longer (and we hate it when truth machine is right.)

Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 21, 2008 4:27 PM

#58

RE #26: There is no such thing as the supernatural or the paranormal. If it exists, it's natural. You can't go above or beyond the normal or the natural.

RE John T: "im just asking questions." Ha, I love it. That's the classic disingenuousness of a troll.

Posted by: Will E. | January 21, 2008 4:41 PM

#59

Strangely, I don't believe in supernatural powers, in astrology, ghosts, new agy stuff, woo-woo and other spiritual things.
But I do find myself caught with this famous story:

- a physicist visits a colleague and notices a horseshoe hanging on the wall above the entrance to his office
- do you really believe that a horseshoe brings luck ? He asks
- no, replies the colleague, but I've been told that it works even if you don't believe in it

(not sure if it was Niels Bohr or Albert Einstein, anybody remember ?)

Posted by: negentropyeater | January 21, 2008 4:43 PM

#60

Do you think it incompatible to believe in God and evolution?

John, if you can believe in God, you can believe in anything.* So sure, why not believe in God and evolution?

I say, go for it.

------

* With God all things are possible. Matt. 19:26

Posted by: HP | January 21, 2008 5:36 PM

#61

So much fucking doggerel from the troll. Ugh.

Posted by: Stogoe | January 21, 2008 5:55 PM

#62

It was Neils Bohr who had the horseshoe on his wall. Found it in an Isaac Asimov joke-book.

Once upon a time...

I was camping on the Baja Peninsula, and my Dad wanted to fly a kite. Unfortunately, it was dark, but he had a bright idea -- he grabbed a toy plastic glowstick, the kind you "crack" to light up. Then he tied it to the kitestring, right below the kite. Then he let out the kite until it was a hundred feet high or so. Couldn't see the kite, but the glowstick was easily visible, bouncing around in the wind.

So I wandered around the campground, and started running into knots of confused and gullible people staring at the strange light dangling in midair. It was a UFO! In the sense of actually identifiable as, say, a flying saucer. Yeah right.

Now it wasn't those people's fault that they didn't know it was a glowstick -- but it was their fault for thinking that just because they couldn't identify it, it was automatically supernatural.

Posted by: Jennifer A. Burdoo | January 21, 2008 5:58 PM

#63

I'm going to interpret John T's comment as non-trolling

Anyone who comes here to claim that science and religion are equal as explanatory systems is trolling. His #16 was the lead-in, and from experience was good evidence that something like #43 would follow.

HP's comment is a pretty good explanation for the experiences he asks about.

He didn't ask about his experiences.

Posted by: truth machine | January 21, 2008 6:14 PM

#64

So, no. Just because you think it or think you've experienced it doesn't mean it exists.

Sigh. That's not what he asked:

Yet there is no way to "verify" your sense. Does that mean it does not exist? I would like to use my radio example. I hear music coming from my radio but I have no clue how it happens. I dont understand the "science" behind it. Does that mean it does not exist. I think not.

He did not claim that his experiencing something meant that it exists, or ask whether his experiencing something meant that it exists. Rather, he inverted the burden. And, while I called him a troll, I also, responded to what he actually wrote. Sheesh.

Posted by: truth machine | January 21, 2008 6:19 PM

#65

Jen Burdoo--

Nice story! Reminds me of one I heard a couple of years ago on the radio. A local professor of ocean chemistry was on the radio because he was the science advisor for "the disclosure project", which collects eyewitness accounts of UFO encounters (so his expertise in ocean chemistry came in really handy). He gave some of his own accounts (watching the impossible speed and maneuverability of UFOs through night-vision binoculars... yes, anyone familiar with visual perception research would tell him he was watching birds or insects much closer, not UFOs much further away), and listeners called in to give their own accounts. Two calls in particular were memorable. The first told of a UFO sighting near an army base; the caller was quite distraught, and remembered the incident vividly. She gave lots of details, and was quite convincing. Except for the later call, which was from the pilot of an ultralight airplane, who had (with a handful of friends who also piloted ultralights) flown in formation in that approximate area on that night. She recounts that one of the friends broke off for a bit, flew back to check whether they were being watched, and rejoined the formation; the newspapers the next day had eyewitnesses talking about a baby ship leaving then re-docking with the mother ship.

The ocean chemist did not have a lot to say about that.

Posted by: Anon | January 21, 2008 6:20 PM

#66

It is every bit as irrational to speak of the mind as of god

No it isn't, but thanks for playing.

Posted by: truth machine | January 21, 2008 6:21 PM

#67

Do you think it incompatible to believe in God and evolution?

Obviously not, since there are people who both believe in God and accept the reality of evolution.

There is a theoretical sense in which believing in God and doing science are incompatible: science yields provisional acceptance of claims to the degree that they have survived scrutiny under the scientific method, and "God exists" has not survived that scrutiny. But beliefs are held by persons, and no person's beliefs are entirely scientific, so this "incompatibility" doesn't really say very much; it depends on the degree to which theistic thinking pollutes one's thoughts.

Posted by: truth machine | January 21, 2008 6:32 PM

#68

(not sure if it was Niels Bohr or Albert Einstein, anybody remember ?)

Is your google key broken?

Posted by: truth machine | January 21, 2008 6:34 PM

#69

Do you think it incompatible to believe in God and evolution?

no more incompatible than to be in sports and have a physical handicap.

so far, the evidence, based on all the scientists that have publicly spoken out about their religious beliefs, and tried to explain how they "reconcile" them with science, supports the idea that compartmentalization only works to a limited extent.

see for example: Francis Collins

Of course the fact that obvious compartmentalization is necessary suggests a handicap to begin with.

Would one want to start a career in sports while wearing a ball and chain around your ankle?

This of course, does not mean that there is no benefit to helping people be able to compartmentalize the mental handicaps they are already dealing with (like getting a creobot to finally realize their kids won't go to hell if they learn about the ToE). However, obviously the long term goal should be to help prevent them from being handicapped to begin with; to help them avoid a situation where they have to compartmentalize.

so, I can't argue with the tactical results (see Ohio dept. of education) that have been gained by encouraging compartmentalization (by for example, applying the false concept of NOMA) in the insanely religious, but still argue that strategically, we need to keep working to make it not even necessary.

so far, the only stable bit of compartmentalization I have seen result from trying to reconcile evolutionary theory (and the surrounding evidences for it) with religion has been the "Theistic Evolutionist" construct.

It can still be easily picked apart logically, for example:

http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Theistic_Evolution.html

but it does at least appear to be psychologically stable among scientists that have adopted it.

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 21, 2008 6:47 PM

#70

So I wandered around the campground, and started running into knots of confused and gullible people staring at the strange light dangling in midair. It was a UFO! In the sense of actually identifiable as, say, a flying saucer. Yeah right.

Here's another, related, story: Dennis Kucinich has been attacked for saying he saw a UFO. But what did he mean by that? In response to the question "Did you see a UFO?" he responded:
"I did. And the rest of the account -- I didn't -- I -- it was unidentified flying object, okay. It's like -- it's unidentified. I saw something."

Posted by: truth machine | January 21, 2008 6:48 PM

#71

And the most incredible thing about supernatural belief is, whenever you try to explain to people, how it works, whenever you try to rationalize it, then you get into trouble.

I had dinner the other day with some colleagues, and I don't know why, we ended up discussing about Astrology.
Now you would have thought that religious belief could be a touchy subject, well not with this group, most were atheists or agnostics (I'm living in Spain), but then holy cow, I didn't know where I was putting myself into with trying to discredit Astrology.
I'm not sufficiently open minded they were saying... You're to much of a cartesian (what an insult !) I was told.

Then I said, let me show you something. I went to my PC, printed a text I had with a superb generic personality description (you know the kind with those wishy washy sentences like : "you value sincerity and honesty above all") and made as many copies as the number of guests.
Then I asked them to tell me their Astrological signs, which I wrote on the back of the identical personality descriptions, folded them, and distributed them to each one.
Then I asked them to read it, and score how well they thought it fit : from 1 (not at all) to 10 (perfect). Then I collected the scores, asking them to keep the copy in front of them.
We measured the scores, and the average was 8 (very good). So my friends said, you see, this shows how well Astrology works.
Then I asked to pass their folded copy to their neighbour. You should have seen the grin on their faces when they realised they had received the identical descriptions !

Oh no but you can't, that's not fair, well that just doesn't prove anything...
No way they would accept my point. No way. And this was supposedly a group of well educated rational thinkers.

Since then, I've come to believe that E.O.Wilson is probably right, we've evolved with Superstitious beliefs, it must have been an adaptive benefit.

Posted by: negentropyeater | January 21, 2008 6:52 PM

#72

Do you think it incompatible to believe in God and evolution?
no more incompatible than to be in sports and have a physical handicap.

Not the best comparison. After the Beijing Olympics this year, watch the paralympics the following weeks. Hell, the wheelchair marathoners here at boston may not be able to run 26 miles, but I couldn't either, and I also couldn't make my arms do what theirs do for 26 miles. They are fantastic athletes and sportsmen and -women. (hell, watch the docu "Murderball" some time)....

Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 6:53 PM

#73

John T. @ #16:

I remember thinking like that before I knew anything about neurobio. And yes, I've had the feeling of "presence", "out-of-body" experiences, sleep paralysis (when you feel awakened by a feeling of a "scary" presence and you can't move.)
They've all been replicated in laboratories by stimulating different areas of the brain, studying sleep patterns in people, and by messing up with their senses.
Some really cool neuro-stuff for you to get to know how your brain perceives things are usually up in The Neurocritic, as well as a lot of other neuroscientists' blogs.
Happy hunting, I find that searching for how things work a lot more fulfilling that finding them mysterious.

Posted by: Brigit | January 21, 2008 6:56 PM

#74

Ichthyic, Jim Abbott would like a word with you.

Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 6:56 PM

#75

I think rationalists and skeptics don't do themselves any favors by insulting people who've had experiences they cannot explain.

Hey now, I don't insult people with experiences they can't explain.

I insult people who attempt to explain experiences by references to their personal superstitions.

big difference.

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 21, 2008 7:04 PM

#76

John T. @ #16:

I remember thinking like that before I knew anything about neurobio. And yes, I've had the feeling of "presence", "out-of-body" experiences, sleep paralysis (when you feel awakened by a feeling of a "scary" presence and you can't move.)
They've been replicated in laboratories by stimulating different areas of the brain, studying sleep patterns in people, and by messing up with their senses.
If you are truly curious of learning how your brain processes information, there are several good blogs around written by neuroscientists for laypeople. I tried adding some more links, but the spamblocker gets grumpy if I add too much. I personally find it more rewarding to learn how things work than finding them perpetually mysterious.

Posted by: Brigit | January 21, 2008 7:04 PM

#77

"out-of-body" experiences,

I can explain mine: a combination of marijuana, Day-quil, beer, and a very excellent dance club.

Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 7:08 PM

#78

After the Beijing Olympics this year, watch the paralympics the following weeks. Hell, the wheelchair marathoners here at boston may not be able to run 26 miles, but I couldn't either, and I also couldn't make my arms do what theirs do for 26 miles.

I think you missed my point, Jeff.
You must have concluded from what I wrote that I meant it was impossible to overcome a handicap to perform well in sports?

did you not consider, in reading the rest of my post, that what i was in fact talking about was having to overcome a handicap to begin with?

nobody would question Miller has done some good things in Science, nor would most deny Collins has done so as well.

at the same time, they make their religious handicaps pretty obvious as well.

going back to your example, would you think it a GOOD thing to saddle someone with a handicap so they could then try and overcome it?

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 21, 2008 7:10 PM

#79

After the Beijing Olympics this year, watch the paralympics the following weeks. Hell, the wheelchair marathoners here at boston may not be able to run 26 miles, but I couldn't either, and I also couldn't make my arms do what theirs do for 26 miles. They are fantastic athletes and sportsmen and -women.

in fact, this is exactly what I meant, Jeff, you just detailed it by specific example.

clearer?

Posted by: Ichthyic | January 21, 2008 7:12 PM

#80

@ Truth Machine, RE: 63, 64.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and obviously interpreted his comment in a way favourable to my non-troll hypothesis.

His #16 was the lead-in, and from experience was good evidence that something like #43 would follow.

You called it, all right. I owe you twenty bucks.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 21, 2008 7:12 PM

#81

no more incompatible than to be in sports and have a physical handicap.

That looks like a nice analogy on the surface, but I think it breaks down under scrutiny, since the whole issue is about the relationship between the handicap and the task to be performed, and its not immediately obvious how mere belief in God conflicts with accepting evolution. Also, he asked about incompatibility between believing God and evolution, not incompatibility between believing in God and being a world class evolutionary biologist; having a physical handicap doesn't prevent one from playing sports, even if it may tend to limit the levels to which one may rise.

Posted by: truth machine | January 21, 2008 7:14 PM

Pharyngula

Search this blog

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

I'd wear that on a t-shirt

TrackBacks

Comments