Yet another arbitrary chronological marker successfully passed without any cataclysm befalling the human race. Oh well, I guess there’s always next year.

Happy new year from everybody here at Lintbox!

Link.

Despite the slow activity over the past several months, Lintbox is back on track, and to prove it, we introduce the next panel discussion!

As the LHC became active over the fall, those opposing its activation grew louder and received considerable attention on various news outlets.  On top of this, public opinion polls found that the majority of Americans felt that the risks (though debunked) of activating the LHC far outweighed its potential benefits.  The Large Hadron Collider’s opponents argue that the possible dangers resultant of the massive particle collider’s activity, ranging from the creation of micro black holes to the catastrophic invention of the mythical “strange matter” may damage or even destroy the planet.  These arguments have been resoundingly shot down by the entire scientific community as both scientifically inaccurate and too unlikely to be even considered possible.  However, as with any debate, there remains some ground to explore.

[Read more →]

Conspiracy theorists are perhaps best known for their infuriating tactic of trying to punch holes into well-established theories, without ever presenting any logically consistent alternative theory of their own. Hiding behind the veil of “just asking questions”, they can (and do) get away with proposing ridiculous alternatives to historical events, based on anomalies (often non-existent) in trivial pieces of information.

That is why I found this post over at counterknowledge.com to be particularly brilliant. It turns the table on 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and asks them to defend their alternate theory of events by asking them to answer 15 factual questions.

Undoubtedly, any true conspiracy theorist would answer all 15 by telling you how everybody involved (the Saudi government, Al Qaeda, the CIA, Afghanistan, etc.) were all under the control of the Bush administration or the military industrial complex. However, what these questions make evident, is how ridiculously large any conspiratorial body would have to be in order for the conspiracy theory to remain logically consistent. By the time they are done answering these questions, any conspiracy theorist who still maintains their beliefs would have to believe that (more or less) every world government and all of the major middle-eastern terrorist organizations are under the control of the United States government.

Whereas I don’t expect these questions to change the mind of most conspiracy theorists, they’re still fun to read through — and useful ammunition for the next time somebody poses some “questions” about 9/11.

Science Daily has an article talking about how researchers at Sydney’s Centenary Institute in Australia have managed to view (in real time) and film the process of a parasite infecting an immune cell. Click here to read the article, and see some photos of the process.

—

• Sciencedaily.com: Inner Workings Of The Immune System Filmed

This article by the Daily Mail online talks about a new fossil discovery that could help scientists solve a current “mystery” in the field of evolutionary biology. The discovery of fossils of turtle ancestors with partially developed shells is helping shed light on the contentious issue of how turtles first developed their shells:

This fossil supports existing theories of the development of the shells being the result of an extension of the backbone and ribs, as opposed to a hardening of the outer layers of the turtle’s skin. Interestingly, this historical evolutionary development seems to match the individual development that we observe happening in turtle embryos and hatchlings. The fossil’s fully developed lower shell also suggests that turtle ancestors developed in an environment where they had to fend off predators from below, thus reinforcing the notion that they developed as aquatic animals.

Of course, fossil evidence of turtles with imperfectly formed shells is also proof against the notion of Intelligent Design… but that’s neither here nor there.

—

• dailymail.co.uk: Scientists solve evolutionary puzzle on how the turtle got its shell

Recently, an article entitled “Does Science Really Have Laws?” appeared on Dinesh D’Souza’s AOL “News Bloggers” Blog. The article is an attempted defense of the existence of miracles, written by my all-time favourite person in the whole world: Dinesh D’Souza.

Summed up, the article explains Hume’s problem of induction, and uses this argument in support of the existence of miracles. The problem of induction explains how the scientific method (or any type of empirical knowledge) can never lead to metaphysical truth, due to all empirical knowledge being falsifiable¹. In theory, this is a good epistemological argument, but in practice, it is irrelevant, because nobody cares about metaphysical truth. Gravity is reliable to the extent that we no longer worry about it failing one morning. We can never conclusively prove without a shadow of a doubt that gravity will always continue to exist, and behave the way it does right now, but we have a pretty good reason to believe that it will continue to do so and therefore act under that assumption.

Is there a possibility (no matter how tiny) that the laws of physics will suddenly reverse themselves tomorrow? Yes; however, it is statistically improbable (”impossible” in common parlance) and we wouldn’t be around to appreciate it anyway. Furthermore, whereas there is no epistemological reason to believe that the laws of the universe will remain constant, we have yet to observe them change, so I suggest that the burden of proof is on Mr. D’Souza to prove the existence of these changes, and therefore the existence of the miracles that he believes exist. If the laws of the universe changed on a daily basis, then I would have more of a reason to believe D’Souza; but sadly, this is not the case.

Of course, the irony of D’Souza’s post is that Hume, in the same paper, wrote specifically about the problem of miracles. Simply put, he believed that testimony or observation (when it could be trusted, which he did not believe was often — if ever) leading to belief in a miracle could only be considered valid proof of a miracle if the opposite (i.e. the negation of the testimony or observation) belief more unbelievable than belief in the miracle. This is similar to Occam’s razor, and essentially means that a miracle can only exist insofar as it is the simplest (i.e. results in the fewest new assumptions) possible explanation for the observed events.

So not only has Dinesh D’Souza re-iterated a centuries old argument against inductive reasoning, which doesn’t even prove the existence of miracles, but he neglected to read the part of the very same essay that proved his argument to be incorrect. I’m sorry Dinesh… better luck next time.

—

• Does Science Really Have Laws?

Hello my fellow skeptics, I’ve returned and apologize profusely for my long-held inactivity.

First and foremost, I would like to thank Mitchell for being an absolute champ in filling the void while I was AWOL.  Despite our obvious need for new contributors (whom we will ALWAYS be happy to hire), Mitchell did a good job keeping our site afloat with new content!

There are many things I’ve learnt throughout my absence per se, the first being that life can be unrelentingly unfair.  Theologians and apostles can often find comfort in the belief that our lives, and indeed the world itself is governed by some divine formula culminating in– by my understanding– an apocalypse somehow orchestrated for our benefit.  As an atheist, I find the image silly. As someone who has seen his sister undergo five separate cancer-related surgeries, I find it vulgar.  The overall point (and one which I’ll probably elaborate on in the not-so-distant future) stands that were human suffering part of an omnipotent being’s master plan, that realization alone would be reason to rebel (were it sane to rebel against an imaginary character).

Another thing I’ve learnt is that despite the overwhelming stress one can face in life, to back away or otherwise neglect one’s own projects (as I, admittedly, have), you end up losing your only source for normalcy.  This, above all else, is a mistake I’ve learnt never again to repeat.   While it certainly hasn’t held much time in the spotlight (yet), Lintbox is a pride and dedication of mine I’m not soon planning to turn my back on.

To avoid any more fluff, I’m back, and back I shall stay…  But that’s not all there is to say.

While updates haven’t necessarily been flooding in over the past several months, the aim to expand Lintbox is as strong as ever, which brings me to an announcement:

We’ve recently provided new special features for the site, namely the Panel Discussions (which, though delayed, will receive a new submission tomorrow), there’s an entirely new, exciting special feature to keep an eye out for:  Skepticles.

“But what is/are Skepticles” you may ask?  Skepticles is an idea I’ve been toying with since Lintbox’s conception; A weekly/biweekly-updated comic strip featuring a Skepticism and/or Scientific focus.  Though I’ve already spoilt the surprise, I won’t divulge any more details until the coming updates!

And so, be on the lookout for updates as they should now be much more frequent, and thanks for sticking around throughout the dark patches!

-Paul

Often times, the purpose or practicalities of a cause can get lost in the hype. Today, the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) held their “Day of Action” to protest what they believe to be unfair tuition fee increases in Ontario. Whereas there are certainly arguments to be made for lowering–or even the elimination of–tuition fees, it is far from a consensus belief held by students, or the rest of society. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong, there is a disturbing lack of information surrounding their campaigns, with more of a focus on protests and rallies than working towards actual change.

Rallies are a good way of drawing attention to issues, but in order for them to be effective, the people first need to know what the issues are. The meaningless charts and statistics in the UTSU fliers are meant to make it look like the students are getting ripped off, but very few people are aware of the actual budgetary situations faced by both the government and the universities. Education funding is not a simple issue, and student politicians do everybody a disservice when they try and pretend that it is. Critical thinking is not just about science and pseudo-science, but also applies to your day-to-day life. The next time somebody hands you a flier and tells you to join their cause, take a moment to ask them why they think their cause is important; if they aren’t able to give you a satisfactory answer, then maybe you should take their claims with a grain of salt. The burden of proof is on them to convince you of their position. The worst that can happen is that you become more informed.

This article about an archaeological find that could support the existence of Jerusalem’s King David (whose existence had been disputed up until now, apparently) is for the most part a fairly interesting article about a fairly interesting discovery.

I say “for the most part”, because the article’s headline and the picture captions (undoubtedly not written by the author) trumpet this discovery as “‘Proof’ David slew Goliath”; the implication being that this discovery verifies the biblical tale of David and Goliath. Needless to say, even verified high resolution video footage of King David’s existence would not be enough evidence to validate his heroic biblical feats. Yet another example of a perfectly good article ruined by a sensationalist headline.

—

• Dailymail.co.uk: ‘Proof’ David slew Goliath found as Israeli archaeologists unearth ‘oldest ever Hebrew text’