Archive for October, 2008

In this article, Hitchens talks about “the GOP ticket’s appalling contempt for knowledge and learning”. It saddens me that these things go largely unreported by the media, whereas past religious affiliations of Senator Obama can form a nation-wide scandal.

I would highly recommend coming out to this event if you’re in the area. It only costs $5 for students if you pre-order or your tickets. More information can be found below:

Read the rest of this entry »

Confusing correlation with causation is a common mistake for people to make. Often, this mistake is the result of sloppy thinking, such as the case with this article here.

Today, President Bush gave an eight-minute speech on the economy, which was meant to reassure the markets. “This is an anxious time,” said Bush. “But the American people can be confident in our economic future.” However, ABC News notes that during those eight minutes, the Dow Jones dropped another 107 points. The Dow was down 78.70 at the beginning of Bush’s address, but at 185.66 by the end.

Correlation occurs between two variables when there is a strong relationship between A and B, such that when A changes, B also changes. The tendency for most people is to assume that since there is a correlation between A and B, A must cause B. However, as anybody with high school statistics could tell you, it is a mistake to assume a causal relationship because of a correlation. It might be the case that A causes B, but it could also be the case that B causes A, or even the third possibility that there is some variable, C, that is causing the change in both A and B. Because of the number of possibilities, we cannot draw a conclusion about probable causation with the observation of a single correlative study.

In this case, we have good reason to assume that the causal relationship is incorrect. By the time Bush had made his address, the stock markets had already been losing value at a steady rate for weeks. Furthermore, he made his address specifically to address the financial crisis. In this case, it would seem that the most reasonable assumption to make would be that there is a third variable (or group of variables) that caused both the stock market to fall, and Bush’s speech.

This post’s author may or may not have been serious about the argument, but I have seen similar arguments made regularly enough to know that many people do not understand the difference between correlation and causation. I hope that the next time you hear somebody make an argument like this, you will recognize that it is incorrect, and demand more proof before accepting a causal relationship.

Cracked.com is usually good for a few laughs, but it seems that one of their recent articles has accidentally stumbled into the realm of skepticism. Check it out!

I know that this topic has been exhaustively discussed previously, but I still want to rant about it (read: this is a rant, be forewarned).

I describe myself as an atheist. This means that I do not believe in a god. The definition isn’t confusing to me, because I already know what my beliefs are. The problem arises when I try to explain my beliefs to others. My beliefs can be legitimately described as either atheism or agnosticism; however, these terms both have dual meanings. This leads to some confusion when I tell other people that I am an atheist.

Atheism

There are two common definitions of atheism:

1. Lack of belief in a god.
2. The belief that god does not exist.

As I stated above, I subscribe to the first of the two beliefs. Though it is not obvious at first, there is a subtle distinction between the two definitions¹. Whereas definition number one refuses to accept the god hypothesis², definition two actively claims that the god hypothesis is wrong. The second definition is problematic, because it leads to the problematic situation of trying to prove a negative.

When I say that I do not believe in a god, I mean that the hypothesis “there is a god” is at odds with all known evidence, and therefore I do not think that there is enough evidence to accept the hypothesis. I am not making an existential claim about a supernatural entity, just like I don’t claim that unicorns and faeries don’t exist. It is merely the case that I have yet to be presented with compelling evidence to cause me to believe in the existence of a god. It is true that there are certain logical inconsistencies with the idea of divine, benevolent, and omnipotent supernatural being, but I don’t usually worry about such things in my day-to-day beliefs.

The second definition is one that no self-respecting atheist subscribes to, but one that is often used to describe atheist beliefs. This definition tacitly accepts that there are grounds for believing in the hypothesis “there is a god”, and goes on to state that the atheist knows that God does not exist. This definition is doubly problematic; both in assuming that there is validity to the claim “there is a god”, and in asserting that atheists have some proof or evidence as to why the hypothesis is wrong.

This belief would be dogmatic, because the idea of proving a negative is inconsistent with the rules of empiricism. Empirical evidence, and inductive reasoning, only allows us to think in terms of probabilities — as opposed to absolutes. We know that there’s a very good chance that both the sun will rise tomorrow, and that when we drop something, it will fall to the ground. However, we can never know these things absolutely, as all it would take is one example contrary to the rule in order to disprove the rule. In reality, the probability of something falling upwards when we drop it are very low (almost indistinguishable from zero), and so we say: “I know that when I drop this pen, it will fall to the ground.” The same is true with our belief about a god; whereas we do not know with certainty that there is no god, we do know that given the evidence (i.e. none) it is incredibly unlikely. Thus leading to the legitimacy of the phrase “there is no God” — it might not literally represent what an atheist actually believes, but it is consistent with the colloquial usage of the phrase “there is no ___.”

Agnosticism

Like atheism, there are two common definitions of agnosticism:

1. The belief that God is not part of the realm of empirical evidence, and therefore unknowable.
2. The belief that we might discover a God, but we have yet to find any evidence.

I, like many other atheists, subscribe to the first of these two definitions. Recognizing that science and empirical inquiry can only ever reveal facts about our physical world, any supernatural hypothesis like a god will always be sliced away by Occam’s razor. We have found a natural explanation for everything so far, and there’s nothing to suggest that the trend won’t continue into the foreseeable future. Coupled with the historical fact that all things that have been attributed to one or more gods in the past, have since been shown to have natural explanations, the first type of agnostic realizes that God simply has no place in modern scientific thought.

Many people use the first definition of agnosticism as a stand-in for describing themselves as atheists in order to avoid the above-mentioned ambiguity in the definition of atheism. There’s nothing wrong with this; however, I find that it has the undesired side effect of substituting one ambiguity for another. This leads us to the second definition of agnosticism.

The second definition is entirely different from the first. Whereas the first definition is characteristic of atheism, the second definition is characteristic of somebody who wants to believe, and is just looking for an excuse to do so. The second type of agnostics are usually religious people in the middle of a crisis of faith, or people who were raised without strong religious beliefs, yet hunger to be told that there’s some greater power in the universe. Neither of these people are skeptics, though some of them might be headed in the right direction. By choosing agnostic over atheist, you risk being labeled as a person on a spiritual quest, as opposed to being a person who simply does not believe in a god.

What does this all mean? Probably that whenever I tell somebody that I’m an atheist, it will still have to be followed up with a 5-10 minute conversation as to what that really means. Not that I really mind.

Today, while at work, I was filming a site using a new high definition camcorder with face recognition technology. The camera is impressive, and usually good at picking up faces: front profiles, side profiles, on weird angles — it usually recognizes a face. So what interested me was when it started indicating that there was a face in a piece of fiberglass insulation, which was being removed from a wall. The indicator flashed two or three times, but only very briefly. While I doubt that the camera saw the face of Jesus, it made me start to wonder how in our pursuit to design machines that mimic the human brain, what type of other human phenomena we would see begin to appear in our technology.