Archive for the ‘General Skepticism’ Category

Cross-posted from That’s the Way the Banana Crumbles.

I had always heard, and thus assumed, that Pringles were not classified as potato chips because they were prohibited from doing so due to their mostly non-potato make-up. It’s well known that Pringles are not manufactured like ordinary chips. As opposed to being made from whole potatoes, they are formed from a type of potato dough containing less than 50% potato content and then baked.

However, it turns out that the truth is somewhat different from popular belief (imagine that!). According to this article by the BBC, the fight to have Pringles classified as a “cake or biscuit” was led by Procter & Gamble (the parent company of Pringles). The reason? Potato crisps (chips) are subject to a 17.5% value added tax (VAT) in the UK, whereas cakes and biscuits are not. By having the snack food de-classified as a crisp/chip, they were exempt from paying the tax. This just goes to show that often times the truth is much more straightforward than people make it out to be and reinforces the notion that if you want to find the underlying cause of an issue, you should “follow the money”.

Also of interest, according to a more recent article, the decision has been reversed on the grounds that the 42% of Pringles batter made from potatoes “is more than enough potato content for it to be a reasonable view that [Pringles are] made from potato”.

So what should we conclude from all this? No matter what you thought you knew about Pringles, you were probably wrong.

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.

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?

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’

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.

If any of our readers who are currently students at the University of Toronto are interested in forming a skeptical society, please let me know in the comments section — or through our forums at http://forums.lintbox.com.