SKEPTICAL SUNDAYS

Weasel Words and Red Flags,
Or how to save money by not spending it on crap.


In the world of logic and logical fallacies, weasel words are words peppered throughout a speaker’s or writer’s argument, usually adjectives, that can be used to deride their opponent, or an opponent’s argument. They have a negative connotation, but weasel words can also be used to affirm an argument, making it seem more appealing by whatever tactic the author chooses: more scientific, more humorous, more civilized, more well-thought out. The reason one should be on the lookout for weasel words in an argument is that they are irrelevant to the point under debate, and the one who uses them liberally is generally on the intellectually poorer side of the argument.

But weasel words aren’t limited to argument, and can be useful in spotting crap. In this instance, when they are used in advertising they are generally called red flags. While it is commonly understood that red means warning and/or stop, being that I live on the beach, it’s much more poignant. When the red flags go up here, no swimming is allowed in the ocean. No matter what the ocean looks like on the surface, the conditions are such, with currents and undertows, that you are likely to die. Just like in life, there’s no lifeguards, or law enforcement on the beaches to keep you from swimming. You are supposed to know what the red flags mean, then it’s up to you. Go jump in, it’s your choice.

In the realm of alternative medicine, red flags abound. Some general things to consider when looking over some pill, supplement, treatment, or dietary and lifestyle change that makes a claim, whether in the store isle, or on TV:

First, there is no such thing as “alternative medicine.” There is only medicine that works, and medicine that doesn’t. We have come a long way in the last 200 years, which has been, at the outside, about how long scientific medicine has been around. That is to say, treatments submitted to rigorous tests to establish if there is any effect, beneficial or otherwise. As well, this has gone hand in hand with an ever increasing knowledge of how the body actually works.
Second, there is no outside cure for a great many of the common ailments caused by disease organisms other than your immune system. There are things to ease the symptoms, but a great deal of your doctor’s work (or your alternative medicine scam artist’s) is actually done by you. This is in no way an endorsement for not seeing your highly educated, trained, and usually very dedicated doctor.

Third, I have some caveats regarding the generalizing I’m about to do, the current limits of human understanding about the body, and my attitude in general, which I will offer in closing to hopefully counter some judgment on the reader’s part. If you need them now, just scroll down.

ONE ( We Begin)

So on to our first red weasel. “NATURAL” an utterly meaningless, and unregulated term. Hmmm, perhaps not completely unregulated. The FDA requires on food that you ingest, that “natural flavors” must actually be derived from a real source, as opposed to laboratory derived. If it is natural bacon flavor, it must actually come from a pig (or at least a majority of it). I’m forever tickled that pills are labeled as “natural.”
“NATURAL”, “ALL NATURAL”, “MADE FROM ALL NATURAL INGREDIENTS.” Don’t get me wrong, it may very well be that something is indeed made from non-laboratory/manufactured ingredients. If it is food, regulated by the FDA, it almost certainly is. If it’s alternative medicines, you roll the dice, with odds that always favor the crank.
Some of my contention with “natural” is this, pointed out more thoroughly by many others, including Brian Dunning of Skeptoid: Toadstools are natural, lead is natural, arsenic is natural, ultraviolet radiation is natural, so is the lethal radiation of nuclear decay, cowshit is natural. I think you get my point. Just because it says it’s “natural”, doesn’t mean it’s safe, or even that it actually is naturally derived, being that there’s no regulation for OTC supplements, so long as they don’t overtly claim to prevent, treat, or cure any disease.
What you read when you read “NATURAL” on something, is something like this: “This is from a natural plant, grown in untainted soil, with only natural fertilizers, no pesticides, far from urban air and pollutants. In fact, this was harvested in a rainforest 1000 miles from modern humanity, with absolutely no impact on the pristine environment. It was transported by electric car to a hippie commune, where deeply spiritual people used no modern technology to transform this all-natural substance into a pill (pr whatnot) inside a plastic bottle, arriving fresh, as nature intended, to my grocery or health food store.”
Sadly, there’s no regulation on the word natural in relationship to supplements. Natural has become a marketing tool, completely devoid of meaning, so I would counsel setting aside your expectations. Yes, aspirin is natural, of course. It can be derived by boiling the bark of a willow tree (though I’m not entirely sure if it’s species-specific) and that’s just what the Romans did. I challenge you to go do that next time you have a headache, bearing in mind that you have no control over the effective dosage, and have to consume everything else that leeches out from the willow bark, including the flavor, and I’ll be impressed at your commitment to “natural.”

TWO (The Long One)

Oh, and you expect it to work, too.
Also sadly, as long as the claims are kept vague, there’s really no regulation regarding what supplements imply they do, which is heal. Coupled with a mistrust in all things human made and science in general (don’t get me started), our current “green” movement has been hijacked by charlatans out to get your money. Here’s another choice red weasel: “BOOSTS/ENHANCES/SUPPORTS/INCREASES insert bodily function or the word “vitality” here” What’s so sad is how little education it really takes to get at least a generalized understanding of how the various systems in your body work. Even a cursory knowledge will plant suspicion in your mind when products make such vague claims. Let’s address “VITALITY” first. It doesn’t mean anything, even though it sounds like it does. There is some historical literature regarding “vitalism”, a long-discredited theory of life and medicine, wherein the body and life was dependant on “vital energy” for existence, and the flow, or balance of this (and in some cases various) energies affected your health, and imbalance was thought to cause disease. If you think this sounds valid, especially all you Chi and Chakra folk, I’ll address this a little later, hopefully letting you down gently. For the rest of you, just know this theory of disease was conceptualized BEFORE the germ theory of disease, and has yet to ever have any supporting evidence for any variation of it.
If the producer of the product you’re considering subscribes to this, you gather as you read the website or shiny product label, adorned with fairies, don’t waste your money. If they believe in “vital energy”, that’s their business, but they’re dong you a financial disservice by asking you to buy something that doesn’t do anything.
As for “vitality”, ask yourself this:
what does that mean?
Is that a valid term?
How would I measure it?
Does it mean I will have more energy?
Do they mean what I mean by energy?
A cup of coffee would "give me more energy."
Does it mean it will make me healthier?
If so, why aren’t they allowed to say in what way?
If it increases vitality, how will I know?
Will my heart rate increase, my feet sweat more (dear lord, no!), halos in my vision?
Does it do anything specific?
Why aren’t they allowed to say what it does specifically?
Ask yourself these, and any other troubling questions that pop into your mind while you look very carefully at the price tag.
As for the other terms, in regards to affecting the functioning of your immune system, digestive system (or health, they’re all big on saying it supports digestive/immune health. This appears to be just vague enough to slip under the FDA’s radar. Whether it’s the term support, or the vague use of health, I’m unsure), or any other system in your body, be very skeptical of these nebulous claims. All of these systems are very complicated, with various and sundry stages of function. If it supports digestive health, ask yourself, “How does it do that? Does it increase enzymatic action in my saliva? Does it regulate acid production in my stomach? Does it somehow increase the absorption of nutrition in my large intestine? My small intestine? Does it give a handshake to the symbiotic bacteria in my gut? Does it affect the muscles in all those various digestive components to work better, or more efficiently? Does it somehow affect the waste removal systems? What exactly do they mean?” When you or someone you know goes to the doctor for a digestion problem, you usually get a medicine that affects a specific problem, a particular aspect of digestion. The immune system, endocrine system, circulatory system, all of these are multi-layered, complicated, and interconnected. The ailments for these are pretty specific, and thusly so are the medications, so a panacea for overall system health starts to make no sense, and sound like either ignorance on their part, or supreme contempt for your part.
The only thing I know of that affects all aspects of any of these systems is diet! I won’t fail to mention exercise either, as it greatly affects the efficiency of these systems as well, mainly through efficient delivery of nutrition. Diet is important because you, theoretically, consume all sorts of vitamins and minerals, plus necessary carbohydrates, and roughage. Your systems need a diverse array of chemicals to keep each and every different stage of the systems running, and on a daily basis at that. Now, think on the Amazonian Teabag extract, and ask yourself (really asking the manufacturer), “Do you really expect me to believe that this one thing does the same thing as 2 dozen vitamins and minerals, especially when you don’t tell me exactly where, or what aspect of said system your product effects?” Use your perfectly healthy nervous system to walk yourself to the produce aisle.
A final note about the above red weasels. If they aren’t exactly implying that they cure something, or affect a disease process, or alleviate a vitamin deficiency, then they are doubtless implying that you should take their supporter, booster, enhancer propholactically. To avoid problems, take 2 pills twice a day, and buy monthly. Pretty insidious. I want you to picture this in your mind: the snake oil charmer talking to his ad executive, telling her to say this without actually saying this. Don’t forget, being that if you cross the line into specifics, the FDA WILL come down on you (never hard enough, sigh) both of them have lawyers present as well.
Why are all these nebulous wordings necessary? Because these people selling you their likely bogus health supplements have not proven their products do anything. They have not gone through the rigorous processes that drug companies must go through to:
1) Isolate the active ingredient.
2) Prove the efficacy of their product, and establish safe dosages.
3) Document the number of, and severity of side effects.
The overwhelming majority of health supplements (things like “herbal” supplements [yes, yes, yes, I know what your thinking. I will address that in the caveats upon closing]) have never gone through that process. Some have, and there’s negative evidence for effect, yet they are still sold as somehow having an effect on your health. Several new age therapies also have been tested, and still are being tested, showing negative effects, or indistinguishable from placebo. I’m staying close to the supplement, pill-form of alternative medicine. Getting into those other modalities also requires tackling the mindset associated with them, which can get complicated. Another time? Good.

THREE (Bear with the Tangents)

I want to make two things clear in this part.
1) Diseases have a natural progression, either simply due to a life-cycle, the time it takes your body to mount an effective response and win against the organism, but most likely a combination of the two. If something is meant to be taken propholactically (boosts, enhances, supports) then it is pointless to take it when the disease process has started. Bt my real point with this one is explaining “confirmation bias.” You get sick, and take a supplement. Even though it’s likely bogus, and it’s your own body’s immune system that kills the disease, your associate your feeling better with the pill you took, and will carry that belief with you even when someone points out to you that Australian Dingo Placenta was shown in a clinical trial not to do a damn thing. That’s confirmation bias, and we are all susceptible to it. Trust me, all sickness runs its course in due time. Now eat your chicken soup.
2) All real medicine has a real effect. It doesn’t matter to me if the active ingredient did come from a Dingo’s womb, but you do need to prove the extract actually does something, and I’d appreciate if you’d isolate which chemical(s) in the aforementioned placenta do what you’re claiming, establish how much of it I need to have an effect, but also how much is too much, and if you don’t mind, please replicate the chemicals in a laboratory so that my body can’t tell the difference, and we don’t have to kill any more pregnant Dingoes. Real medicine has real effects. We use them for the beneficial effects, and since there’s no free lunch, balance the good against the negative side effects. All those medicines that have those horrible side effects on TV, they actually do what they say they do, and it’s up to you and your doctor to decide if you want to risk the side effects. Medicines have side effects because, while they affect certain processes, or functions, they have no way of knowing you only want those processes to affect just the liver, so they affect everywhere that process happens, which may cause problems if they affect the same process in your pituitary gland. But who knows, you might luck out.
Supplements not only aren’t allowed to make specific claims, but they don’t list any side effects. Isn’t that strange? Makes me think it’s either a sugar pill, or whatever’s in it doesn’t do a damn thing at all. It’s cheaper, and healthier to go eat a apple, chock full of proven nutrition. If something’s had the money to go through the levels of testing our pharmaceuticals have gone through, it’s going to cost a lot of money. Even generic drugs are expensive, comparatively. I’m not saying price is always an indicator. There is plenty of bullshit out there that’s got a ridiculous asking price. I’m just here to save you money, whether it’s $5.99, or $59.99.
I haven’t even gotten into the weasels of red in this section yet! They are: RESEARCH SHOWS, and STUDIES SUGGEST, and sometimes, though more in verbal advertising, SCIENTISTS SAY/AGREE. Research means it’s in the process of experimentation. The results aren’t out yet. You don’t even know where they are in the research. It could be that research was just started because someone suspected an effect, but the lab isn’t even open yet. It might however, mean that legitimate research is being done by reputable organizations, and some preliminary paperwork is available, but regardless, don’t put the cart before the horse. You don’t get a prescription for anything manufactured under the auspices of research shows. RESEARCH SHOWS is empty techno babble, and means nothing: absolutely nothing.
Studies is such a vague term, you should ignore that one as well. While plenty of studies are legit, they aren’t clinical trials. Another example of dyslexic cart harnessing. Also, a study bandied about in the way alternative medicines use them could honestly mean anything, including that one person looked at a beaker, and pronounced he had studied it. Ignore this one unless you can track down literature, and it produced by reputable sources.
SCIENTISTS SAY/AGREE, and indeed they may, but they never tell you who, or what their specialty is. 20 veterinarians agreeing that the cosmos is collapsing doesn’t make me despair for creation.
All these are used to make the products sound authoritative, effective, safe, and to make you think somebody actually did the work. Well, to be fair, a chemist did make that $4.99 starch pill you're taking.

FOUR (Nice and Short)

“THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW.” Mmmm hmmm. It’s all a big conspiracy by government, Big Pharma, and no doubt the Illuminati. Right, why suppresses it, when they could make a mint selling these supplements, and home remedies legitimately? This one just drips of pure marketing. It’s an instant Do Not Buy.

FIVE (Sucker Punch)

ANCIENT WISDOM. I’ll be very brief. I will be the first to affirm that our ancestors were in no way stupid, but they were not technologically advanced, and had NO IDEA how the body really worked, beyond perhaps that the heart pumped blood, and a few other obvious things. And I will gladly proclaim their hits (remember aspirin?), but unlike some, I won’t ignore the monumental number of misses. Theirs was a world of trial and error (so is science, but very systematized, with ever increasing technology, and transmission of accurate information doesn’t depend on WORD of MOUTH) and riddled with ignorance. We have and are discovering that they got a few things right, but they got a spectacular amount wrong. A few hits in the Iron Age in no way means everything they did must be right. It’s like saying because you can balance your checkbook, your differential calculus must be right. And why do Orientals get special medical reverence? Ancient Oriental medicine is chock full of just as much “does not work, never did” as Europeans. Lastly, just because a culture has been doing something for 1000 years doesn’t make it work. Some traditions are stupid.

FINIS (Been waiting for this)

So there are some of the weasel words and red flags to be on the look out for when shopping in the world of alternative medicine. You’re looking for something that works, to relieve symptoms and pain, and make you feel better. I hope this essay gives you the skills to evaluate what’s likely to not really do anything but put your wallet on a diet. The best way to stay healthy is not in a pill. It’s diet, exercise, moderation of your vices, and a good attitude. When your sick, use the proven medications, all of which (well, perhaps not aspirin) were clinically trialed, and prescription once, so they have a long history of efficacy and safety, which you can look up anytime. If you’re really ill, consult your doctor, whose training, experience, and expertise you rely upon.
In closing, I just want you to know, I don’t have anything against the idea of supplements and alternative medicine in general, per se. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask that if you want me to buy something, I should know exactly what I’m buying. If your claiming it affects my health, all I ask is proof that it does that. The above weasels have been used in the promotion of snake oil after snake oil, so if I seem harsh, it’s just because I have standards: efficacy and safety. Why shell out money otherwise?
Nearly all of our pharmaceuticals come from plants, or other biological sources. I’d never deny that. That in no way means, however, that just because it comes from a biological source, it does anything at all, much less that it’s inherently good for you.
As for energy-based modalities, such as chi, charkas, or meridians in the body. Sorry folks, there’s no evidence for those energies. The body is an energy system, to be sure, and it’s that, ahem, vitality that no doubt was the genesis of the aforementioned belief systems. But 1) we’ve learned that the body is a chemical engine, using the heat generated from the transfer of electrical energy from chemical bonds (this is way simplified) being created and broken, and 2) we are very, very, very good at detecting and measuring invisible energies. For example, the Voyager 2 probe is over 9 billion miles away. It’s radio output is equivalent to a 20 watt light bulb. We can and do receive radio transmissions from that probe. We have instruments that can see a 20 watt light bulb 9 billion miles away. Sorry, but there’s no empirical evidence for chi, and all the rest.
Sure, there is plenty that we don’t know, in fact far more than we do. I’d advise against leaping on the gaps in our knowledge as a place to lay your favored belief, which inevitably turns out to be hope. Those gaps have a way of quickly closing within a human lifetime these days. Sure, evidence for other modalities may show up one day, and I even think it would be fun if they existed, but it would require altering our whole physics to incorporate them. Until that day, however, it makes no sense to give them any credence, as decades of study (tee hee) have shown nothing.
I'm not against every supplement, or alternative therapy. There are a few that actually do somewhat what they claim, and research is being done on them. This in no way makes the rest of them in any way correct.
Anyway, do good things for your body, real good things, and good things for your mind, and you'll find you inevitably do good things for your wallet.

Random Acts of Quotation!
On Evidence...

"Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
Henry D. Thoreau

"The fact that an opinion is widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd." Bertrand Russel

"Don't accept your dog's admiration as conclusive evidence that you are wonderful"
Ann Landers

A Featureless Friday

I haven't been surfing the web all that much, so I don't have any funny links or pictures. I've spent the last few days hanging out with friends (see previous post) so I haven't been doing the reading I normally do. Much of my energy for socio-politial writing has been going towards school. My disk defragmentor wouldn't work for C: drive because I didn't have enough space left on it, so I copied all of my various and sundry writing folders, and tossed them into my D: drive, akin to dumping all of your paperwork into a box in order to vacuum (what? you mean you don't store all your important papers on the floor? How Bizarre! How else will you know where they are if you don't have to step over them every day?), so I'm a bit too disorganized to go in and fish out some near-complete essays to finish. I've been doing laundry, cleaning the kitchen, and listening to weighty lectures on my IPod, so I'm not in a very humorous mood today.

Aha! I garnered a book of quotations from my folks the last time I was there, so I'll do a few Random Acts of Quotation!

Politicians:
"A conservative politician is one in office." Columbia Record

"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even when there is no river." Nikita Khrushchev

"A political war is one in which everyone shoots from the lip." Raymond Moley

Repentance:

'The best part of repentance is the sinning." Arab Proverb

Others:

"If you try to cleanse others, like soap you will waste away in the process." African Proveb

Luck:

"Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember it didn't work for the rabbit!" R.E. Shay

Eve of Destruction

I woke up this morning, more than once, a sad caricature of a human being. Walking home from school yesterday, I happened upon Dee, a delightful and talented friend of mine. Both eager to visit with me, and pitying my sad financial state (while I realize I only get better at them, it would be nice to finally win one of those damned essay contests) she offered to buy me a drink and some snacks at Striper's. We went to the 3rd floor, where spirits are served, and I reacquainted myself with my old demon, vodka.
When one is in the early stages of inebriation, one doesn't wish the evening, or the feeling to end, as you well know. We retired to Dee's apartment for a delightfully stimulating evening of conversation, fueled by liberal amounts of yet more vodka. Over an 8 hour period, I easily consumed nearly a fifth of Stoli and Smirnoff.
I awoke in the callous embrace of suffering, holding me as tightly as any lover invited to one's bed would, and such a generous lover suffering is, selflessly giving and giving. This hangover was arguably a work of art in its magnificence, and like many dedicated artists, I was consumed by that which I had created. The rolling waves of nausea were actually enjoyable for their complete integration with my being, and as well for their sheer perfection. I actually staved off the inevitable as long as I could to remain immersed in such meticulous misery. When at last I could no longer hold back that which demanded to be brought forth, I assumed the position of pious submission in front of that cool, white, impersonal diety, that was stoically eager to receive my offering unto it. It is often said there are no atheists in foxholes. As well there are none is this position either.
Akin to surrendering one's will to the will of deity, I was sundered from willful control of my body, and as I made offerings of not just my abandoned digestion, but my dignity as well, an orgasmic, if not religious, feeling washed over me. My muscles locked in waves of spasm that purged my sould as well as my stomach, and from deep within swelled yet more suffering, glorifying in its monstrous elegance, its distilled purity. All pain that went before was mere prologue: this was transcendant pain, that split my skull, and all conceptions I had previously had of suffering, with Truth.
With at last the sacrament fulfilled, I was drained, admittedly on many levels, including literally. I, trembling, made my way to a chair, allowing the daylight streaming through the open windows to slice through my eyes like spears of a spiteful god, and rattle like hammers against the back of my skull, shattering all conceptions I possessed of identity into a haze of misery of delicate power, and utter completeness. Like a symphony, each moment would bring notes of exquisite agony from a new point within my body, and I could only admire the intricate balance of subtle suffering, and monumental agony that played counterpoint to each other, a coherent cacophany of pain, with a broad palette of intenisties that shaped my enduring consciousness with deftly overlapped emotional and physical textures: sharp, dull, smooth, silky, plunging, cutting.
This was indeed the "Starry Night" of hangovers, an enduring masterpiece that scarred my soul with its magnificence, as all great works in history pierce and scar us. As even the mighty Pyramids shall one day blow away into the desert, so too did this wonder of the world ebb, as all things must to relentless time. Even so, I will enshrine this morning in the museum of my memory, where it will hold a place of honor, that I may again and again revisit, and cherish its power, its beauty, its mystery. Prints are available in the giftshop.

New Feature # 2

Tangent Two-fer Tuesday

Anytime the subject of blogging comes up between my dearest dear, Gretchen, and I, she’s always after to me to increase my output, which is the epitome of random. In my defense, I have school, and a whole host of google docs I am constantly contributing to. That said, I also waste inordinate amounts of time on Facebook, and read as if I’ll never get to again if I stop, so my defenses are pretty thin. I’m just undisciplined. I have a whole folder of unfinished blogs, because I only write while I have steam, then something shiny twinkles, and off I go, only to return to the blog I started many moons later.
Gretchen is, of course, brilliant, (or else I’d be nice to her only because she’s Jon’s wife), and is, of course, one (of two) of the readers who follow my blog, even though I write as if the whole world is reading (one day, muhahahaha!) A good idea is a good idea, no matter where it came from (cupping is NOT a good idea), and she had a good idea. She suggested that I start writing thematically, with inane, yet relevant witticisms alliterating the theme to the day of the week. Ok, why not? I do want to accumulate a body of work to refer to, perhaps publish one day, and the best way to do that is to write. Maybe these theme days will help me focus, finish, and fling my essays to the world.
I’ve got one already, Skeptical Sundays, since I’m aiming to establish a career in science, science journalism, and popularizing science. That will rotate between exposing cranks, snake oil, pseudoscience, and downright dishonest people (John Edwards, step to the front of the line), and offing argumentative tips and techniques, all aimed towards improving any reader’s critical thinking skills.
Tangent Two-Fer Tuesdays will offer two posts, but that’s about it. They may be related to each other, they may not. They may be long (good odds as I’m a babbler), or short, or lists, or something entirely new. Gretchen’s point is well made, that people like regularity and consistency, else why would TV series stay on for years at a time?
People also like regular features, so Tuesdays are a day to try out this or that. Tuesdays are to give me flexibility, and provide readers with variety. I’ll think about more as I get into the habit of posting on these days.

New Feature to the Features: Random Acts of Quotation

"That which doesn't kill fools, needs to be made stronger." Me, 2008

Tangent #1
Irregular Feature…
Bards and Brainsuckers: Books I’m Reading

1) Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus, by Mary Shelly. I’m too poor to acquire nice, leatherbound editions of classics, so I collect collections of mass market, or occasionally Trade paperbacks, of genres I’m interested in. I’m collecting and reading classic science fiction novels, and while Frankenstein isn’t technically quite science fiction, it’s sci-fi enough that I consider it the first sci-fi novel ever written, far predating Verne or Wells. I’ve had this edition for over a year now, and it has lived on the “Shelf of Shame.” This is a shelf dedicated to all the books I should have read. You know, many of the ones you were forced to read in high school and college. Whenever I hit the thrift store (the BEST place to shop for books, but support you local bookstore too!) I inevitably come out with something that has endured, no matter how inexplicable. Frankenstein was written in 1816, which is an era in English literature I just despise. It’s contemporary with Jane Austin, to give you an idea of the kind of language it uses.
On the good side: it’s fascinating how NOT like any of the movies it is. It’s also a hoot to read of the affected mannerisms of the period, wherein overindulgence in passionate emotions would make men swoon, and be consigned to convalescence for weeks on end. How pussy is that? On chapter 7 of 24.
2) Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. Published in 2007, it’s a weighty 613 pages (nothing to me), but supposedly a layperson’s guide to economics, bereft of charts and jargon. Sounds good. I’m on the last page of the introduction, and I already approve of the plain, direct style. This should prove informative, without the associated dryness I’ve so far encountered with most texts on economics, but with more meat that pop-economics books (though this book is on it’s 3rd edition in just two years…impressive.)
3) Religion in American Politics: A Short History, by Frank Lambert. Uber-timely with a 2008 copyright, this book sates two of my obsessive lusts: history, and my conflicted views on religion. Just a few pages in, and already I’ve slated it as my go-to-bed-yet-stay-up-3-extra-hours book.

Recently finished books:
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. My second read of this elegant, powerful volume by “Darwin’s Bulldog.” Unlike Sam Harris, who gets brutal in his critique of Christianity, Dawkins is merely blunt, as his point is well made: why does religion deserve and get special treatment when it comes to criticism? Good question, but the real power of this book comes in his simple explanations of scientific principles, especially evolution, graced with beautiful perspective that left me shivering with awe.
Pushing Ice, by Alastair Reynolds. A rising star in science fiction, and currently my favorite genre author, Reynolds skillfully paints a grand canvas of immensity and grandeur, both in space and time, but keeps the focus on the human characters and their relationships. Too few modern authors get that the play is about the people, not the sets.
Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris. It’s not that I don’t agree with many of Harris’ sentiments, but too often he delivers them with palpable venom. I think it’s both healthy, and essential to call the various Christian sects to task on their hypocrisy when their moral absolutism actually increases human suffering, but Harris ignores the fact that Christians are a spectrum, not an extreme. Point by point he’s often (but not always) on the mark in his criticism, but just as often fails to distinguish particular versions, denominations, and interpretations of Christianity. What could have sounded like a thoughtful dialogue, giving the various churches much-needed food for thought, ends up sounding like a rant, and unfairly lumping all Christians into a uniform mass, completely forgetting that while religious, they’re still people. As an atheist, I think Harris’ approach is completely unproductive.

Tangent #2
Facebooked!
This is an exercise an old Lost Colony chum tagged me to complete, which I ignored for weeks on end. I finally started looking at what other people were writing about, and realized it’s a terrific exercise in self-reflection. Besides, I had nothing else to write about for #2, so thank Bill Gates for cut and paste.

Rules:
Once you've been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 25 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 25 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it's because I want to know more about you.
(To do this, go to “notes” under tabs on your profile page, paste these instructions in the body of the note, type your 25 random things, tag 25 people, then click publish.)

1) I've an extremely addictive personality. I have yet to successfully quit smoking, have to tear myself away from games lest I turn into a dead husk in front of this computer, and must always keep one eye on my drinking, just for starters.

2) I've made the bargain with myself to remain on the constructive side of functional, despite the above. Having demons and monkeys at least means never having to sleep alone.

3) In regards to the above, at least I love animals. Ferrets are by far and away my favorite pets, with dogs and Benders running neck and neck for second.

4) I am an atheist. To paraphrase Dawkins, every believer is an atheist about all the other religions. I'm no different, I just include yours.

5) I love to write. I hate to write. I love to write. I hate to write. Gardenfuls of petal-less flowers about that one.

6) I do not use the word "friend" lightly, certainly not in the frivolous way Facebook uses it.

7) I love making lists.

8) I'm terrible at completing them.

9) I'm somewhat terrified that while I yearn for greatness, I'd likely be contented with comfortable mediocrity.

10) I am terrible with money. Please see #1.

11) I have moments of unequivocal intellectual brilliance. I have no idea how to do this consistantly.

12) I sometimes want to get paid for just being me. Please see # 9

13) I have hierarchies of love, devotion, obligation, and other emotional aspects associated with other people. Please see # 7

14) I am often ashamed that I appear to learn how to be a better person by being a complete shit to others. I console myself that at least I do learn.

15) Every year I suffer fools less and less. These people I am yearly less ashamed about being a total shit to. Please see above.

16) I could stay in school for the rest of my life, and no pile of shit would satisfy any pig more than I would be satisfied.

17) I often fail to perceive the difference between due pride and undue arrogance in myself. I rely heavily on my friends to tell me the difference.

18) In regards to the survival of our species, I'm the most optimistic person I've ever met.

19) I sometimes debate whether we deserve to, however.

20) I try very hard not to use the word believe anymore. There's not enough space on here to explain why.

21) I have experienced no suggestive, much less convincing, evidence of life after death, of any kind. Admitting this has made me acutely aware of the suffering of others. Please see #14 This can be correlated with # 4

22) I sometimes envy religious people their absolute convictions. It is far, far more difficult to actually think through tough moral and ethical problems on a case-by-case basis.

23) I do not think any of the world's problems are insolvable. There are, however, far too many people who are intractable, and therein lies the problem.

24) I don't think we are the only life in the Universe. Regardless, most people believe that we are. I am daily flummoxed that they don't act as if that were the case.

25) No one's better at being me than I am. I'm daily thankful I got the job.

New Feature

Skeptical Sunday
Our logical fallacy of the week...
False Dichotomy
Simply put, it’s when someone in an argument sets up an either/or choice that can be either blatantly false, or simplifies an argument that ignores a whole spectrum of choices in between the end extremes of either side of the argument.

One of my favorites: "Evolution can’t explain X, so Intelligent Design must be right."
Commonly, evolution is so poorly understood by ID proponents (see: Cameron, Kirk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az8k0uzQ6sA) that the first half of the above statement often incorrect. Add insult to injury, and conclude that ID is thus, by fiat, the correct explanation.

I actually understand how evolution is so misunderstood: it’s pretty complex. The biology alone is mind-boggling (which makes it so fascinating), and is corroborated by a dozen or so other scientific disciplines, which also require years of study to get a firm grasp on.

Tangent: that’s one of beauties of science, that as our body of knowledge grows, so does our need for ever more people to work together to progress our understanding, and create beneficial applications based on our understanding. I'd like to buy the world a coke, and an education.

One of the biggest problems in the E vs. ID debate is that E is poorly explained. There are some pretty basic, and simple principles involved. How to make them interesting to an audience is problematic. ID debaters usually rely on charisma ( and a whole host of logical fallacies ) to appear to win debates, even if their facts and reasoning are torn to shreds. It’s a matter of presentation, and approach, and most scientists aren’t equipped to present complicated facts concisely, and simply, and with the appealing flair of a game show host. This will change, however. My greatest fear is that it won’t be in enough time to combat more ideological insertion into science classes, currently under the guise of “academic freedom,” passed in a bill in Louisiana, and currently under fierce debate in Texas.

Example 2: “You weren’t there to see it happen, so your theory can’t possibly be right.” Every murderer in the world would absolutely adore it if our legal systems adopted this kind of reasoning. I’m assuming anyone who’s a fan of any one of the 415 CSI’s can see right through this one. Additionally baffling is how even if this illogic was even remotely reasonable, how would it make the other position (ID) correct?

“Academic Freedom!” Who can argue with that? Isn’t that the essence of democracy? If it was an honest principle, sort of, though it presents its own problems. One could attempt to ban the study of Shakespeare based on academic freedom, arguing that it’s not necessary to study 400 year old English plays, and even if it was, it’s entirely subjective that Shakespeare should be the one we study, and not some more obscure author from the period. So difficult not to Tangent here, because I have plenty to say about Shakespeare; how and how he’s taught. Alas, discipline. What makes the current premise of academic freedom despicable is it’s utter dishonesty. It’s yet another re-branded tactic to insert ideology where it doesn’t belong.

Tangent: Hooray! Another gorgeous aspect of science is its intellectual honesty, which I can distill to the succinct phrase, “Holy shit, we’ve been so completely wrong about nearly everything for just about our entire history! Let’s use a method of inquiry that makes that very assumption, and devise it so that any assertion made must pass a rigorous amount of testing and review before it’s accepted, and even then we’ll look over our shoulder for ever after just in case we’re wrong even after all that!” Science is often claimed by apologists to have nothing to say about God (or gods). Debatable, though very polite. What science does have is plenty to say about human history, and human nature, and is the most honest we’ve been with, and about ourselves yet.

There might be a positive to all this academic freedom nonsense. While it’s purpose is to challenge evolution, there’s nothing to say that it couldn’t as well be used to challenge Intelligent Design. If ID is actually brought into a science classroom, and evaluated with the same rigor as evolution (mini-tangent: challenging evolution is also throwing a gauntlet in front of geology, archeology, paleontology, astronomy and astrophysics, chemistry, and nuclear physics. Really, they’d all have to be wrong to allow ID remotely even footing with evolution. They being wrong wouldn’t mean that ID is right: it would still have to prove its case if it wanted to claim being a science) it would be torn to shreds within one classroom session.
That’s where introducing logical fallacies comes into the picture. Logic is a main component of critical thinking, and while the scientific method is taught in schools, it’s taught as a list of steps. What it is, is a constantly evolving, self-improving method of inquiry that involves thinking skills that are simply not innate, generally, to human beings. We go through life shooting from the emotional hip about everything. The whole paradigm shift in the way one has to think is just lost in a miasma of facts. I think a curriculum is required to teach this way of thinking. Critical thinking isn’t just about logic, but also the ability to evaluate evidence, and is self-reflective, in that one has to analyze one’s own arguments. These are skill sets that must be taught, as reason is a product of education, not birth.

If good critical thinking skills were a required component of public education, the benefits would reach far beyond the controversy about ID (make no mistake, it’s ID that’s the controversy. It’s proponents’ tactic is to reframe it into what is wrong with evolution, when the real issue is inserting a specific religion into public schools), though it would help students see through all the crap that surrounds the ID issue, and allow them to evaluate it on its own merits, which would be disastrous for ID if it’s done in a science classroom. Additionally, it would save the American consumer billions of wasted dollars. I can’t even get a handle on how much money is thrown out the window on pseudo-scientific snake oil, and numerous other products that with a few seconds of rational thought, would be seen to be unable to deliver on ridiculous claims of benefit. Incidentally, I’ve personally discovered that militantly reducing my consumption of television provides some immunity to the advertiser’s rhetorical charms. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, but it also appears to make the brain more careful. In addition, future generations that are brought up to give careful thought about the claims of others, and to their own decisions, would eventually filter into a government that might just think twice about going to war for no good reason (yes, I know the real reasons for war in Iraq are numerous, and far-reaching: it doesn’t make them wise or right) other than an executive that goes with the momentum, and believes he’s anointed by a very specific, intelligently designing creator, to go to war. Oops, did I just get all political?

So thus, I introduce Skeptical Sundays, the goal being to introduce a new logical fallacy every week, and attempting to use timely examples from the real world. Keep it real. No, really.

And 2009 starts its engine

Here we go, 2009. The world has kept on spinning (so far), and, as usual, it's ignored our devices to mark time. Despite all the hope heaped upon Barack Obama, his is a job I do not envy. The problems, the very real, very deep problems he has to address, and is expected to solve are legion, and complicated, and long-term, and difficult. An historic President, history is ready to cast its eye on him with a long, hard stare. He will, of course, be remembered for being black, no doubt, yet history won't cut him an ounce of slack for that. His biggest problem is going to be his own image. He was elected as (dare I say it?) a savior. The expectation for him to rebuild the nation is, honestly, unrealistically high. There's a longer post in here about how we, the electorate, have abrogated our responsibilities and privileges as citizens of a unique government in favor of near-tyranny by funneling all of our expectations onto a single position, the Presidency. Indeed, our own Congress has abandoned its last real power these last few months, by abrogating the power of the purse. I speak of the bailout, which control over was immediately handed over to the Executive branch. That's not how it's supposed to work, at all. The stimulus promises the more of the same. Pity. I often debate my mother about the parallels between Rome and the United States. My mother, being more religious than I (well, who isn't, really?) dwells on the tiresome litany of parallels of decadence, and fraying morality. It's difficult to convey the complex issues, politically, and economically, that I feel are the real issues, and the dangerous parallels, when the debate devolves into the (admittedly, sometimes shocking) morality of the Romans, so I have to politely remind her that both Western and Eastern Roman empires were Christian when they fell. Delightful to have that historical trump card, really. I think dwelling on how we and the Romans fuck is irrelevant, largely. It's the frightening parallels between the end of the Republic and the ascension of Empire that really scares the shit out of me. Again, that's a longer post, and for another time.
The real blight on 2009 is the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Allow me to state this for the record: I am not anti-Semitic. I am not a racist. This has to be stated, because if you are an American, and criticize Israel, you are inevitably branded as anti-Semitic. Criticizing actions and politics in no way reflects personal views on a particular race, except, apparantly, if you target Israel.
I've never been a fan of Israel. I think it was a huge, guilt-driven mistake, but now that it's there, I suppose that's water under the bridge. The issues of forced relocation, disturbingly reminiscent of American treatment of Native Americans, can wait for another, more detailed post. The Western world's treatment of the Palestinians, from the get-go, which has been blatantly racist, can also wait for another time. Israel's brutal, and barbaricly disproportionate, responses which completely ignore civilian casualties (yes, yes, suicide bombers, and missle attacks target civilians: my point is the lack of any kind of moral compass on Israel's part.)
The last straw was Israel's bombing of the UN school. Oh, sure, it was an accident...several days after the event. That day, however, an Israeli military spokeperson assured us that Hamas was operating from that school, and the targeting was intentional. The school was registered with the UN, including its GPS coordinates. Israel is using weapons guided by GPS.
All of my life, I've only seen news reports from Israel's point of view, and I acknowledge that living in fear, surrounded by often unscrupulous enemies must be terrifying. Those same news reports usually tally the dead, and as I grew older I got decidedly uncomfortable with the large casualties inflicted on the Palestinian civilian population, often an order of magnitude larger than Israeli. Rolling tanks through tent villages (yes, many Palestinians are still living in tents 60 years after the creation of Israel) and indiscriminantly shooting to kill is unbelievable to me, especially considering how radically outmatched the Palestinians are.
Our communications revolution is amazing, and the night of the school bombing, films from the scene made it out into the Western press. Dead children. Dead women. A man sobbing because his entire family was killed. Despite these scenes of horrific suffering (suffering, suffering, so much in the world, and we still insist on meteing more upon each other: once in awhile I wonder if we even deserve to survive,) it somehow is each and every Palestinian's fault. They brought it upon themselves. Even if you are a hapless, unarmed Palestinian civilian, who desperatley wants to simply live your life in peace (and wouldn't mind some infrastructure, say, a grocery store, and running water instead of getting them out of the back of a UN truck) you are responsible for the terrorism against Israel, and your life is forfeit. Unreal. I meant to lay out a bit of history, and the points of incredible double standard that are levied against the Palestinians, but I'm too upset to continue right now. I'll leave it at this for now.