Showing posts with label skepticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label skepticism. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

The Skeptic Mix Tape 2009

Normally, I wouldn't think it was worthwhile to just point toward something that another person had put up on the 'net but this is an exception. The critical thinkers over at skeptic magazine have created a skeptic mix tape. After checking out the tracks, a few of them grabbed my attention.

Dr. H. Paul Shuch, also known as Dr. SETI, contributed a track called Cosmic Carl. Now I am not usually a big fan of acoustic guitar folk music, but a song about Carl Sagan merits an exception. If you don't know why they keep singing, "Billions and Billions," watch Cosmos already. . . uncultured savage.

A group called the Bad Detectives, belittle patent medicines with the tune, Rattlesnake Oil. Nothing like some upbeat rockabilly to remind us all that some claims have not been substantiated by the FDA.

The Canadian bluegrass group, Dirty Dishes, remakes an old school parody tune about patent medicines called Lily The Pink. It's an amusing enough tune, but it does make one wonder how much things have changed in the century plus that the Pure Food and Drug Act has been in effect.

Okay, one more and I'll stop carrying on about the artists on the mix tape. Coco Love Alcorn (you've got to appreciate a name like that) contributed a track called thinking cap. That song was cool but if you wander over to her website, you can check out some youtube videos she has up including a video for a song of hers called Intellectual Boys:


Guys, before you go running off to the great white north to throw yourself at her feet yelling, "Take me, take me now nerd lover, I'm so freakin' yours!" Check out the size of the ring on her left hand in the video. Seems another intellectual boy got to her first. Anyway, in the future I'll try and have more original content for this blog and not just link to the cool work that other people are doing.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Summer reading



Okay, the days are getting longer, discussions of global warming have started heating up again and the under served students in public schools around the country are getting closer to the end of their 180 days of standardized test preparation. Those things can only mean that summer is here yet again. With summer comes the obligatory recommendations for summer reading. It is in that spirit that I offer up a couple of selections, something to relax with while on a summer vacation or while taking shelter from the oppressive heat, someplace air conditioned.

First up is The The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan. For those of you who have been following this blog from it's initial entry, you know I wanted to call it candles in the dark, so clearly I found this book influential. If you happen upon a copy in a library or book store, I recommend turning right to chapter 12, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection. In this chapter Mr. Sagan presents a baloney detection kit filled with tools for skeptical thinking. Among these tools are definitions of "the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric." (Sagan, p. 212). Great stuff to keep i mind the next time you hear a politician talk. Sagan writes intelligently but also accessibly, so you don't need a degree in astrophysics to follow him.

Second, I recommend Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time by Michael Shermer. You might imagine that the publisher of Skeptic magazine would be a little shrill and possibly confrontational but that is not the case. Mr. Shermer comes across as a person who seeks to understand why people believe the things they do and to seek the truth whenever possible. I think one of the more profound things you can take away from his book is that skepticism is a method, not a belief. If you turn to chapter 3 of the book, How Thinking Goes Wrong: Twenty-five Fallacies That Lead Us to Believe Weird Things, you might be reminded of chapter 12 from Carl Sagan's book. They both cover similar material but do it in sufficiently different ways that I think both are worth a read.

I think that a couple of books about science, skepticism, and critical thinking are in order this summer. After all, this is the first summer since the eight year mini-dark ages that the United States had to endure. You remember, when science was scorned and sidelined, intellectuals were laughed at and dismissed, and religious fundamentalist ran wild in the streets, burning copies of The Origin Of Species and frightening the children. In short, it's time to take to heart the words of J-Bone in Johnny Mnemonic when he said, "Snatch back your brain, zombie, snatch it back and hold it!"

Monday, March 30, 2009

New media and the message

In the first Q&A on this blog, Brian Dunning gave a pessimistic assessment of new media that took me somewhat aback. Just to keep me on my toes, Dr. Harriet Hall and Dr. Stephen Barrett both gave a positive view of new media and it's impact. Derek Colonduno chimed in with a positive future looking opinion on new media. Most recently, Dr. Kirsten Sanford stated her opinion that new media is fragmented, or at least, it's presentation of information is.


I think the concept of fragmented new media can be helpful in reconciling these carrying assessments of the value of new media. Medical information is something that people will go out of their way to research and find out about. Keeping that in mind, it makes sense that Dr. Barrett and Dr. Hall would state positive views of new media. Get the good information about medicine out there, and people will make an effort to find it. Now it only it was as easy to steer them away from frauds and charlatans. Brian Dunning is looking to bring enlightenment to the masses, to lift up the veil and show reality as it is. People don't often use search engines to challenge their preconceived notions as much as they use them to look for medical information, so it is not that big of a surprise that Mr. Dunning has a different assessment of new media than the founder of quackwatch and the skepdoc. Perhaps Derek Colonduno is right and all this effort going out into new media is having a disproportionate effect on younger generations and will have a positive effect on the degree of skepticism and scientific literacy of people in the future. . . Well, I guess we can only wait for the future to arrive and find out.


In the meantime, I think there are some statements that can be made about what can and cannot be reasonably be done with new media. New media does seem to be effective in getting information out that people will look for, such as medical information. It is also good for preaching to the choir, hi choir. New media is not an on ramp to the mainstream media, your blog or podcast is not likely to get picked up and developed into a TV series by a major, or minor for that matter, network. New media is not the ideal tool to reach out to people who are on a different political or ideological wavelength. Still, I don't want to leave you all on a down note, so I leave you with the words of the Killer Dwarfs who said, "Stand tall, stick to your guns, show them what you're made of!"