Archive

Archive for the ‘Skepticism’ Category

Conspiracy theories are fun!

November 5, 2006 1 comment

Last night Bad Taste, a local Bozeman music and movie shop, put on a showing of Alex Jones’s Terrorstorm at the Procrastinator theater on campus. I’ve mentioned Jones before; he’s a conspiracy theorist about all manner of things, 9/11 most famously. The whole documentary is online here.

It was somewhat interesting. Jones decided to give a history of what he calls “false flag” operations by the U.S., in which we lied about or fabricated events in order to justify some policy. He goes through non-controversial Cold War-era ones like the 1953 coup in Iran and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but also includes the attack on the USS Liberty. Jones considers more recent incidents like the London bombings of last year and 9/11 to also be “false flag” operations.

Honestly, I’d never heard of anyone claiming the London bombings were a government plot. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Jones is, as usual, rather unconvincing. To start off, he dwells on the fact that the London police initially claimed it was a power failure that was causing the disturbance. How this fits into a government conspiracy is ignored; if the plan was to use the attacks for political gain, covering them up does no good. Just before that, Jones discussing the Madrid bombings claims there was no connection to al Qaeda. Again we have to ask, what was the point? The Spanish government tried to say it wasn’t al Qaeda at first and were kicked out for it. They were replaced with a government that pulled out of Iraq. How this is part of a globalist conspiracy is beyond me. Next up, Jones tries to insinuate that the diverted bus that blew up is somehow connected? Why? We don’t know. The newspaper highlighted in the documentary says it was diverted to avoid the disruption. Jones thinks it’s weird that that was the only bus disrupted. Perhaps it was the only bus that needed to be diverted during the time frame in question? And considering it was going to the area being targeted, I don’t think it’s that odd that of all the buses, it was targeted. Especially if it was the only one going to that area at that time.

Jones goes on to make more mistakes. He notes that police said the bombers didn’t find the M.O. of suicide bombers – buying two way tickets, playing games, having families, having jobs, etc. Except, that is the M.O. of suicide bombers. They’re not misanthropic deviants. I would guess that two-way tickets are less suspicious than one-way tickets and can be explained as the bombers being careful.

It goes on and on. There’s a lot innuendo and claims of odd occurrences, but none of them make sense in light of the idea that it was a conspiracy by the government. The subject of 9/11 is largely avoided, but no true conspiracy theorist can leave it alone. They have Steven Jones on claiming the towers were demolished with some kind of thermite, proved by chemical analysis. More egregiously, Jones has the clip of Larry Silverstein talking about “pulling” before WTC-7 collapsed. We’re supposed to believe that means demolish, not pull the contingent of firefighters from the area. We’re also supposed to believe that he admitted WTC-7 was demolished on national television, when this is supposed to be a cover up. Asinine.

Jones goes through other, less controversial, criticism of Bush, such as his expansion of executive power. Of course, Jones plays this as alarmist as possible, but he’s at least close.

Probably the best and worst aspect of this documentary is Jones’s use of valid criticisms of our government, interspersed with fantastically paranoid and illogical criticisms. It’s good to see some truth in there, but I suspect anyone who sees it will end up dismissing all of it because of the lunacy of many of Jones’s positions. Or they’ll accept it all and become paranoid wingnuts like Jones. No good will come of it.

Categories: Skepticism

Nuclear waste? Problem solved!

August 21, 2006 Leave a comment

This is rather amusing.

MADONNA and her husband Guy Ritchie have been lobbying the government and nuclear industry over a scheme to clean up radioactive waste with a supposedly magic Kabbalah fluid.

The couple, both followers of the Jewish spiritual movement, approached Downing Street, Whitehall and British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) promoting a “mystical” liquid tested in a Ukrainian lake.

The Kabbalah Centre, which is based in California, believes water is a uniquely important substance that can be given magic healing powers through “meditations and the consciousness of sharing”.

And you thought Kabbalah was all about bits of red string, didn’t you? They have magic water, too! I wonder what happens when you combine the water with the red string? Madonna becomes talented?

See, this is why Christians shouldn’t get upset when Madonna pretends to be crucified during one of her live shows. Is it really an affront to your beliefs to have the mentally handicapped mock them?

(via Skeptico)

Categories: Silliness, Skepticism

PM's 9/11 article in book form

August 15, 2006 Leave a comment

Popular Mechanics has a book version of their article debunking conspiracy theorist claims about 9/11 coming out. Considering the problem with the original article was the abbreviated arguments and a focus that didn’t really reflect which claims are popular in the “9/11 truth movement,” an broader and more in-depth treatment should be excellent.

The original PM story is here. Book introduction is here.

Categories: Skepticism

Montana pseudoscience

July 30, 2006 16 comments

I mentioned the Montana Vortex a while back. It seems that since then they’ve built themselves a web site with all sorts of wacky information.

Did you know they have a circle you can walk around? I bet not:

The healing Labyrinth is a new addition to the vortex grounds and we invite you to take a walk in this unique area.

Walking a labyrinth is an interesting approach to meditation and is claimed by many to have very special healing and spiritual powers. Our Labyrinth has been built right in the center of the largest vortex on the property and is ready for your personal journey.

Oh, sorry, it’s a “labyrinth.” Wait. No, it’s a circle.

The true mystery at the Montana Vortex is the question of how human beings can appear to shrink and grow in the eyes of others and themselves by simply walking a few short feet along a level surface?

“The Platform” is a level cement area that sits on one of the lines of energy of the vortex. When you stand on one end of “The Platform” in the energy field you will shrink any where from four to six inches. Standing on the other end of “The Platform” will bring you back to your normal size. Visitors are continually amazed at being able to see this natural occurring phenomenon and leave with pictures and video to prove it.

Ooooh, spooky, eh? They have pictures of this, though not on their magic concrete. It’s ably explained here.

Here’s a solid chunk of pure woo:

Does anyone know what a vortex is? Basically, it’s a swirl of energy that can be clockwise or counterclockwise. In Yoga one learns of 7 main chakras which are spinning wheels of energy that are also known as gateways between the outer world and inner world within the body. I equate the body to the living earth as the same except for the information exchange is different. These vortexes can be opened or closed depending on ones intent. They can also amplify whatever energy is present …negative or positive. Of course, everything is entirely subjective and your intent does make a difference.

I use this Montana vortex as a platform to introduce people to the world of quantum, the field of all potentiality, as Deepak Chopra would say. Although this is ancient knowledge it has only recently become popular.

Which apparently means it’s a “genuine…anomaly,” except to the people who don’t believe in it. I think someone’s confused about the meaning of “genuine.”

Then there are the orbs. Oh lord, the orbs. Also known as “dust,” these have been fascinating the credulous for years. Here’s one getting ready to attack a child. Another one is spying through a window. This one is headng for the trees. Not content with “orbs,” they see a new phenomenon. Ecto mist!

I think this is what you get when you take pictures with cameras that have “moderate noise, artifacts, and a compressed dynamic range that tended to blow out highlights” and “a tendency to blow out whites and highlights.”

They do have a section labeled “Scientific” on their site. It’s empty.

Categories: Silliness, Skepticism

A couple of related thoughts

June 24, 2006 2 comments

I’m tired of this right brain-left brain talk. You know, the left side of your brain is the logical, calculating part and the right is the creative, emotional part. I realize most people use it as more of a harmless analogy, but it’s not an accurate one:

Many a myth has grown up around the brain’s asymmetry. The left cerebral hemisphere is supposed to be the coldly logical, verbal and dominant half of the brain, while the right developed a reputation as the imaginative side, emotional, spatially aware but suppressed. Two personalities in one head, Yin and Yang, hero and villain.

To most neuroscientists, of course, these notions are seen as simplistic at best and nonsense at worst. So there was general satisfaction when, a couple of years ago, a simple brain scanner test appeared to reveal the true story about one of neurology’s greatest puzzles: exactly what is the difference between the two sides of the human brain? Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you like your theories, the big picture revealed by that work is proving far less romantic than the logical-creative split, intriguingly complex and tough to prove.

That’s a New Scientist article, by the way, not something written by some crackpot, like a lot of Rense.com.

Moving on, I’ve recently encountered something known as Psycho-Geometrics. Apparently, you can discern someone’s personality by what shape appeals to them. The shapes are circle, square, rectangle, triangle, and squiggle (not really a shape, I guess). This is the order I put them in:

1. Circle
2. Square
3. Rectangle
4. Triangle
5. Squiggle

So, as a circle, what should I be?

• friendly
• nurturing
• persuasive
• empathic
• generous
• stabilizing
• reflective
• overpersonal
• melancholy
• manipulative
• gossipy
• self-blaming
• apolitical
• indecisive
• lazy

Some fit, others don’t (apolitical?). As one person said, it’s like a horoscope. You fit in some in each category. Perhaps you tend to one personality type represented by a shape. It all seems rather simple of course. The Enneagram is a much better one, but I really don’t care about these things at all. I am sort of interested in the idea that liking a shape is a reflection of one of these simplified personality types. I can find nothing the in databases I have access to through MSU (they haven’t cut me off yet). This is as close as I can get:

Another more recent study I pursued for this report is PsychoGeometrics, the Science of Understanding People, and the Art of Communicating With Them. The derivation of Psycho Geometrics came from Dr. Carl Jung. The study deals with the human personality (the thinkers, feelers, sensors, intuitors of previous studies), and the brain function which affects the way that personality type might communicate. This is a very interesting approach to apply to the art of effective communicating. Susan Dellinger, Ph.D. introduced the Psycho Geometrics system and she is a very dynamic trainer on the system. Her study focuses on evaluating personality types by putting them into shapes. This study incorporates a lot of the information many people already know about which side of the brain is dominant in different people and how that brain dominance affects their personalities.

Dr. Jung stressed that left hemisphere people are linear thinkers who like order. Right hemisphere people are non-linear, abstract thinkers who can live in a messy world. Susan Dellinger’s approach puts the differences in people into five immediately recognizable shapes for easy discussion and identification. Left hemisphere people are the squares, triangles, and rectangles. (Note all the straight lines in those shapes.) Right hemisphere people are the circles and squiggles.

I’m tempted to dismiss the whole thing, as it seems to be based on the idea of right and left brainedness that has been mostly discredited. Still, it looks I can’t quite do that.

Aside from one paper calling it dubious and two complimentary articles from Door and Hardware and some magazine about veterinary medicine from the Netherlands, I can find essentially no scientific information on this.

Overall, though, it seems pretty simplistic. Why would shape preference indicate personality? Four of the five shaps seem orderly and logical (if you can call a shape that) to me. It seemed obvious right away that the squiggle was supposed to symbolize the disorganized, creative personalities. In any case, I wish there were some studies I could look at. Given that this fits right in with the cesspool of psuedoscience that is the self help industry, I doubt there are any.

Categories: Skepticism

A few links

June 12, 2006 Leave a comment

I have nothing to say today, as it seems everyone is still talking about how Tester won and I haven’t a clue. Wulfgar says it was the power of his handshake. I can’t say it had that effect on me. Anyway…

Touched by an Atheist. Hilarious.

Is it bad that I found this funny:

The best player of this game that I ever knew was Professor G.H. Hardy, a world-famous mathematician who happened to be a passionate atheist….During my tenure, Professor Simpson, one of the old and famous fellows, died. Simpson had a strong sentimental attachment to the college and was a religious believer. He left instructions that he should be cremated and his ashes should be scattered on the bowling green in the fellows’ garden where he loved to walk and meditate. A few days after he died, a solemn funeral service was held for him in the college chapel….In the evening of the same day I took my place at the high table. One of the neighboring places at the table was empty. Professor Hardy, contrary to his usual habit, was late for dinner. After we had all sat down and the Latin grace had been said, Hardy strolled into the dining hall, ostentatiously scraping his shoes on the wooden floor and complaining in a loud voice for everyone to hear, “What is this awful stuff they have put on the grass in the fellows’ garden? I can’t get it off my shoes.” Hardy, of course, knew very well what the stuff was.

Science moves forward and believers in the paranormal are still waiting for anything interesting to be done in that field.

Ann Coulter thinks she’s the new Mencken and the new Twain. Well, we can add delusional to the list. You simply can’t be the new Mencken and stupid enough to be a creationist at the same time.

Is this enough?

June 3, 2006 Leave a comment

Is Kennedy’s latest “investigative” piece in Rolling Stone enough to make people ignore him? Probably not. Still, with a factually challenged piece on autism and Thimerosal and an unconvincing piece on 2004 election fraud, it should be. The man is a dishonest hack. Maybe he hasn’t always been (I’m not old enough to have a good handle on his history), but it’s pretty clear that Rolling Stone should be embarrassed by his lame attempts at investigative journalism.

On the other hand, his latest piece did provoke a hilariously stupid comment from one of Montana’s right-wing bloggers. Maybe it isn’t all bad.

Nothing to say

May 25, 2006 Leave a comment

Nothing to say, except this. I’ve mentioned Loose Change on here before. Found via the latest Skeptics’ Circle, Daylight Atheism has an excellent three part debunking of the movie. Highly recommended if you’re interested in this kind of thing.

Categories: Skepticism

Oops

April 3, 2006 Leave a comment

So, is Skeptical Inquirer going to look sort of silly for praising C.S.I. for its promotion of rationality and reason after the next episode, which features some sort of psychic, airs?

Maybe they’ll do what Law and Order did: no ambiguity, the psychic had no real powers and the amazing things he “saw” he knew because he was the killer.

Categories: Culture, Skepticism

Road crossing chickens

February 3, 2006 1 comment

This looks like it took a lot of effort. Very very funny. I like:

Gary Schwartz PhD

I have proven that chickens cross roads in the afterlife. I don’t need to publish my data: I have a PhD from Harvard.

David Icke

It wasn’t a chicken; it was a shape shifting lizard.

Of course, you’ll have to read the beginning of Skeptico’s post to understand them. Why are you wasting time here?

Categories: Skepticism
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.