‘Actually, since Randi’s kind of a little guy, I suspect his feet aren’t too big either. But his shoes are vast, and I am not the man to walk in them. Well, not very far, at least.
Since Randi’s out of commission temporarily (he’s withstood Uri Geller and Sylvia Brown; it’ll take more than a heart attack to stop him), he has guest columnists filling in for him on his weekly commentary. This week was my turn, and I submitted a stream-of-consciousness diatribe that is churning away at me: the attack on science that I’ve been beating here on this blog as well. I still have quite a bit to say about this, so stick around over the coming weeks. Maybe you’ll get to see my head explode.’
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:46 am
The Bad Astronomer says: Maybe you’ll get to see my head explode.
It is becoming increasingly difficult maintaining a “thoughtfullness” about these things…personally, I feel like screaming A lot!
The shoes might not be a “perfect fit”, but the “style” is the same…nice job on the commentary!!
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:31 am
Great commentary! It’s hard to talk about science in this country and not look partisan. There appears to be a large assymetry between right and left at the moment with regards to accepting science over dogma. You’re right though, true conservatives ought to be just as outraged as liberals.
Michael Shermer is a libertarian and Martin Gardner is a theist- so it really doesn’t follow that good skeptics need be liberal atheists. Still, I would be a little more encouraged if I could name anyone in the present administration who is willing to fight the religious right on the issues you mention.
March 3rd, 2006 at 11:49 am
A remark from the Peanut Gallery:
Isn’t the right word “anthropogenic global warming” and not “anthropocentric global warming”? (Of course, you’re perfectly right to use “global warming” instead of “climate change”: let’s face our species foolish and self-destructive tendencies head-on.) I believe we should use the fancy-smancy Greek-derived word which means “caused by or due to humans”, instead of the one which means “centered upon humans”. A big part of the danger global warming presents, naturally, is that its effects are not restricted to our own species.
Great commentary, though! Besides giving hope and visions of stardom to all 24-year-old college dropouts, this whole affair is rather depressing.
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Of course, another reason why some of us are a little tetchy with the current administration is that they’ve sent 2000 kids to their death fighting a false war based on false reasoning.
They’re also using torture against captives who are being denied the most basic human rights.
I wonder how many have died of AIDS because of this administrations ‘abstinance first’ policy?
How many lives could have been saved if they had followed scientific advice on New Orleans?
How many are going to have their lives ruined because of their refusal to confront global warming?
Like I said, it’s hard to remain non-partisan in this debate.
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
“If you haven’t been living under some sort of rock (and really, it’s been millions of years since our ancestors did that) then you probably heard of one George Deutsch, Public Affairs Officer for NASA.”
Alas, as I mentioned on another entry, in my (admitedly anecdotal) experience, this simply isn’t so. Even most of the academics I know seem to be completely unaware of the Deutsch affair. It appears that the discovery of the false statement on his resumé and his subsequent resignation was the worst possible thing that could have happened; it shut down the story as “hot news”. It may be well known among astronomers and in the other NASA-related sciences, and it may be well known among the community of organized skeptics (is that an oxymoron?), but out in the world at large, it might as well be a story about a fireman rescuing a kitten stuck up a tree in East Armpit, Idaho, for all the attention it gets.
(By the way — why has the scientific community been so stunningly silent about the revelation in the New York Times that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been subsidizing the “Discovery Institute” to the tune of $1,000,000 a year?)
March 3rd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
RE: Gates Foundation and Discovery Institute
clip from news release:
“Discovery Institute to expand efforts to create regional transportation solutions through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
More than $9 million pledged over 10 years to Cascadia Project”
At first I thought that this must be a different “Discovery Institute” since the grant dealt with public transportation which is decidedly not a religious or biblical issue. But, it is THE Discovery Institute. So… I’m not sure what to think.
March 3rd, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Salon had a write up on Bill’s donation
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/26/gatesfoundation/index.html
It actually seems fairly innocent. Even if it’s not- it’s one thing when a private individual donates money to a dodgy institution and another thing when the US government funds ‘faith-based initiatives’.
In any case, Bill’s donated a lot of money to excellent causes. I use a Mac, but I do admire his philanthropy.
March 3rd, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Christian, it seems that only in the US do liberals get called “left-wing”. Everywhere else, liberals occupy the political centre, with socialists and communists representing the left.
It reminds me of that song by The Who (Won’t Get Fooled Again, I think) that contains the line “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”. In the UK, the conservatives lost in 1997 to “New Labour”. Seems that the labour party has shed its socialist roots to become just like the old boss…
And we joined in that war, too. Why? “We have evidence that Saddam is stockpiling WMDs”. Yeah, his stockpiles were so large that they didn’t find a single weapon.
March 3rd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Nigel, I’m Irish, but living in Texas. I’m not sure I understand what left or right wing means; it certainly means different things in different countries.
March 4th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Thom H said:
At first I thought that this must be a different “Discovery Institute†since the grant dealt with public transportation which is decidedly not a religious or biblical issue. But, it is THE Discovery Institute. So… I’m not sure what to think.
On the Alexa traffic ranking search, someone pretty much sums up the economic worldview of the TDI in this short blurb:
“* Wish I could give it less than zero stars…,
These people pretend[s] to be thoughtful formulators of public policies regarding culture, technology and other issues. In fact, they are part of a reactionary far-right group that advocates creationism and corporate dominance. Read the works of Gilder, Pearcey, Johnson, Behe, etc. and you’ll see what I mean. It’s incredible that creationist apologists for Reaganist voodoo economics have so little shame.”
TDI’s site mentions Gates as a donor:
http://www.discovery.org/cascadia/about.php
I can’t say “arming” these folks with more investments puts a smile on my face. Look what lots of money did for Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
March 4th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Phil wrote:
We are raising a generation of children ignorant of the most basic principles of science, and numbing a vast array of voters to the dangers.
Well, if someone like Phillip Johnson says again that scientists are “hysterical,” I’d point them to that Ham guy with his creationist/no dinosaur pep-rallies. The fact is, a majority of the public already is ignorant of basic science principles.
March 4th, 2006 at 7:10 am
What is your source for your statment that Pythagoras killed people for their knowing that the square root of 2 is irrational? If it is mentioned in the lived of Pythagoras by Diogenes Laertius, Porphyry, or Iamblichus, or in Walter Burkert’s Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, or amongst the fragments of Pythagoras treated by Kirk, Raven and Schofield in The PresSocratic Philosophers, I have missed it.
March 4th, 2006 at 10:43 am
I didn’t say Pythagoras did it, I said it is rumored that Pythagoreans did it. I couldn’t find a solid source, so I used weasel words.
March 4th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Excuse me Phil, but I believe it is Uri and Sylvia who have withstood Randi. Randi is the one with the mean spirited attitude who constantly attacks many others in his vain, transparent, and unmanly attempt, to keep his name in the public eye at the expense of others. ….Bill Perron
March 4th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Bill Perron, nice try, but bzzzzzzzt.
“Unmanly”?
March 5th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Bill:
First off, Uri and Sylvia are fakes,,,
Second, how come a “professional” magician like yourself gives ANY credence to them?
You should be more like Randi!!!
Gary 7
March 5th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
If someone chooses to believe Randi is worthwhile that is their choice, but they should not consider themselves critical thinking individuals because Randi has a history of cowardly acts and deceitful actions. If you are truely a seeker of truth then you will open your mind and investigate his past actions for yourself. As a “professiona” magician and as a human being I never gave credence to Uri or Sylvia, my comment was in response to Phils saying how Randi withstood their attacks, and in actuallity it is the other way round. They don’t attack him but he attacks them. A critical thinking human will see all things with an open mind, and all people the same way. Randi is no hero, a liar is a liar, no matter if their name is Uri, Sylvia, or Randi. And please Gary Ansorge don’t tell me what I should be like, if you choose to live a life of dogmatic ignorance it is your free choice, my choice is to have all men count, but none to much… Bill
March 5th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Oh, feh.
I have seen many tales of Randi being called deceitful and a liar, and they always turn out to be from some antiscientist whoihas an axe to grind because either Randi showed them to be a charlatan, or they are trying to back down on some claim they made, or back out of an agreement with Randi.
Calling him a liar here can be considered slander. Wanna back that claim up?
March 6th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
The truth is never slander, if you read pages 102 t0 108 in Dr. Gary Schwartz book titled “Medium” he gives a very good example of the lies and cowardice of Randi. Also if you read “sTARBABY” by astronomer Dennis Rawlins he tells of the conspiracy by Randi and other CSICOP members to falsify the Gauquelin research on astrology. Please read them and then tell me he is not a liar. … Bill
March 6th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Ah, Schwartz. Yeah, this conversation is done.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:54 am
“Yeah this conversation is done” You accuse me of slander, you request I back that claim up, and I do, then you take the usual professional skeptics tactic of just dismissing the whole thing when I actually comply with your request. It is not my fault that your guru has been less than honorable, it is not my fault that you yourself can’t use the critical thinking that is so highly touted by so-called “critical thinking scientists”. Science is the search for the truth, if you don’t like the evidence you just refuse to accept it, how scientific is that? If you have any character you will apologize for your rash, mean spirited, and false accusation ..Bill Perron
March 7th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
And I suppose Dennis Rawlins is a spurious source. I never used Brown as a source, if you are going to comment on something please know what it is you are commenting on. It is amusing to see how quickly you back pedal on your slander comment, entertaining to see how you can’t take the heat. And your observation about their histories, claims, and evidence is ridiculous since you are totaly ignoring the history of Randi and has dishonorable actions that Rawlins so clearly described in sTARBABY, as well as the most cowardly exploits that Schwartz details in his book. Ask yourself if they aren’t true why doesn’t Randi sue. Shame on you for not being man enough to admit you were wrong and apologize….. Bill Perron
March 7th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
This is the last I will comment on this.
“Back pedal”? Try reading again what I wrote. I even quoted it for you in my comment above. I said what you wrote can be considered slander. I never said it was slander. I said it could be considered as such.
I will ask you again to take your comments elsewhere.
March 7th, 2006 at 10:11 pm
comment deleted
March 7th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Aaaaaarrrwwww, isn’t he cute
March 7th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Since Bill Perron evidently doesn’t want to respect my wishes, I have deleted his last comment and banned him from commenting. Sigh. I hate to do that (and I’m sure he’ll find some bulletin board to complain about my heavy-handed censorship), but I really don’t want long drawn-out arguments here in this comments section when it boils down to someone quoting pseudoscientists as evidence without actually coming up with any actual evidence.
March 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
you are a supporter of james randi, I do not think you are in a position to say anyone is a supporter of pseudoscience when they follow a magician james randi for their science.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Without knowing the actual facts behind Mr Perron’s contentions, I cannot comment on whether they are actually true or not. However, from the way he has been treated here, I must admit that any initially unprejudiced person would have to find in favour of him. After a Google search, I gave a perusal of Dennis Rawlins sTarbaby account and I don’t think he can be dismissed so readily. In fact, it looks very much the opposite, as the article was both comprehensive and erudite.
I should point out a couple of things here before getting on my way:
Very few people really are sceptics and from what I have seen, James Randi isn’t any different. He is a believer too. The object of belief may be different, just like a Christian and an atheist arguing over whether God does or doesn’t exist, but the subject, i.e. BELIEF itself is really what is important and it reveals a lot about the mindset of the believer. From my observations, Mr Randi does not approach any claimant of paranormal abilities openly, but rather, he has a pre-set motive to disprove under all circumstances, so there is a mental bias and blockage there from the very beginning. The conclusion is reached from the outset in his mind, in much the same way that the UFO fanatic believes every flicker of light in the sky is proof of aliens and when you start with a conclusion it is impossible to actually freely enquire, as every tenuous thread will be tainted with your own opinion. If he were truly sceptical then he would be sceptical of his own so called scepticism! Do not misconstrue this as me being a closet ‘believer’, for I assure you I am not and I have enjoyed seeing Mr Randi taking apart the frauds I’ve seen in documentaries as much as the next person. All I AM saying is that he is an extremist and like all extremists, should not be taken too seriously.
Remember that every one of us approaches life from our own limited standpoint. We have our unique experiences, intelligence, educational aptitude (as well as privilege!), and we are restricted by that very same experience. A peasant farmer in the Middle East is not going to have the same life, outlook and understanding of a Norwegian fisherman, who in turn will differ from the businessman in London. Each has his own limiting conditioning and from that conditioning, we deal with the world around us. Basically, we’re animals tethered to a post in the ground and from that tethering, we are able to move within the circumference of the rope. Some have a wide degree of movement, while others can barely move, but we are ALL limited. It doesn’t matter if you are retarded or a genius, we’re limited. Period. Yet, laughably, each one of us thinks we have all the answers all the time! What egotism! (And before any creepy, snidey person comes back at me, I do realise this applies to me to!! Ha ha!!!!)
Whether Randi is right or Perron, it doesn’t really matter, for ultimately, as Shakespeare said so eloquently and insightfully, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”.
Oh yeah, one final addendum, Mr Perron could NOT be accused of slander here, as slander is oral. He could be accused of LIBEL, however. Of course, Mr Randi would then have to prove it. Be sure to give me a ringside seat should that ever happen!