A few days ago I was interviewed by Jesse Singal of The Blog Reader. The interview is now online.
A little while ago, even maybe as recently as a year ago, I would have held back a little in my diatribes such as in that interview. I would have been less willing to state things baldly, more willing to cushion it or make it more palatable. But since then, I’ve seen just too much crap going on. George Deutsch. Creationism. A Congress all-too-willing to eviscerate reality. Doom-mongerers. Ann Coulter.
A little while ago, I was worried I might lose some of my audience if I said things that might alienate them. I was right; I would. The difference now is, I don’t care as much. Of course I do actually care, but I’ve learned that someone with strong opinions– especially those that are based in rock-solid fact– are always going to tick off people who prefer fantasy to be their reality.
But there are lots of people who really want more information, who want to understand. The vast middle– those are the ones to whom I want to talk. They may hear Bart Sibrel, or Richard Hoagland, or Eric Julien, and be swayed. Scientists have spent way too long just hoping the antiscience infection would go away, but it festers, and many times it erupts.
We can’t cure it, we can’t totally eliminate it, any more than your body’s immune system can kill every last noisome bacterium. But they can be kept under check; the immune system can keep it from spreading out of control.
Skepticism is our minds’ immune system. I aim to keep it healthy.
June 21st, 2006 at 11:43 pm
I challenge anti science/anti rationale stupidity whenever I come across it among my friends, family and work colleagues, and as a none scientist I’m only able to do this because of people like you, Randi and Ben Goldacre (Bad Science column in the Guardian newspaper in the UK) giving me the facts and the inspiration to stand up and be counted rather than letting the darkness encroach.
I strongly support your new harder edged approach.
June 21st, 2006 at 11:57 pm
Haven’t left any comments here for a while, though I still read every BABlog entry.
Let’s admit for a moment that humans will always prefer a certain amount of fantasy over reality. If they didn’t- then what would be the point in having fantasies? I know all the yadda yadda arguments about physics being totally cool, but I’ve still got room for a few fantasies involving Chelsea Clinton that break both the laws of physics and biology and most of the rules of modern ethics. (Uh, that would be cheating in a 4 dimensional scrabble game with Chelsea, by using my 3rd eye, if my mum ever reads this post.)
And when the reality is global warming and massive ecological damage- the idea of slipping into fantasy mode is even more tempting.
Perhaps what separates ‘us’ from ‘them’ is that skeptics try to understand the difference between fantasy and reality when it comes to making decisions with consequences. I say that as long as we can do this, that we should all treasure our fantasies and treat them as a fun bonus of being human.
That’s what made reading the BA movie reviews so good. I could enjoy the fantasy of the movie whilst learning which bits are physically impossible at the same time.
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:02 am
Good on you, BA! We should have a sound-bite competition on this blog, to help you gather ammunition for your public debates.
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:59 am
Just remember, it ain’t only science. There are also, for example, the anti-history nutcases. The “no moon landing” crowd really fits there more than in anti-science, for there they can rub shoulders with the various anti-Shakespeare cults, Holocaust deniers, and Dan Brown. (Indeed, my personal experience is that there is considerable overlap in membership among these groups, along with Einstein-deniers, Bernoulli-deniers, and the ever-popular Darwin-deniers.)
June 22nd, 2006 at 5:10 am
I liked the distinction you drew between being a skeptic and a “debunker.” And because you use humor, and are a generally nice guy, even when you’re being outspoken, I think your message is that much more effective. People are more likely to listen to what you have to say.
Of course, some people are simply beyond hope. Those people WANT to believe, and pesky little things like facts aren’t going to sway them.:)
Great interview!
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:44 am
We’re counting on you, Phil!
June 22nd, 2006 at 7:09 am
I remember back in 1976, when I was all of 17 years old, I went with my cousins to see “The Omen” in the movie theater. Not only did I think it was a cool movie, but all that apocalyptic Antichrist mumbo-jumbo really intrigued me for a while. Same thing happened when I was big Tolkien fan; I wanted to think that it was more than just fiction, that hidden away somewhere might actually be a real copy of the Red Book of Westmarch.
I guess it’s just natural for people to WANT to believe that there might be something more FANTASTIC than just the ordinary ol’ universe we inhabit. Take the “Left Behind” series of books and movies for example: It would appear that there are many, MANY people who actually believe that sometime in the near future a “Rapture” is going to occur, and that millions of people all over the Earth are going to simultaneously vanish INTO THIN AIR. What kind of reality, I wonder, are these people living in? Is this “Rapture” something they actually believe in, or is it something they fervently WANT to believe in?
In a way, I almost wish that such an event would occur! What an interesting day that would be! What would be even more interesting is if the Apocalypse were to occur in a more spectacular fashion, not in the anthropomorphical sense the authors of the “Left Behind” series have portrayed, but as more of a Stephen Spielberg production, with boiling clouds, trumpets, angels descending out of the sky, Moon turned to blood, the whole nine yards. Imagine coming to the realization that it was all coming true, just as the evangelists had been warning for years, and that there was something more awesome than just the cold, hard, physical reality we inhabit. Wouldn’t THAT be something???
Yet in the final analysis, it’s that cold, hard, physical reality that I will content myself with. My life is not so meaningless that I need the fear of a “Rapture” and the “End Times” to make sense of it all … nor do I need Heaven or Hell to bribe me into behaving decently, thank you very much.
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:41 am
For Chuck: Some of us can be religious AND hard-core science types. It’s a melding of the two via intellect. I can worship how I want, believe in the rapture (maybe not like the “Left Behind” people do), and still defend the Big Bang, Evolution, and all science. To me they go hand in hand.
But this is not a place to debate this amongst ourselves.
Phil: Holding back nowadays doesn’t do any good. The scientific community as a whole needs to take a stand about critical thinking and getting the word out not only about science and it’s truths, but to prove that these nuts like Hoagland, Julien, et al shouldn’t be believed. I personally think that anyone who does believe that nonsense suffers from “lazy minds” and doesn’t want to use their intellect at all. I have always campaigned against the stupids of the world.
Being able to be a critical thinker (and skeptic, etc) gives a person a mental high. Waaaay better than drugs.
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:43 am
I support your growing loudness.
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:51 am
Phil:
This just goes to show the need for articulate voices of science and reason. Think of Carl Sagan. There’s a lot of hate-speech out there now directed at science. You can be one of the good guys!
June 22nd, 2006 at 9:00 am
I support your speaking out more and not holding back as much. We need more voices standing up for science and healthy skepticism.
June 22nd, 2006 at 9:16 am
I concur. I didn’t realize until I started asking co-workers about topics discussed here and abouts, just how prevalent some myths are. I’m still reeling from the “pregnancy-safetypin-solar eclipse-cleft lip” myth that people still believe in. As Christian Burnham points out, it’s the stepping out of fantasy to reality where some fall; when it affects decisions or behaviours, then that’s a potent problem. I guess it’s important to distinguish how and why certain beliefs or the doomsday du jour is harmful for society. Some people have said to me that their beliefs don’t hurt anyone, so what’s the big deal? So what if I read my horoscope everyday? Don’t rain on my City Ghost Tour parade! Reality to some, appears to be a wet rag at times. ~shakes head~
June 22nd, 2006 at 9:48 am
Thanks for the support (almost) everyone!
Try reading Rebecca’s Skepchick blog. She talks about her credulous office workers quite a bit.
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:16 pm
John W. Kennedy, Dan Brown is a spy thriller writer not anti-history
i applaud him for writing something that may put doubt into christianity as we need more people to be more skeptical over this man-made up religion..
June 22nd, 2006 at 12:39 pm
I also agree the word “theory” is pretty loaded. When I teach astronomy, I talk about modles. The Big Bang Model, the Inflationary Model, etc. Ditches the word theory and still is accurate. These are models.
And if someone says, “It’s only a model” they sound like a knight from a certain Monty Python movie and HOW can you take that person seriously
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I have a note in my journal from a certain session at the AAAS meeting:
“Let them complain about activist scientists…”
I concur!
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Hale_bopp:
Personally, I feel that the word theory should be kept, because this confusion actually give us the opportunity to explain the difference.
The fact that we suddenly have to do so over and over merely points to there having being a huge gap in the general publics understanding of science.Otherwise the sematic tricks from the likes of Coulter would not work.
Picking a new word will not fix the underlying problem in public education.
And a suggestion: when explaining theory, I find it works to simply say that a theory is built from what is observed in nature. That it starts with the data, the proof if you will. (“The apple fell there”, “This cat has a tail”, and work your way to ‘real’ theory from there.)
Because that is what primarily separates a theory from an opinion or idea. It’s a subtle difference to the layman, and people just don’t see it unless you point it out explicitly. I bet Coulter doesn’t know why her ramblings doesn’t qualify as theory.
June 22nd, 2006 at 1:48 pm
I, too, agree: expose the frauds whenever possible, and be harsh about it when those folks repeatedly offend. Max Fagin’s comments in the June 20 blog re Al Gore’s film gave me a new perspective on global warming. I have been guilty of reading information with which I agree and have pretty much ignored an opposing view – principally because my bias led me to treat all those who provided an opposing view as mere whackos – and those views were mostly offered by the current administration. I think a measured, reasoned response to the idiots who repeat their misinformation ad infinitum must be offered at every possible opportunity, whether the misinformation comes from the right or the left side of the political spectrum. And it must take a certain amount of courage to offer an opposing view, especially when it seems that so many hold the other viewpoint. I will no longer let the right usurp the language, turning liberal and patriot into slurs when it suits them. Christians who have allowed the right to define what that word means must also speak out. Anyone who has been marginalized by the bullies on either side can no longer be silent, not voting, not responding, opting out. Else these yahoos, know-nothings, demagogues and the like will overrun us for sure. And I am going to start by trying to be more tolerant of folks who present an opposing view that is well reasoned and not a shrill and ad hominem attack…
June 22nd, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Dan Brown, I’m afraid, is a lying moron, every bit as bad as any creationist. His book about cryptography displays shocking ignorance about cryptography, his book about computers displays shocking ignorance about computers, and his book about ancient and medieval history displays — you guessed it — shocking ignorance about ancient and medieval history. For starters, you might want to look at Norris Lacy’s “The Da Vinci Code: Dan Brown and The Grail That Never Was” in Arthuriana 14.3 (Fall, 2003).
By the way, “I hate Roman Catholicism, so I think it’s a good thing that Dan Brown is telling all these lies about it” does not constitute an acceptable defense.
From Dan Brown to George Deutsch, this society is having serious problems dealing with the concept of intellectual integrity.
June 22nd, 2006 at 6:55 pm
By definition, a writer of fiction tells lies – hopefully entertaining lies. Some fiction writers carefully research the backgrounds for their stories – some don’t.
Show me the careful research that went into Star Wars or Star Trek before their creation (a lot of afterthought went into them …). If writers actually took care to model reality in their fictions, Phil’s Bad Astronomy Movies needn’t exist.
Taking umbrage that an author has maligned something in a fictional story simply wastes energy. Doubly so with the Ann Coulter’s of the world running rampant rough-shod over the truth. I consider well spent every bit of energy used debunking lies presented as non-fiction.
Debunker: (n) a remover of bunk.
I like that.
jbs
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:00 pm
I haven’t read, the Da Vinci Code myself, so I’ll keep my comments rather generic. Most of the debate about the book is of the form of “it’s not true” vs. “it’s fiction, it isn’t supposed to be true” or some variation. It is my understanding, though, that it is supposed to be historical fiction, in which the particular characters and situations are fictional but the underlying history is correct. The reason people complain that this fictional book “isn’t true” is because one expects, and indeed the author implies by including a “facts” section, that the underlying history is accurate. As others have pointed out, the underlying history is provably false, so its marketing as historical fiction is somewhat deceptive. The most positive thing that I can say about the book (and movie) is that it’s got a lot of people thinking and talking about this sort of thing, which is the perfect time for those who actually know something about this subject to step up and set the record straight.
June 22nd, 2006 at 10:33 pm
This entry reminds of a quote from one of my heros Thomas Paine. He said:
“IT is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error. ”
Doesnt seem there are that man up to the challenge.
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:14 am
Actually, it’s funny. I did read The Da Vinci Code, and came away with a book that celebrated both Catholism and logical thinking.
Dan Brown has written Robert Langdon as either a Catholic, or Catholic sympathizer. In Angels and Demons, he literally saves the Vatican. In The Da Vinci Code, he says he was raised as a Catholic. Whether or not he currently worships is not brought up in either book.
Langdon also tells Sophie at one point that what was done at the Council of Nicaea should not affect the current incarnation of the church, and he (Langdon) has no doubt many of those within the Church are there because they want to help.
Also, notice the one who wants the secret out to destroy the church is actually the villain. As well as those who have acted against the church are also brought to justice (Silas, Cardinal Aringarosa).
However, Langdon also states that the questions brought up by the historical life of Jesus compared to the Liturgical life of Jesus are just questions to be answered, not answered for. He states this very eloquently when he says that anyone who truly understands their religion understands is made of up fables and symbols.
As to the BA…whenever I ask people what their reaction would be to these events happening under a democratic administration, they tend to answer ‘It would never happen.’ Which is probably the most ignorant thing one can say. Stupidity knows no borders, and I will expect that if you blast one side for being a bunch of dunderheads (which they have been…no argument there), that you would do the same for the other.
Anything less would truly be bad.
June 23rd, 2006 at 3:18 am
Wayne, that is indeed happening: Lots of historians now give “Da Vinci Code” talks that are very well attended, and in which they present their own (proper) research. I’ve been to a few of these, and I would not have if it wasn’t for the book setting this in motion. Also, there have been countless television programmes trying to cash in on the success of the book, with varying scientific standards.
So I don’t think Dan Brown is the antichrist.
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:02 am
You should consider running for The Office
Good Luck !
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:33 am
I suggest some of you drop by: JunkScience.com (http://www.junkscience.com/) before surfing this web page — for a little perspective on what is and ain’t real science. Less conjecture and pseudo-astronomy may help educate you. Here is an article that may gore Gore’s hoax on the American public: J
unkScience.com — The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
June 23rd, 2006 at 5:48 am
Jeff Beish a.k.a. ‘DustyMars’ – please go make some friends. Thanks.
June 23rd, 2006 at 6:28 am
Rob, wow, that was a fast read, huh? I suspect my numerous friends would ask you to kiss up a rope — huh?
BTW, my best friend, DCP, recommends Ann’s book . Ho hum.
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:42 am
Here, here! I’m with you!
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:04 am
June 23rd, 2006 at 11:37 am
Thank goodness for people like Phil, who continue to fight the good fight against people like… well, like DustyMars. Unfortunately, the Skeptic’s Dictionary seems to be offline, but Jeff, I suggest you read over the
google cache of their entry on junkscience.com. Or not. You’re probably unlikely to be swayed by such silly things as “facts” and “reality.”
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:01 pm
So far my belief that we are living inside a Philip K. Dick novel has not been countered.
Jess Tauber
June 23rd, 2006 at 2:12 pm
DustyMars, first off, Milloy’s junk science website is exactly that: junk. I already posted a comment about his garbage elsewhere. Also, to you specificaly and to a few others: be polite here. I won’t tolerate rudeness to other commenters. I will start banning IP addresses if needed.
June 23rd, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Jess: Doesn’t that mean Philip K. Dick also lives inside a Philip K. Dick novel?
…trippy.
June 23rd, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Not to debate Dan Brown’s “facts” – but only one of his facts proves not factual: the existence of the Priori of Sion – a proven hoax. Brown seems to claim to believe it isn’t a hoax. That just makes him credulous.
That’s miles from Ann Coulter.
jbs
“All history is revisionist” – Jonathan Zimmerman
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:55 pm
John Dean’s posting pretty much says it for me.
Keep up the good work BA!
BTW, nice job on the SCIFI “Doomsday” show.
June 24th, 2006 at 6:01 am
Dusty Mind: Read some of your junk sci site and yes, it is junk science. Biggest lie told, “if earth had no atmosphere it surface temp would be approximately 1 degree centigrade.”
wrong: it would be almost exactly the temp of the moon, baring some internal heating effects,,,
GAry 7
June 24th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
I’ve read Dan Brown’s Angels & Demons, The Da Vinci Code and Deception Point. He likes to blend fiction into historical characters and present day institutions to create an aurora of conspiracy. I’m cool with that.
In Deception Point, some may interpret that Dan Brown bashes NASA in a similar manner that he bashes the Catholic Church in The Da Vinci Code. In Deception Point, NASA consistently undercuts private aerospace companies in bids for government contracts while requiring taxpayers to cover its losses. Owners of these companies appeal to a U.S. Senator to ditch NASA. It was apparent to me that this was a device employed by the author to help formulate his plot. I am quite sure that, in reality, private aerospace companies benefit from NASA’s outsourcing.
June 24th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
(Funny, I was just posting on Dan Brown on another site.)
My opinion is the following: If some devote geek took it upon himself (or herself) to “debunk” all the fiction involving computers he’d have work for a lifetime.
The big whoopdidoo on the daVinci Code comes from that causes some people to question their faith, which of course pisses other people off, and they then set out to debunk a work of fiction.
However, the impact of the daVinci code does not come from any supposed truth, but rather that it gives people some insight into just how little we really can trust historical acounts and the like. Or rather, just how much room for doubts and speculation there is with regards to the origins of christianity.
Just knowing that the Bible is actually an edited work, or that the books in it were selected from heaps of texts, and the refused ones were labled gnostic and held in disregard will be enough for many.
Regardless of what you believe about how and why this selection took place, just the fact that it happend will cause a lot of people to doubt. Many never even think about this. They think the bible just magically appeared.
So right or wrong, if that part of their brains starts ticking, it’s a good thing in my book.
June 25th, 2006 at 4:49 am
Zart,
That’s just it. It’s why I’m happy I was raised Catholic because we’re taught all of this in CCD classes at an early age. We’re told the Bible is not the literal Word of God, but it’s inspired by the Holy Spirit. That all mortal works are inherently flawed because Man is flawed, and that includes the Church. And we’re taught the only historical fact is that 2000 years ago, someone inspired a jewish dissidence movement which created Chritianity but was crucified by it for the Romans. We’re also told that blind faith is very dangerous and we should regularly ask questions of our faith.
This is what is taught in Catholic Catechism (I’m a part time volunteer teacher). So I’ve never gotten the outcry over the Da Vinci Code considering what the Church says we must teach our youngsters.
June 25th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
I had never been to Milloy’s Junk Science site before. However, withing a minute, I noticed that he does work for the Cato Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute. Its pretty clear where he is coming from as he doesn’t subject his work to peer review. An overwhelming number of his “publications” appear on foxnews.com and the Washington Times.
Rob