The Guardian reported the interesting story of self-proclaimed psychic, Patricia Putt, and her attempt to take home 1 million dollars from the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). While many “psychics” have tried to take home the top prize, which would be a scientific stamp of approval to their claims of esp or other super powers, not a single one has ever passed the preliminary round of testing.

The same can be said of Ms. Putt:

Did we make history last week? Is Mrs Putt now preparing to face that final challenge? The chosen readings were compared with the actual readings by Richard Wiseman and Mrs Putt together, with several observers present and the whole procedure recorded. The first volunteer did not choose the reading that had been produced for her. Neither did the second. Or the third. By chance alone, the most likely outcome was for one hit out of ten. Unfortunately for Mrs Putt, every single volunteer chose a reading that had not been written for them. It looks like JREF’s million dollars are safe for the time being.

To her credit, Ms. Putt declined to make any excuses for her failure, at least not until a day later. Many of her predecessors have done the same before her, complaining that the JREF tests are unfair, rigged, or influenced by James Randi’s own powers. As with all JREF challenges, Ms. Putt agreed beforehand to the testing procedures as outlined by JREF staff, and she certified that they were a fair way to demonstrate her psychic powers to the world.

Later, in an email to JREF, Ms. Putt explained her failure:

“With them [the volunteers] being bound from head to foot like black mummies, they themselves felt tied so were not really free to link with Spirit making my work a great deal more difficult.”

Of course, Ms. Putt never spoke with any of the volunteers in her test, and the guardian reporter was correct to point out that she must have picked up on their sense of “being tied” using her extrasensory gifts.

Or not.

Over the next few weeks, I’m going to examine critical thinking and I’d like to get your input as well. For starters, I’ll just take on the term “Critical Thinking” itself. In later posts, I’ll cover how critical thinking is related to science and effective argumentation.

The term “Critical Thinking” starts with the word “Critical”, which has more than one definition. The most common definition of critical is negative. For example, if I wanted to find fault with your poor fashion choices as you shop at WalMart, I might be said to be critical of your coffee-stained wife-beater and flip-flops. This isn’t the same sense of the word critical (and, by the way, if that’s how you dress at WalMart, please stop).

Thinking, on the other hand, is a verb – and it is the act of applying mental effort or reason to something. Thinking isn’t the same as day-dreaming or wishing. When you are thinking, you are purposefully exerting effort, and your attention, to reason about a specific object, problem or goal.

So there you have it: Critical Thinking is essentially the process of skillfully applying your mental effort or reasoning to something. Indeed, when we talk about critical thinking being something rare, we’re really saying that critical thinking skills are apparently rare. So, in the general vernacular, there is already a consensus that critical thinking is a skill.

And that makes it something that you can learn or improve through practice and exercise.

One issue with critical thinking – as with all thinking – is that it’s invisible. You could well be the most clever, most critical thinker on the planet, but nobody would know it in the absence of some observable evidence of those skills. I’d like to suggest that critical thinking skills are certainly worth learning and practicing, but more than that, we have to become good at implementing those skills in our writing, speech and decision making. This is the part of the topic that fascinates me: how we go from a set of thinking skills to a set of real-life actions that would lead others to suspect that you possess those skills.

Let me know what you think about this.

In the movie Expelled, Ben Stein gives a compelling argument for Intelligent Design.

Having not seen the film yet, I can’t really comment on how compelling his argument actually was, but I suspect that it wasn’t a compelling scientific argument. If you follow the Intelligent Design controversy at all, then you’re probably well aware that ID lacks all the hallmark features of a true scientific theory. The two most critical components that ID lacks are the requirement that the theory be potentially falsifiable (ID is not), and that it leads to testable hypotheses (ID doesn’t make any).

Interestingly, I see many who mistakenly claim (as I’ve heard Stein claim in the Expelled trailers) that the “scientific community” (interestingly, not individuals, but the community as a whole) have an almost religious belief in Evolution, which is absurd for anyone wanting to call themselves a real scientist. Indeed, this would be equivalent to saying that the religious community has faith because of the results of careful experimentation.

No, as I’ve written before, scientists don’t believe in Evolution – they accept it provisionally as good theory. If Evolution were really such bad science, maybe as some in the ID community would like it to be, then it would not withstand the internal pressure of real scientists who really test it. So far, the testable hypotheses that Evolution has made have supported it. One of the implications of Evolution, unknown even in Darwin’s time, was that the Earth has to be much older than Darwin originally believed. We now have confirmation from multiple independent sources that point to a very old earth, unless you would prefer to reject several distinct branches of science. Evolution also predicts the relative orderliness in the fossil record – and the discovery of just one counter example would completely destroy the theory. Interestingly, Evolution also predicts the genetic differences found between humans and other major primates. The recent discovery that the human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two distinct chromosomes found in the great ape species not only accounts for the the observation that humans have 23 chromosome pairs and the apes have 24, but also supports the notion of a common ancestor. If the genetics worked out any other way – then it would be reason enough to toss the theory in the bin.

The principle issue I have with ID is that, since it isn’t really science, members of the ID community have attempted to get it into our public school science classes through the tactic of redefining science itself. I think scientists take issue with that, and rightly so. Again, the equally absurd tactic would be to force churches to teach Evolution in sunday school classes by successfully redefining what the tenants of christianity are.

Nope – the Expelled hype aside, it all comes down to this: Evolution isn’t “special” in a scientific sense. It makes predictions that can be tested, and if those tests fail, then the theory will be discarded for something better. I can guarantee, however, that ID isn’t a viable alternative, since, well, it isn’t really a theory in the scientific sense of the word. And THAT’S what matters to scientists.

I saw this comment on a religious blog, and thought I’d give it some more room here. This was made in response to a favorable review of Ben Stein’s movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed:

ID isn’t really scientific and its detractors are correct to say so. However, evolution is completely neutered by LOGIC, which needs no bunsen burner or laboratory. I’ve been told that complex enzymes existed on comets and that’s where life came from. The proponents of this never seem to be concerned that a ‘complex enzyme’ has to have an origin, too. The mental gymnastics needed for faith in evolution pump up the pride of the ’scientists’ who espouse it. The wisdom of the world is indeed foolish.

Such hand-waving assertion that LOGIC (in all caps, no less) neuters evolution or that scientists have “faith” in evolution are great examples of why we need to have intelligent conversation about what science is and how it operates. Unfortunately, movies like Expelled do more to cloud the issue and polarize people with its dishonest caricature of science, scientists, and even ID.

That evolution occurred and continues to occur is indisputable fact. To deny this is to deny converging evidence from not only the the fossil record , but also from observations of chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms, from the geographic distribution similar species, from documented genetic changes in organisms over many generations, and from specific predictions the theory makes which have been observed.

That Darwin’s theory of evolution, since its inception, has withstood intense scientific and popular criticism, and yet remains the current best explanation for the diversity of life on earth is also indisputable fact. Science has a way of dealing with bad theories if they fail to measure up: they are replaced by better theories.

One might ask, then, “What characteristics would a replacement for Darwin’s Theory of Evolution have to possess?”

Here are some must have’s:

• Falsifiability: Any potential replacement for Evolutionary theory would itself have to be able to be proven false. Evolution is indeed falsifiable: It requires an old Earth , it operates at the level of genetic material to transform species over time (sometimes, geological time scales), and it predicts that certain species that exist now did not exist earlier. As Haldane said, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian” would pretty much toss Evolution into the bin.
• Explanatory Power: Any replacement for Evolution would have to explain everything that evolution does, and it would have to simultaneously explain observations that Evolution could not explain. So, if we were to find rabbit fossils in Precambrian strata, then the new Theory would have to account for that as well.
• Simplicity: Evolution has essentially one mechanism to account for the diversity of life: Natural Selection. Any theory that has a hope of replacing evolutionary theory would similarly have to rest upon the operation of a natural (as opposed to supernatural)
  process.

Note that Intelligent Design possesses none of these qualities. It is not falsifiable, and in invoking a supernatural agent as it’s underlying causal agent, its explanatory power approaches zero since any irreducibly complex designer can do anything it wants by waving it’s irreducibly complex hands about.

And hand-waving is something we want in only small quantities, especially in science.

In the second piece, Ed Brayton examines the film’s “central claim of persecution, that of Richard Sternberg” – who Shermer earlier says is, “portrayed in the film as a martyr for free speech”. Apparently, Sternberg was involved in the publication of a somewhat embarrassing paper while he worked as an unpaid research associate at the Smithsonian’s Natural History Museum. Brayton goes into great detail about how Sternberg impropriety brought him distrust of his fellow scientists, and criticism and condemnation of his actions. Hardly the martyr, the record regarding Sternberg isn’t quite worthy of a feature film:

Here’s the bottom line: Richard Sternberg went to great lengths to sneak a substandard and inappropriate paper through the peer review procedures of the journal he was editing. His actions, unsurprisingly, caused a great deal of embarrassment to his colleagues and some of them were quite angry about it and wanted him fired. But despite a few harsh words contained in emails that he never saw prior to filing his OSC complaint, ultimately nothing discriminatory or retaliatory ever happened to Sternberg. To this day, he retains the same access to the collections at the NMNH that he had prior to this incident. The worst thing that happened to Sternberg was that his clearly unethical actions were met with the disapproval and criticism of his colleagues, which is a far cry from violating his civil liberties.

And the paper Sternberg snuck through peer-review? It’s the most famous pro-ID paper ever published because it’s the only one to ever appear in a peer-reviewed journal: The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, which apparently has a circulation around 300 people. Maybe IDiots like Stein and Sternberg should do better science so they don’t have to use stealth to vanity publish in 2nd and 3rd tier journals.

Nobody should be required to take a neutral stance on stupidity. Indeed – here at SmugBaldy, we’re vehemently anti-stupid, so this is the sort of thing that really irks me. I had previously written a short piece about how creationists were trying to worm their way into the hall of power in Texas, and expand the role of the Judeo-Christian creation story in science classes. Here’s a bit more about how politically charged things are becoming for science education in Texas.

So the Heartland Institute’s Conference on Climate Change has come and gone, and they’re touting it as a “Smashing Success”, and saying:

The alarmists in the global warming debate have had their say–over and over again, in every newspaper in the country practically every day and in countless news reports and documentary films. They have dominated the media’s coverage of this issue. But they have lost the debate. Skeptics are the winners of EVERY scientific debate, always, everywhere. Because skepticism, as T.H. Huxley said, is the highest calling of a true scientist.

Yay for science! Game over – the skeptics win.

However, in the talking points about the conference, the Heartland Institute made this statement:

No scientific theory is true because a majority of scientists say it to be true. Scientific theories are only provisionally true until they are falsified by data that can be better explained by a different theory. And it is by falsifying current theories that scientific knowledge advances, not by consensus.

Which is entirely true. But then the Heartland Institute hosts an international conference with the explicit purpose to demonstrate that there is consensus (at least among the conference attendees) that there is no broad scientific consensus that Global Warming is man made nor that there will be any negative consequences from it. Indeed, they state that the existence of the conference they themselves sponsored is conclusive proof that Al Gore and his band are actually a bunch of socialist earth-loving fake scientists that really really want to raise your taxes. And if there’s one thing this climate doesn’t need, it’s higher taxes. Not ever.

Of course, that’s the climate “skeptics” switch in their bait and switch tactic, isn’t it. If they thought the issue was ever really about whether we were actually a threat to the climate of our planet, then why are they raising the boogeyman of taxes? I’ll tell you – because the notion that we might destroy our own planet is something a bit too abstract to contemplate – and the risk of paying taxes isn’t. The goal of the conference was to demonstrate that there is enough skepticism among the wealthy and powerful anti-regulation types such as the Cato Institute, and S. Fred Singers Science & Environmental Policy Project to stake out a position to do nothing and allow all industry to continue without restraint.

At the conference, the notion of the Carbon Tax was supported by Kenneth Green of the conservative American Enterprise Foundation, much to the chagrin (I assume) of other attendees. Mr. Green opposed the leading option popping up in various circles, the so-called “cap and trade” system, on the grounds that it encourages corruption while doing little to address pollution emission:

Companies have incentives both to overstate historical emissions, and to exaggerate the benefits of new technologies to generate bogus emissions that become ready cash. Experience in both the U.S. and Europe shows that firms usually get away with it: validating historic emissions is nearly impossible. And governments won’t look very hard–wanting to appear green, they have strong incentives to turn their eyes away from carbon credit malfeasance. (ref)

So, rather than seeing this as any sort of victory for science and scientific skepticism, I’ll defer judgement on the actual merit of the Heartland Institute’s Conference on Climate Change. I’ll wait until I hear and read more. Even so, something about this is reminiscent of the anti-science tactics that conservatives have used for many years. In earlier instances, “skepticism” about scientific claims were raised as part of a concerted effort to block regulation and minimize the impact of cleaner, greener, healthier business and manufacturing practices. This is the same crowd that was skeptical of the hazardous nature of PCBs, DDT, and other dioxins. These were the same folks that were ok with lead paint, asbestos, and red dye. Maybe they’re different now. Maybe they really want to do what’s best for the nation and the world by denying global warming.

Maybe so, but I’m still somewhat skeptical about that.

Poise. Style. Polish. Class. Selflessness. Sacrifice. Grace. Tactfulness. Decency. Humility.

Hillary Clinton?

Got you, didn’t I. These aren’t the adjectives that immediately come to mind when I think of Hillary Clinton, and chances are they aren’t the first that pop into your head either. These are, however, some of the words that we’d all be using to describe Hillary if she were to read the writing on the wall, and bow out gracefully from her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Imagine the upheaval to the political landscape, the glassy-eyed stares of dumbfounded political wonks, the slack-jawed expression on the faces of her most ardent detractors that would result if Hillary were to postpone her quest for the White House, and unify the Democratic Party behind the clear favorite: Barak Obama.

Now, I’m obviously not the first to suggest that Hillary should bow out. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, among others beat me to the punch:

The choice before her is to go down ugly with a serious risk of humiliation at the polls, or to go down classy, with a real chance of redemption.

The redemption Alter speaks of is the redeeming quality of self-sacrifice. Everyone knows Hillary wants this nomination so bad she can taste it, but if she were to put her own desires aside for the good of her party, and the good of the country she obviously loves, then why not opt for a graceful exit and maximize the chances of seating a Democratic president in November? March 4th in Ohio and Texas may be the tipping point – where Hillary Clinton either scrambles back into the race with Obama, or where the odds against her become incalculable.

I know what the Republicans want, and I hope Hillary spikes that volleyball instead.

You got to know when to fold ‘em.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is considering an application by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) to grant online master’s degrees in science education. And an advisory panel to the board has recommended that Texas should accept the application.

The ICR accepts the Bible as literal truth on all topics. According to its website, the palaeoclimatology class covers “climates before and after the Genesis Flood”. Anatomy lab includes “limited discussion of embryology and accompanying histology, specifically in regards to evolutionary theory and its alternative — the creation of fully functional major groups of animals”.

The ICR has been around since 1972, and is very firmly in the biblical literalist camp – meaning that members believe not only in the literal interpretation of the bible, but that it is without error. After failing to have online masters degree courses accredited by the State of California, the group has apparently moved to what it considers greener pastures in Dallas, Texas.

I suspect there’s a reason that these courses were not accredited by California, and I’d be willing to wager that this had something to do with these facts:

• Science courses taught from a biblical perspective are actually a form of religious indoctrination
• Biblical inerrancy is a myth, so anyone claiming it on their course accreditation petition likely has motives outside the realm of education
• The high quality and impeccable reputation of other online masters degree programs would be tarnished by the inclusion of the ICR offerings
• Creationist researchers don’t actually do research.

Moreover, it could be argued that any authentic bible school ought to have a sacrificial lamb as their football mascot. If that prospect was a too limp-wristed for latte-drinking, same-sex-marrying California, what does it say for burley, rock ‘em sock ‘em Texas?

So the real question is whether Texans are dumber than Californians as the ICR is betting. Texas may well be in the Bible Belt – but one would hope that the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board gives the ICR an old fashioned Texas ass-kicking.