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.

The regulator ruled that an episode of The Montel Williams Show on ITV2 on 11 February breached rules on offensive material and potentially harming viewers by suggesting psychics could give life-changing advice.

I would suspect that Sylvia’s bad advice was both life-changing for the Hornbeck family, as well as harmful. Imagine if some quack told you that your son had been murdered. If you were to believe that “prediction” and then your son were to be found, what would you do to minimize your cognitive dissonance? Would you deny the living, breathing fact that you child was still alive, or would you perhaps question the validity of your favorite psychic’s claims that he or she had super powers?

In Britain, apparently, you can’t go around and make silly claims like that. At least, not without having a regulator call you on it. See, we could learn something from our British cousins!

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.

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.

WHO CARES IF SHE IS FAKE?! WHAT HARM IS SHE DOING?!?!?!?!

I almost let this slide, but couldn’t do that in good conscience.

You tell me:

Most famously, Sylvia tells Shawn Hornbeck’s parents that their child had been murdered. Oops, he’s alive and well. No harm there, right?

Also, in the wake of the Sago Mine disaster in West Virginia, Sylvia mistakenly claimed, on camera, that she knew the miners would be found alive. Oops again, they were really dead. Good thing there’s no harm in telling the dead miner’s families they would all be OK, right?

Also, and this is the kicker for me. She’s created her own religion corporation. I’m not a religious person by any stretch of the imagination, but I’d say it would take some astronomically-scaled balls to create a new religion. Her “Society of Novus Spiritus” is supposed to be based on Gnostic Christian teachings, which are, by most Christian definitions, heresy at the least. Couple that with the fact that all satellite Novus churches pay their “Mother church” a 10% cut of all donations they receive, and they require all their study groups to BUY their materials from Sylvia Brown Corp and the Novus Society. No harm asking people to pay for that spiritual bliss, right?

By the way, don’t take my word for it. Read the Novus Conditions of Acceptance Agreement and Required Study Materials pages yourself. Also, before you decide to join, make sure you sign that “Hold Harmless” agreement, which is essentially a blanket liability waiver in which you give up your right to hold any Novus Spiritus employee responsible for any and all liabilities or damages that could occur as a result of taking their special brand of kookiness seriously.

Yes folks, the answer to the question, “What’s the harm?” is this – it doesn’t matter because with Sylvia Brown, you have to both suspend reasonable disbelief as well as waive any and all liability anyway.

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.

“I was just about to spread the butter when I noticed a fairly typical small hole in the bread surrounded by a burnt black ring. However, the direction and splatter patterns of the crumbs as well as the changing shades emanating outwards from this black hole were very clearly similar to the chaotic-dynamic non-linear patterns that one would expect following the big bang”. “It’s the beginning of the world” he added excitedly.

This follows on the heels of other, arguably less miraculous instances of finding an image of Christ trapped inside the rings of a tree, the Virgin Mary seared into a pancake, or a freshly crucified Jesus within a Yukon Gold potato.

Sources close to the almighty remain uncharacteristically skeptical of the apparition, however, saying:

The Lord quite regularly makes Himself known through cleverly disguised imagery within various foodstuffs or in other seemingly random patterns of light and shadow, but he would never endorse the Big Bang theory without first giving us a sign. This latest visitation is probably the work of demonic forces, or possibly just someone imagining something.

I’ve seen the toast, and it fills you with a sense of such beatific secularism that there’s no denying this is a sign from the universe that absolutely no divine intervention was required to create it.

You’re surrounded by Ghost Whisperers, Allison DuBuois, and freaky kids seeing dead people, so it’s only (super)natural to ask yourself, “Hey, could I be psychic?”

Take our little test and find out if you have a hidden psychic ability. Have any of these things ever happened to you?

1. You’ve lost your keys more than once, and every time you find them in the last place you look.
2. You have ever asked yourself, “Who could that be?”, or bother to look at Caller ID when the phone rings.
3. You suspect people are talking about you behind you back, but you don’t know who, nor what they’re saying.
4. You advertise your “Amazing Psychic Reading” business rather than calling your future customers before they call you.
5. You hear ghostly voices that command you to do horrible things to your coworkers with a teaspoon full of sugar and a crowbar, but an aluminum foil hat makes the voices shut the hell up.
6. You had a dream about the sun coming up and then it happened almost exactly as you dreamed it would.
7. You had a shiver run down your spine when you picked up the phone right before it rang. As it turns out, you pick up the phone a lot, and there’s often just a dial tone waiting on the other side.
8. You have ever been surprised by the ending of an episode of Law and Order. (For the more geriatric readers – if Murder She Wrote ever stumped you.)
9. You flipped a coin over and over and once got heads five times in a row.
10. You ever got less than 100% on a multiple choice test.
11. You think that if Sylvia Browne can do it, you can too, all the while forgetting that Sylvia is a fake.
12. You started out writing a “Top 10 List” and wound up with 12 items instead.

If you answer yes to any of the above, sorry, you’re a clod like the rest of us. You have no psychic ability at all. If you’re in this camp, you can proudly use this in your blog to display your normalcy.

If you answered yes to all of them, you’re just like Sylvia Browne: You still have no psychic ability, but are instead quite the freaky freaky weirdo. Here’s your badge: