The Skepticator

submitted by alphameme
[link] [comment]

submitted by DowntownRaja
[link] [comment]

The  Jesus Pie model is meant as an aid in exploring the “Jesus Myth”. Above is how I cut my Jesus Pie; it is how I understand the Bible’s reports about Jesus. Free Offer:  If anyone would like their own personalized Jesus Pie, send me your percentages.  Just like my “Share your Beliefs” table, this diagram could be useful [...]

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/toomanytribbles/6924163798/" title="gone fishing by helen sotiriadis, on Flickr"><img alt="gone fishing" height="427" src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5332/6924163798_76b75b5185_z.jpg" width="640" /></a><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">like it? click it!</span><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/toomanytribbles/6924163798/lightbox/">view in the dark</a><br /><br />ioannina, greece<br /><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">©2011 <a href="http://www.helensotiriadis.com/">helen sotiriadis</a></span><div class="blogger-post-footer">blog post, copyright ©2011 <a href="http://www.helensotiriadis.com/">helen sotiriadis</a>. content copyright of respective owners. this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. mirrored at <a href="http://toomanytribbles.wordpress.com/">wordpress</a><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/29870334-7378033818101140487?l=toomanytribbles.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>

***The following is a satirical argument intended to highlight some basic errors often made in the climate change debate. Also, I want to show how easy it can be to fool ourselves with real data. The subjects that are touched on are 1) signal-to-noise ratio issues in the Earth's climate system (also discussed here and here, for example) and 2) the fallacy of inferring causality from correlation without evoking physics (also discussed here and here). Those who follow the global warming debate will immediately recognize the similarity to arguments that short-term cooling during a CO2 increase disproves human-caused warming.***

For years we have been told that the Earth's tilt and the associated changes in incoming solar radiation are the cause of the seasons. Scientists have claimed that it is "settled science" that during spring, the day length increases and the sun gets higher in the sky at noon. According to the theory, this should cause the Northern Hemisphere to warm from Feburary through April. However, if this science is so "settled", then why is it easily refuted with empirical evidence?

I live in San Jose, California. The blue curve in figure 1 shows the daily high temperature that we experienced between February 22nd and April 7th. I have also plotted the amount of daylight for each date in question. Notice that we experienced an overall downward trend in temperature over this time period while the length of daylight steadily increased. This is precisely the opposite of what the 'tilt theory' of seasons claims. The data proves the theory invalid!

Figure 1 – Daily high temperature versus length of day in San Jose, California from February 22nd to April 7th 2012.

So if the day length does not have an effect on local temperatures what does? Figure 2 shows the same temperature data displayed in figure 1 but with the daily high sea level pressure overlaid in red. Immediately we can recognize a strong relationship between these two variables. As sea level pressure decreased over this time period, it caused temperature to do the same.

Figure 2 – Daily high temperature versus daily high sea level pressure in San Jose, California from February 22nd to April 7th 2012.

The conclusion is clear. The tilt of the Earth relative to the sun does not control local temperature variations nor does it cause seasons. Instead, local sea level pressure is the cause of seasonal changes in temperature.

***People with some knowledge of meteorology and the Earth's seasons will find the above argument ridiculous. However, if there was some political benefit from confusing the issue of why the Earth experiences seasons, I am almost certain that you would see arguments like this all over the blogosphere.

For those who do not immediately see why the above arguments are incorrect remember a couple points:

1) In order to see the effect of the Earth's tilt on San Jose weather; you need to investigate a time period longer than ~6 weeks. To see when the signal becomes apparent through the weather noise see this graph.

2) Daily high temperature and daily high sea level pressure are indeed highly correlated variables. This is because the ideal gas law shows that 'all else being equal', they must be correlated. Furthermore, from a synoptic meteorology perspective, high pressure systems are associated with clear skies and more incoming solar radiation. The problem is that this has nothing to do with the cause of seasons. For instance it can't explain why our seasons follow a 12 month cycle. Instead this relationship is only of real consequence for short term variability in local weather.***

Did Jesus Exist?

From MediaMatters, here’s a round-up of some of the things that Pat Robertson thinks are demonic: I’m still waiting for the Pat Robertson/Bob Larson superhero team-up.

<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lsN1XEUmzK0/T4ZH7iGbhCI/AAAAAAAABP4/ODtKKWNCs5w/s1600/lostweekend.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lsN1XEUmzK0/T4ZH7iGbhCI/AAAAAAAABP4/ODtKKWNCs5w/s1600/lostweekend.jpg" title="Baby sloths probably are aliens! Slow, adorable aliens." /></a><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/6281244888328023368-4712042969069175269?l=www.treelobsters.com' alt='' /></div>

A NEW book about evolution that yellow-bellied publishers in the US were too afraid to publish has won the prestigious Lane Anderson Awardin the young reader category in Canada. Evolution:...

Because of this. There is also Buffy, Angel, Firefly and Serenity. (Dollhouse, not so much.) I have a particular soft spot for Serenity. Not merely because it is a fine SF film, but because it such a fine anti-utopian film. Mal’s speech [spoiler alert] is a great moment: Somebody has to speak for these people. As sure as I know anything, I know this. [...]

submitted by DoctorWally
[link] [comment]

... <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/brother-blackford-responds-to-me-about-free-will/#comments">at Why Evolution is True</a>. I thank Jerry for the civil way in which he discusses this.<br /><br />I don't see a lot of point in responding at length right now, as there are plenty of people involved in the debate on the thread who are making the sorts of points that I'd want to make. It's not as if the points are not getting made unless I have another go at it. There are some excellent contributors there, and I won't try to identify them all. Among them is one Gregory Kusnick - I don't know him, but he's one who seems to "get it". If Jerry is reading this, I urge him to have a look at Kusnick's comments, among various others along the same lines.<br /><br />Also, I'll be reviewing <i>Free Will</i> by Sam Harris, fairly soon, and that will give me a chance to talk at some length on various issues that have arisen in these debates. A long post here at this stage (or at Talking Philosophy) would be duplicating effort.<br /><br />But I do think that it's worth noting one point. I keep seeing dogmatic statements about the "real" meaning, or the "traditional" meaning, or the common meaning (supposedly the meaning of most ordinary people) of the expression "free will" - sometimes accompanied by claims that anyone who departs from this definition is playing games, changing the subject, or engaging in some sort of slippery quasi-theological casuistry ... all, it is sometimes suggested, because of some ulterior motive. This claim, which is tantamount to saying that people like Daniel Dennett are intellectually dishonest, could not be further from the truth. What we are seeing from people like Dennett are careful attempts to sort out difficult, potentially confusing expressions and concepts, and to see how the concepts match up with our actual world. It's not surprising if the result is rather messy.<br /><br />In an interview in the current issue of <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=index"><i>Free Inquiry</i></a>, the mild-mannered and careful Dennett sounds a bit pissed off at the way some recent authors approach the problem, and I think he has reason to be (the interview is not available on the internet - you'll need to buy or borrow a copy to see what I mean).<br /><br />There is a long history to these debates about free will (or what is "up to us"), fatalism, and determinism - a history that goes back thousands of years. The record is there for anyone who wants to see the range of concerns emerging in this rich ongoing discussion. The concerns have been addressed in myth and literary narrative, and in the various schools of philosophy since ancient times. They are reflected in popular culture, often in seemingly confused ways. What the record shows is that compatibilists are not changing the subject at all - they stand squarely within the tradition.<br /><br />Indeed, the main compatibilist points (points about the sense in which our actions might be "up to us" even if causal determinism is true) were known to Stoic thinkers, and discussed by them, in classical antiquity. In Enlightenment modernity, you can see them discussed by David Hume. The problem is not a new one, and philosophers did not suddenly realise a few decades ago that the world may - shock! horror! - be deterministic at the level of <i>us</i> and our actions. This was discussed by philosophers some two thousand years before the emergence of the modern field of neuroscience.<br /><br />As well as the record of the history of ideas, we now have some empirical studies of folk conceptions of free will. These studies are open to interpretation, but it is arguable that the folk conception is actually a compatibilist one, or at least that it has a mix of compatibilist and incompatibilist elements that need to be sorted out (partly, I think, because it is easy for people who are not trained in philosophy to conflate determinism and fatalism). Perhaps we need further empirical research; perhaps we need further exercises in conceptual analysis, and in interpreting the current data; most likely, we need both. But one thing now seems clear: the folk are <i>not</i> universally and straightforwardly incompatibilist in their conceptions of free will.<br /><br />Given these facts about the long history of the discussion, and given the current state of empirical research on what is probably conveyed to people by the term "free will" in ordinary conversations, I'm very surprised when I see dogmatic, ex cathedra pronouncements about what the expression means. Especially when it is combined with suggestions of intellectual dishonesty on the part of compatibilists.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/24761391-2071818579562623343?l=metamagician3000.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>

submitted by mitchwells
[link] [1 comment]

As you may know, I am a fan of pareidolia.  Here is a nice one sent to me by Luann W…. and I am especially fond of this Picasso-pareidolia (via @spoon579 and @JRhodesPianist) Which is your favourite?

What is it that led to my evolution in thinking over the years? What chain of events resulted in my current path as a skeptical blogger and general annoyance? I cannot point to a particular moment in time and say, “That’s when it happened, that’s when I decided to be a skeptic.” — because it [...]

What is it that led to my evolution in thinking over the years? What chain of events resulted in my current path as a skeptical blogger and general annoyance? I cannot point to a particular moment in time and say, “That’s when it happened, that’s when I decided to be a skeptic.” — because it [...]