On Monday, we had a Skeptics meeting with 13 present. The presentation was done by a member of the group and focused on a similar analysis that was carried out by Frank Drake when he came up with the string of probabilities aimed at predicting the number of intelligent civilizations present in the Milky Way Galaxy. The equation that he derived is called the Drake Equation and is the driving force that keeps the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project funded.

Cal Benjamin in his presentation varied the analysis to predict the probability that an intelligent space faring civilization was colonizing the planet we call Earth. His analysis resembled the Drake Equation but had a few more considerations to consider. In the Drake equation, it was enough for a civilization to exist and have enough technology to communicate with us. The Drake equation is at best an estimate and there are quite a few unknowns in the chain of probabilities. We continue to fine tune it as more information becomes available but current estimates for the number of intelligent civilizations is between one thousand and one hundred million. That’s quite a range. The rather large number of predicted intelligent civilizations led Enrico to ask way back in 1950, “Where are they?” In other words, “If there are so many intelligent technically advanced civilizations, why haven’t they contacted us?” This idea has become known as Fermi’s Paradox.

Apparently, there were a couple of Mulders at the meeting that really wanted to believe and were uncomfortable with a focused look that the underlying probability of space aliens visiting the planet. To them a focused analysis is the equivalent of being cynical and closed minded. However the alternate view is that if we can apply what we know from our earthly experience to what it would take to have a space faring species visit us from light years away, we can virtually eliminate space aliens as a possible answer when we see something in the sky that we don’t understand. This is a far more efficient approach than addressing each and every unexplained sighting on the internet. That is not to say that there are no “real” UFO sighting but when you hear the sound of stampeding hooves, your first inclination is to say horses not zebras.

The important lesson here is that Skepticism doesn’t always lead to the answer we want. Evidence, analysis, and critical thinking can possibly change an outcome but simply saying that someone is closed minded and cynical because they’ve come to a different conclusion is not a proper application of Skepticism.

Here at FreeThought, we’ve been hitting the religious issues pretty heavily. A very big part of FreeThought Arizona’s mission concerns religion but we can’t forget about Skepticism and Humanism. Last night the Skeptics of Tucson met to discuss “What’s the Harm?” This is a question that often comes up when a Skeptic expresses an opinion on something like Astrology. Sometimes people say, “Ya, I know it is BS but what’s the harm?” In many cases, there may be no harm. To me and other Skeptics, however, truth matters. Some go as far as not being able to enjoy shows on TV or movies because of implausible science or supernatural content. That may be taking it a bit far. I enjoyed watching Medium when it was on TV and saw no problem with suspending my Skepticism of the paranormal to enjoy a story now and then. I think everyone has to suspend their scientific knowledge and Skepticism from time to time. We all know that there is no noise in space, right? It’s still fun to count the stars on the flags carried by the cavalry in old western movies, however.

So “What’s the Harm?” There are a couple of web pages dedicated to the harm caused by unscientific thinking and belief in the paranormal. One of the pages goes as far as pointing out how over dependence on technology can be harmful to your health and wellbeing. Check out http://whatstheharm.net/ and the Jenny McCarthy Body Count Page. For a light hearted but very well performed song on Skepticism tune into this song by Eddie Scott. We finished up as a sort of a summary with this clip from Dara O’Briain.

In summary:

• Being a Skeptic is hard work.
• Sometimes we have to remind ourselves why Skepticism is so important to us.
• Sites like “What’s the Harm?” remind us that we’re not alone…and we’re needed in society.

It is my pleasure to introduce Donna Viola. She is a recovering catholic (self-identified atheist for ~6 years), presently a graduate student at the University of Arizona, and moved to Tucson from the east coast about a year ago.

She is today’s contributor to the FreeThought Arizona blog and a volunteer camp counselor for Camp Quest.

(Editor’s Note: I was just informed that there is a FaceBook page for Camp Quest Arizona. You can check it out HERE. Also, all photos courtesy Siobhan Riordan, a camp counselor at Camp Quest Chesapeake.)

When I was growing up, summer meant spending lazy days on the beach, playing manhunt with the neighborhood kids until well past dark – and, for at least a couple of years when I was fairly young, going to vacation bible camp for a week. I don’t remember much about it now save for the religiously-themed craft projects and watching episodes of Davey and Goliath, but it was part of the “good Catholic upbringing” that my parents imposed on me. I lost my religion years later, but there were many such instances where my social circle was defined by the faith of my family.

So what about the children of non-religious families? Right now, they represent a minority in our country – and even in public schools religion tends to seep through, be it by the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance that they recite every morning, or in the fact that many of their friends come from religious backgrounds. What opportunity, then, do these children have to be around people like them?

Enter Camp Quest.  First held in Kentucky in 1996 with only 20 campers, the week-long sleepaway camp “provides an educational adventure shaped by fun, friends, and freethought” (directly quoted from its mission statement ). Camp Quest has since spread to more than ten locations in the United States which hosted hundreds of campers between the ages of 8 and 17 throughout the country during the summer of 2012. I have been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to work as a volunteer cabin counselor at Camp Quest Chesapeake for the past two summers – the first two times the camp was held in this region. Located in a national park south of Washington, DC, this camp brings together children largely from Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, although campers have come from as far away as New York and Florida.

At the most basic level, Camp Quest is about having fun – the kids got to play games, do arts and crafts, go hiking, make s’mores and sing songs around the campfire. We held a carnival where they could win prizes or the chance to pie a counselor in the face, a talent show that included singing, magic tricks, and ukulele-playing, a karaoke night, and a camp dance.

But there was so much more to camp. There was a strong emphasis on scientific inquiry, with activities like cow eye dissections, hunting for pond bugs, identifying fossils, and considering the possibilities for alien evolution. There was a (college-level!) engineering challenge where the kids had to devise a mechanism for “landing a spacecraft on Mars” (aka protecting an egg from an 8-foot drop) using minimal supplies, including a handful of craft sticks, some cotton balls, and a drinking straw. There were philosophy discussions about topics like personal identity and religion in schools. We had “Humanist Heroes” awards, where the kids could acknowledge times when other campers had gone out of their way to help them out and embodied humanistic characteristics, and “Famous Freethinkers” to expose the campers to people well-known people who also identified as humanists, including Daniel Radcliffe, Carl Sagan, and Jessica Ahlquist.

collecting pond creatures

digging for fossils

And one night, the counselors sat down with their campers for “life discussions” – where the topic of conversation focused on instances when the kids had been singled out or prejudiced against because of their personal worldview. Children shared stories about play dates with religious friends: sitting through awkward pre-meal prayers, or being brought to Sunday school after a sleepover. There were stories about being rejected by friends (or friends’ parents) who found out about their lack of a belief in god, and even stories about being scorned by more religious family members. However, one of the most commonly-expressed sentiments was just how nice it was to be at Camp Quest, where they were surrounded by like-minded individuals and where no one judged them.

In all my dealings with the kids of Camp Quest, I have been nothing short of impressed. When faced with challenges, they asked intelligent questions and came up with brilliant ideas. When talking about their worldviews, they were notoriously articulate. When interacting with each other, they were for the most part kind and considerate. When asked what makes Camp Quest special, more than a few kids said, “Everything!” When asked if they wanted to come back next summer, nearly all said yes. In the words of the kids themselves, Camp Quest is a place where “you can be yourself”, where “everyone is accepted” and you have “opportunities to try new things”.

On one of the last nights of the week, during the camp dance, we played the song “We Are Young” – and the kids and staff spontaneously formed a circle and sang along; it was an experience that nearly brought tears to my eyes. It was amazing to see just how close these kids had grown over the course of a week, and to realize how much they all meant to me. I feel privileged to be a part of the Camp Quest Chesapeake family, and to have had the chance to get to know not only the kids at camp, but also the wonderful, dedicated group of volunteers who made it all possible. And now that I’m back home in Arizona, I find myself feeling a little feeling a bit homesick… for summer camp!

The good news is, there’s no need for humanist families in Arizona to ship their kids off to distant states to have this kind of summer camp experience: Camp Quest Arizona will be holding its inaugural camp near Prescott in June 2013; watch out HERE for details  about camp registration and volunteering!

Nancy and I have a day of reduced activity after the 22^nd Annual IARC (International Aerial Robotics Competition). It was a great contest, probably the best we’ve ever had. We arrived here on Saturday and the last flight of the contest completed yesterday, Thursday afternoon. Tonight there will be an awards banquet. Twelve teams were here to compete (you’ll notice that some are competing in China) and seven made flying attempts in the arena. There will be awards for the best presentation, best paper, most innovative system, and the best team T-shirt and other awards…

For 22 years, collegiate teams have been attempting to autonomously perform a mission using unmanned flying vehicles and this year not one team finished the mission. The contest is unique in the field of collegiate contests—this contest is not designed to be done by every competing team. In fact, it is expected that no team will complete the mission in the first year. I could go on and on about this highly technical contest. In the 22 years of the contest, I’ve only missed attending one…in 1994.

As an interested observer and judge, I’ve been there for all 6 missions. The first mission was a straight technology challenge. The vehicles had the task of moving a brightly colored disk from one area to another while passing over a small wall. It took 5 years to finish that mission. The second mission attempted to address a real world problem. The vehicles in that contest were to search out, find, and identify hazardous waste barrels. It took two years to accomplish the mission. The third mission occurred as the world was facing the scary prospect of the arrival of the new Millennium. The vehicles had the task of finding and identifying survivors and hazardous waste spills in a post-apocalyptic scene complete with flaming column of fire, a water jet, and a field of debris. It took three years but a German team was able to solve the technological challenge. Mission 4 was about terrorists, or a nuclear tragedy, or an ancient archeological dig where an unknown pathogen was found. We ran the very complicated competition for 8 years at three different venues and then we ended it. There was no final solution but it had gone on long enough. The fifth mission was about a nuclear mishap and it was solved in only one year by a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

This was the sixth mission and it wasn’t solved in North Dakota this year so the prize money will increase by $10,000 and we’ll try again next year unless there is a winner in the Chinese venue. The prize will be $40,000 and we’re sure to see many of the same teams competing.

The future? As far as I’m concerned, we’ll keep doing this contest every year and continue to push college teams to the frontier of technology. We’ll continue to build contests that can be relatable to real world challenges and we’ll continue to stress autonomous systems. Speaking of autonomous systems there are many people that will be interested in the landing of the Mars Curiosity Mission this Sunday. The information about how the landing went won’t arrive at earth for 14 minutes after it’s all over. During the landing the space ship will be on its own; it will be AUTONOMOUS. There is no other way to do it. Autonomous systems are here now and will continue to advance in the future.

This is the 400^th blog post. Certainly, I didn’t write all of them. In fact, I didn’t write most of the 122 postings that have been put up after I took over on March 5^th. I’ve had help. Lots of help from Jim Wilson whose young and idealistic viewpoints have sparked so much controversy here on the FreeThought Arizona blog. I’ve also had help from Dr. Stephen Uhl who provided excerpts from his book Out of God’s Closet. Jerry Karches, the president of FreeThought Arizona provided and blog entry and I also recycled a couple of articles from Dr. Gil Shapiro who is FreeThought Arizona’s publicist. To complete the list I’d like to thank Ashley Thomas and Gregg Chmara for their submissions. Over the last few months I’ve tried a few things. It is my intention to have a blog that people with frequently visit and I watch the numbers of hits constantly to see what is working. Early on, I decided not to tolerate personal attacks from any source. This cut down the number of comments significantly but I think we can do without the name calling and challenging each other’s integrity. Arguments that go down that path are not productive in any case. For the most part the blog was received well.

The past couple of days have been hectic for me as I prepare to head to North Dakota to judge in an International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC). It is held every year since 1991 and has always challenged college team mates to create an autonomous system to perform a seemingly impossible task. Most years the challenge was too much and in those years the prize money of $10,000 rolls over. One of the more difficult challenges took 8 years to solve and $80,000 was awarded to the winners that year. This year we’re up to $30,000 in prize money and the event is being held in two locations—North Dakota and Beijing, China—making it truly international. We’ve held the contest in various locations throughout the years. The first few were on the Georgia Tech campus. We’ve held the contest at the Epcot Center in Florida, the Hanford facility in Washington State, Calgary, Canada, Maryland, Fort Benning in Georgia, Puerto Rico, and now in North Dakota and China.

Unmanned systems are seemingly everywhere. It was an unmanned system that just cleared the booby trapped apartment of James Holmes, the suspect in the Aurora tragedy. Unmanned systems are diving to the deepest parts of the ocean and they are overhead in many areas of the world serving as spies or in some cases military weapons. When I was in the Air Force my master’s thesis involved development of an unmanned research vehicle. I used unmanned aerial vehicles to test weapons sensors and I worked to develop one of the current spy planes—the Global Hawk. I was responsible for the development, integration, and testing of the aircraft’s payload which consisted of a radar, a high altitude camera, a satellite communications system, and a defensive avionics suite. It was exciting work but I don’t really think it helped my Air Force career that much—“Too heavy into UAVs.”

Way back in 1991, I started helping out Rob Michelson, then working for GTRI, with his Association of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (AUVS) sponsored Aerial Robotics Contest. Later on Rob would add the “international” to the AUVS and the contest. I hung around as a groupie, helping where I could until Rob realized that I might make a good judge and I’ve been doing that job since 1995—17 years.

The contest is in its 6^th mission: The sixth mission of the International Aerial Robotics competition requires that a MAV weighing less than 1.5kg have the ability to enter and navigate within an unknown confined environment in search of a specific marked target without being detected. The mission also requires that the MAV locate and bring back a flash drive.

So how does this relate to Humanism? It is common to assign the dull, dirty, and dangerous jobs to unmanned systems. The first definition of Humanism is: any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate. What better way to protect human interests, values, and dignity than handing over all the nasty jobs to machines. Of course, that is not the only way that unmanned systems advance humanity. Let’s not forget that most of the satellites are unmanned. There are currently only a couple that aren’t. Then there are the space explorers, advancing human understanding of the solar system and soon space beyond our solar system. Finally consider how human interests are being advanced with the use of the unmanned Martian rovers.

So there you have it. Unmanned systems are providing humans with information about their past—in the case of the Underwater Unmanned Vehicles that explored the Titanic and our current reality—in the case of the multitude of vehicles exploring space, watching our environment, and providing communications and other services. With this contest, the unmanned vehicles are helping to create our future by challenging young engineers to do the seemingly impossible.

I’ll let you know how it all turns out.

I just read an interesting article on the internet by a fellow Skeptic and Atheist. It’s titled “Do Be a D**k (sometimes): Emotions and Skeptics” by Ashley Miller. I just came back from TAM 2012 (The Amazing Meeting) in Vegas. This will be a discussion of two speeches undeserving of the standing ovation that they received. Both relied heavily on emotion to make their points. In a room full of Skeptics, I expect the crowd to respond to logical and ethical appeals which should overshadow the emotional appeals. The reality is that emotions are powerful and Skeptics are not immune. People are emotional. What drew me to Ashley Miller is what she said about Phil Plait’s famous “Don’t be a D**k” speech. Apparently, it got under her skin.

The first speech was presented at TAM 8. In Phil Plait’s now famous speech he broke from his normal scientific topics to give advice about “how to be a Skeptic”. He was concerned that the merits of the arguments were being lost in Skeptical discussions then immediately used a straw man argument to try and make his point. So it went, bouncing from preaching to violating the very principles of Skepticism. Of course, the feeling of the talk was well received. He immediately follows a statement that anecdotes are not data with an anecdote about Julia Sweeny. I could go on because the entire speech was full of examples of non-critical thinking and he got away with it probably because the central theme is one that the TAM 8 crowd wanted to hear and generally agreed with. We have a tendency to ignore the nitty-gritty details and forgive inconsistencies as long as the message is one that resonates. Don’t get me wrong. He made many good points about Skepticism. He made the point that Skepticism is hard and it doesn’t make sense sabotage your message by being “a d**k.” He didn’t go into specifics; he stated that “specifics aren’t his goal” and proceeded to try to make his points on unsupported generalities. His bottom line was that insults don’t work and he finished with a personal anecdote…. He got a standing ovation.

Zoom forward two years. This year Jamy Ian Swiss made an impassioned speech. Once again, it was a well received speech, very popular. He expressed a lot of good points about Skepticism and reinforced some good ideas but there was an element of hypocrisy and manipulative emotion that scuttled the effort. He started out well enough. Ten minutes in, he was claiming that kooky ideas don’t bother him and everyone is welcomed in his Skeptical tent. He was talking about Skeptics that were religious. He accepts that they are not far enough along in their skepticism journey. However, eight minutes later he’s claiming that Bill Maher didn’t come to Atheism through reason, which in Skeptics circles is a damning ad hominem attack. Jamy went on to say that Bill Maher is a despicable person because he doesn’t believe in vaccination. This is a popular stance in Skepticism now. We’re not allowed to question the beliefs or intelligence of people that believe in religion but there are no limits on anti-vaccination proponents. The right way, of course, is to address the arguments in all cases and leave off the personal attacks. The crowd is with Jamy though when he says, “Sc**w Bill Maher!” To be sure, anti vaccination proponents are contributing to needless disease and suffering in the world but let’s not forget the Catholic Church’s position on condom use in Africa and the needless suffering and death that that causes. Jamy finished strong and almost lost his voice in the process. His closing point was to not blame the victims of irrational belief. He received a standing ovation.

I’ve listened to Phil’s and Jamy’s speeches a couple of times now and the more I listen to them the more I find to like. Jamy and Phil deserve their place as highly respected Skeptics. It’s sad that they stooped to the emotional plea and demonstrated such hypocrisy. Without the minor inclusion of manipulative emotions and inconsistent logic, these good speeches would have been great and well deserving of a standing ovation.

Last Saturday, I was in Las Vegas attending TAM 2012. This was my sixth. It had been a great meeting so far and the late night conversations along with the all day lectures and panels were starting to take their toll. Nancy and I had scored great seats near the front and we were ready for more freethinking goodness.

The JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) has been putting on these “TAMs” for over 10 years. This was the 10^th major one. Altogether there were 14 if you include TAM 5.5, two TAMs held in England, and one in Australia. TAM gets its name from James Randi—The Amazing Randi, a magician and escape artist that decided to quit making his living doing illusions in 1960 and dedicated his time to the exposure of fraudulent claims. He was one of the originators of CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) now it’s CSI (Committee for Skeptical Inquiry). The JREF has an excellent internet presence and much of the work of getting the TAMs together is done by volunteers that communicate through the forum on the JREF Website.

Over 1200 people attended this year. They came from all over. Skeptics that attend TAM are quite a varied lot. They’re young and old, male and female. This year the Richard Dawkins Foundation provided child care so that more families with children could attend.

Penn Jillette, of Penn & Teller, literally loves Randi and was there to support him in a big way. Penn and Teller were part of the keynote event where they took questions (yes both of them) from the audience on 38 years of magic. Penn also put on the “Donut and Bacon” rock and roll party. He funded the entire party, wrote many of the songs, played the base guitar, and sang his heart out for the 1200 folks that came up to “rock out.” The theme of the party was “Bring the Stupid.”

I can’t review TAM 2012 without mentioning the superb master of ceremonies George Hrab! This was his second year performing the introduction duties at TAM and he was excellent! George is very talented and seems to be tickled by the opportunity to just be at TAM let alone run the show. This year he wrote a song for each speaker he introduced. If you’re not familiar with George, you can get VERY familiar with him by listening to his most excellent podcast—The Geologic Podcast. Highly recommended!

Skepticism is the name of the game at TAM. It is what it is all about and there are presentations on all sorts of subjects. This year there was even an impromptu protest at the Imperial Palace against the so called psychic and convicted felon Sylvia Browne. There was a famous investigator, Ben Radford that gave a presentation. Eugenie Scott of the NCSE (National Center for Science Education) was there and presented.

I’ve only briefly touched on the happenings at TAM 2012 and there is no way to capture the camaraderie felt while hanging out at the Del Mar bar or the pleasant conversations with a table of previous strangers after loading up our plates at the lunch buffet. The TAM meetings are great and we’re very fortunate to live so close to the meeting location. It took us only 7 hours driving the speed limit to get there and plane rides take less time. Considering the low cost of the South Point Hotel, the $400 cost of the four day conference is not out of line with other conferences and as far as Skeptical conferences, there are none better. See you next year at TAM 2013!

Quoted from ScienceBlogs:

So what is woo?

If I had to boil it down, I’d define woo as beliefs that clearly demonstrate magical thinking, uncritical acceptance of things for which no good evidence exists. This includes, but is not limited to, psychic phenomenon, ghosts, the paranormal, “energy healing,” the use of “colon cleansing” and “liver cleansing” to rid oneself of “toxins,” homeopathy (especially quantum homeopathy), and a wide variety of other mystical and pseudoscientific beliefs. Woo is resistant to reason.

Just back from TAM 2012 (The Amazing Meeting) and a Groupon ad for the “Authentic” Power Balance Wristbands appeared in my Email. There will be more about TAM 2012 tomorrow but right now let’s talk about the wristbands. If you absolutely need to wear one of these you can get them HERE for $4. They aren’t “Authentic” Power Balance Wristbands but they are exactly the same thing from the same manufacturer and work just as well (wink-wink-nudge-nudge). They are called “Placebo Bands.” If you clicked on the link and read the material presented by the SkepticBros, you’ll have some idea about how the purveyors of the “Authentic” Power Balance Wristbands use trickery to convince the unsuspecting public that they really work to improve balance, strength, and flexibility. They could make a whole host of other claims but those are the ones they tend to demonstrate on willing subjects. Remember, these are stage magician tricks that they are using to steal from gullible people.

The “Athentic” Power Balance Wristbands cost pennies to make and the maker ADMITS that the bands are worthless. A representative of Power Balance Australia issued a statement that read in part, “We admit that there is no credible scientific evidence that supports our claims. Therefore we engaged in misleading conduct.”

In this whack-a-mole world we live in, there is no way to keep the woo at check! ALL of the money made by the Australian company was returned to their customers and now the company is bankrupt. Every purchaser received the purchase price along with an additional $5 for shipping. Yet here they are attempting to make another run at preying on the gullible in search of profit.

Tomorrow, you’ll get to read about my experience at TAM 2012 but I won’t be covering the post TAM “Million Dollar Challenge.” I’ll do that here and now.

The JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) Million Dollar Challenge has an interesting history and some form of the challenge has been in existence since 1968. On the JREF site you’ll find the following short statement:

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the “applicant” becomes a “claimant.”

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

You can also find the “Log of Applicants.” Not every applicant that ever attempted the challenge is listed but there are quite a few and there is quite a variety of paranormal claims being made. Check it out.

Here is where serendipity comes in…I just received an ad for a Power Balance Wristband and the post TAM “Million Dollar Challenge” was aimed at demonstrating a device similar to the “Authentic” Power Balance Wristband. The name of the claimant was Andrew Needles. He’s got a website selling his devices. Click HERE if you’d like to see Andrew attempting to demonstrate his “Dynactiv SR Standard.” It is only 50 seconds long but imagine what it was like to sit in the audience and watching him try out his device against a placebo using 10 different test subjects while remaining perfectly quiet. He had to be able to determine that his band was in play 17 out of 20 attempts but after the first 10 attempts he only had 4 correct determinations. Originally, it was agreed that he would go through all 20 trials but after 10 he threw in the towel. After it was all over, Banachek, the test director asks him if he felt that his device was effective. Andew didn’t miss a beat and proceeded to try and sell his magic bracelet to a room full of Skeptics that just saw him fail more times than he succeeded. Yes, yes he did!

Bottom line: If you think you’ve got a paranormal ability and can prove it under scientific conditions, there are a million dollars waiting to be claimed.

Want to help FreeThought Arizona get the word out? Skip to the bottom…

Today is the first day of TAM and Nancy and I are enjoying the company of fellow Skeptics from all over the world. This will be our sixth trip to Las Vegas to attend the meeting. While we’re gone, I’ll be checking the blog.

Last year there was an incredible line up of speakers. It sold out too. Over 1600 Skeptics showed up to listen to lectures and enjoy each other’s company.

This year, for a variety of reasons, TAM may break the trend of getting larger every year. Some have complained that the lineup of speakers isn’t as impressive as last year. Some are claiming that it’s way too expensive. It used to be that TAM was the ONE big meeting in the year, now there are several to choose from. Many people spent their entire freethinking budget attending the Reason Rally in March.

Then there are the claims that shouldn’t be happening in a Skeptical community based on more rhetoric than logic and reason. You’d be surprised how otherwise reasonable people get caught up in controversy and how quickly battle lines can be drawn. So far, I’ve been able to steer clear of the manufactroversy that is currently brewing and I want to keep it that way. Participation in any form does nothing positive for your standing in the community.

This is to be expected, however. The Skeptical community has skyrocketed in the past five years similar to the Atheist community. While Atheism doesn’t necessarily equal Skepticism and Skepticism doesn’t necessarily mean Atheism, they are very closely tied together. One of the earlier controversies was about THAT very question and there were a few Skeptics that thought religious discussions at a Skeptics meeting were “out of bounds.” There were claims that Atheism is a considerable part of the Skeptics landscape. To which, a “straw man” claim was heard, “So you’re saying Atheism and Skepticism are equivalent” and we were off to the races…

FreeThinkers generally are allowed to disagree but usually we can keep it civil, have our argument, then go get a beer to talk about sports science but sometimes we DO end up hating each other.

It comes off the rails when we start assigning motivations to others usually with a label attached. As long as we’re talking facts that can be verified, we’re fine but when I say, “You just think that way because you’re a sexist” there is very little hope of salvaging the discussion. Once the “motivations” card has been played, it’s over. That doesn’t mean that motivations are completely off the table. If you tell me what your motivations are, then they just came part of the discussion. The problem occurs when one side assigns motivations to the other. It’s hard to not get defensive when that happens. Frustration builds, and the main point of the discussion get side tracked. That’s my working hypothesis and since I get to see many arguments among Skeptic, I’ll compile the observations to see if it pans out.

In preparation for TAM, I’ve preprogrammed quite a few future blogs that will automatically be posted daily. Upcoming subjects include:

• a movie review of a 1969 musical,
• a piece on the free market, corporations, and free trade agreements,
• an Atheist visits a homeless shelter,
• a discussion on masturbation,
• a report on a couple of examples of religious incursion into courts and schools, and
• a look at what the rich owes the society that allowed them to get wealthy.

Now I can relax and enjoy TAM!

VOTE for FreeThought Arizona

HERE’S  HOW:

1.  To vote-you must have a Facebook account or be willing to open one.

2.  Go to http://www.facebook.com/ArizonaDailyStar#!/ArizonaDailyStar/app_433419563357000

3.  Click on “Non-Profit Contest”    (Graphic in middle of the page)

4.  Click on “Like” in the right hand upper corner. This must be done to get your vote counted.

5.  On the ballot, Vote for FreeThought Arizona  which is listed on the second page, second last item-by clicking on “Like This”

6.  This finishes your daily vote—Now—Notify your other free thinking friends to do the same

7.  You can vote every day—so give 2 minutes of your day to FREETHOUGHT for the next 3 days.

Please:  Take Action NOW—don’t delay—-Here’s our chance to get the word out to Tucson and Beyond—–

Thanks for Helping us Get the Secular “Word” Out

Want to help FreeThought Arizona get the word out? Skip to the bottom.

Today is the second Monday of the month and that means there will be a Skeptics of Tucson meeting at Denny’s tonight. Check out the details HERE. We’ll be talking about four common fallacies used by Creationists in their arguments. In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid. There are literally dozens of examples. Tonight we’ll be discussing only four:

• Straw Man fallacy
• Ad Hominem
• Proof by analogy (False analogy)
• Argument from Personal Incredulity

Straw Man Fallacy: The most common type of logical fallacy is the straw man. The straw man argument argues against a position that was created artificially by the arguer rather than your actual view. For example, it is quite common for Creationist to switch the argument from a discussion of Evolution to one on Abiogenesis. Another example: “Evolution is a ridiculous theory! Macro-evolution says that fish can just evolve into a bird! Clearly this is preposterous! This is an example of a straw man attack. Macro-evolution does not say that one species can “evolve” into another one. Macro-evolution is one species splitting into two species due to evolutionary changes. Clearly, this argument is a gross misrepresentation, at best, and a malicious lie, at worst.

Ad Hominem: Another common argument is ad hominem, which states that a person’s views are not valid because of some characteristic of their personality. For example, “Your data can’t be trusted because you hate God.”Or, “You have been blinded by Satan, and you are a creature of the Devil. Neither you nor what you say can be trusted. You will rot in hell for your ways.” Usually when a Creationist starts spouting crap like this, you know that you’ve won.

Proof by Analogy: Not every analogy is valid and there are some real blatant false analogies being used to “prove” that Evolution is false. Analogies can’t prove anything. They may help with understanding, sometimes. There is a video on the Internet that claims that Evolution can’t be true because life doesn’t spontaneously appear in sealed peanut butter jars. Hard to believe? Click HERE to see it. An analogy is a similarity between the features of two things.

Argument from Personal Incredulity: This fallacy is fairly self descriptive. It says, “I cannot understand it or understand how it is true, so it must be false.” Obviously there are a lot of true things that are not understandable by everyone. As an example, I used to have a book in my library written by a young man named Michael F. Jones that couldn’t believe that gravity was a “pulling force.” He self published a book called Logical Universe: A Layman’s Reality that included a whole new theory of the universe that was built around the fact that gravity was created by the pressure of moving Origo. I don’t recommend that book by the way. A similar example is Neil Adams a fairly well known illustrator that is credited with reviving Batman a couple of decades ago. He couldn’t believe that the continents are drifting so he is publicly supporting the dubious theory that the Earth is expanding. In both cases, these gentlemen rejected an idea because they didn’t understand it or didn’t want to believe it. Now they are in the position of rejecting any data that supports the standard view of gravity and continental drift. It may get them attention but being fractally wrong about something as well supported by data as gravity and continental drift is not the good kind of attention…

VOTE for FreeThought Arizona

HERE’S  HOW:

 1.  To vote-you must have a Facebook account or be willing to open one.

 2.  Go to http://www.facebook.com/ArizonaDailyStar#!/ArizonaDailyStar/app_433419563357000

 3.  Click on “Non-Profit Contest”    (Graphic in middle of the page)

 4.  Click on “Like” in the right hand upper corner. This must be done to get your vote counted.

 5.  On the ballot, Vote for FreeThought Arizona  which is listed on the second page, second last item-by clicking on “Like This”

 6.  This finishes your daily vote—Now—Notify your other free thinking friends to do the same

 7.  You can vote every day—so give 2 minutes of your day to FREETHOUGHT for the next 6 days.

 Please:  Take Action NOW—don’t delay—-Here’s our chance to get the word out to Tucson and Beyond—–

 Thanks for Helping us Get the Secular “Word” Out