Flow charts are a good way of describing linear and recursive processes. They are also good for teaching logic, and once you understand them for humor. Below are some of the best ones for learning to read flow charts and then for understanding ideas. The people who made these flow charts are totally awesome and you should send them money, jewelery, coffee or chocolate.
http://xkcd.com/518/
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/how-to-have-a-rational-discussion/
http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/the-fraudulent-invention-debunkifier.html
http://shouldiworkforfree.com/
http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/index.php?date=011211
Friday, April 22, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
I support Nadia Plesner
Danish artist Nadia Plesner has been sued for a sum of 5000 Euros a day for depicting what Louis Vuitton is calling an infringement of their intellectual property. You can read an unofficial English Translation of the Court Order here. (PDF)
Here is a copy of the work in question, with apologies to the artist.
Here is an image of the Bag, with no apologies whatsoever.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Names Matter.
Congrats to netflix for putting "creatures that defy evolution" and "the quantum activist" under faith and not science. Now we just have to work on Hulu removing "paranormal state" from the news and information section.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
The nature of discourse and argument Part 4
This should be able to stand alone, but you may want to check out parts one, two and three.
I decided to talk about some more of the thinking errors called fallacies; not because they are the most important thing, but because they are both a common impediment to good reasoning and easy to sum up. This does not mean that they are easy to spot, or to stop. Just that they are simple to explain and learning to avoid any or all of them will immediately lead to better thinking in a noticeable way. Learning the rules of good thinking that could help you avoid all fallacies, including those I am not going to list, is a longer if even more worthwhile process which will not be covered in this post. Instead this post is going to focus on some specific problems often found in direct debate or discussion particularly when it comes to politics, religion, and other belief systems.
I decided to talk about some more of the thinking errors called fallacies; not because they are the most important thing, but because they are both a common impediment to good reasoning and easy to sum up. This does not mean that they are easy to spot, or to stop. Just that they are simple to explain and learning to avoid any or all of them will immediately lead to better thinking in a noticeable way. Learning the rules of good thinking that could help you avoid all fallacies, including those I am not going to list, is a longer if even more worthwhile process which will not be covered in this post. Instead this post is going to focus on some specific problems often found in direct debate or discussion particularly when it comes to politics, religion, and other belief systems.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
No. The problem is it's bullshit
Originally this was going to be a critique and color commentary on a Huffington post article about astrology. And then this article came along, and I remembered that belief does in deed affect behaviour.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/02/astrology-is-science---in-indi.html
Astrology is the idea that arbitrary visual arrangements of stars can influence people based on the position they are viewed to be in at the time of that persons birth.
Virginia Bell writing for the Huffington Post posted there article linked to here on the 19th of January 2011. I have decided to respond as an effort in speaking with restraint when confronted with the hot and steamy* realm that is astrology.
"The economy has tanked, the housing market has collapsed and the environment is being compromised. And now some astronomer in Minnesota is telling us that our astrological signs have changed and we're not who we thought we were."
Well actually I think the point that Dr. Kunkle (link) was making is that we are who we are stars not withstanding. But maybe that is to much benefit of the doubt.
To quote Dorothy Parker, "What fresh hell is this?" Fear not: Although the world is indeed shaky, your astrological sign, unlike your retirement fund, is perfectly secure.
"Because we're just making the shit we tell you up anyway"
There are different branches of astrology, a fact that astronomer Parke Kunkle failed to make clear in the interview he gave to the Star Tribune. Western astrologers use the tropical zodiac, which begins on the day of the vernal equinox and follows the seasons, not the constellations. It is true that the Earth wobbles and the constellations have shifted 23 degrees, but since Western astrology is not based on the constellations, it remains unchanged.
Not based on the constellations? What exactly is Scorpio or Virgo? They are constellations. You should probably just apologize to everyone you have taken money off of for this so far.
What Professor Kunkle is referring to is known as Eastern, or sidereal, astrology, which follows those famous constellations. For instance, Vedic astrology, the kind practiced in India and other parts of the world, is sidereal. If you consult a Vedic astrologer, then your sign indeed may have changed, but this knowledge has been around for hundreds of years. Sidereal astrologers already use these so-called "new dates."
This story about our signs changing, as well as the "discovery" of a 13th sign Ophiuchus, is nothing new; it surfaces every few years and is recycled by the media. What's different this time is the massive attention it has received. New York astrologer Shelley Ackerman made an excellent point on Fox News in reminding us that during this go-around, the story was fueled by the social networking sites, which caused it to spread like wildfire.
The real issue is that astrology is in the news at all despite never doing anything news worthy, oh well there was the Zodiac killer so I take that back.
Professor Kunkle's information, or rather misinformation, has definitely hit a nerve. Yet, is it possible, unbeknownst to him, that he has wobbled into something buried deep in the collective consciousness? He may have been wrong about our signs changing, but on another level, don't we all need to change? We can't continue to treat the Earth or each other in the same way and expect the planet to survive. Could the planets and the signs hold the key? Messages often come from strange quarters.
Yes his misinformation about the changing of what stars are overhead during what times of year. Oh wait that part is true. Was it that he didn't wade neck deep and upside-down into the pseudoscientific practices of fortune telling while presenting a neat little tidbit. I imagine that doesn't really matter much.
From an astrological perspective, something big is brewing, as several major planets are poised to change signs over the next few months. Both Jupiter and Uranus are about to bolt into fiery Aries; Neptune and Chiron will soon enter sensitive Pisces. These distant planets move slowly. Changing signs around the same time signals that there's new energy and consciousness entering the world. Aries and Pisces couldn't be more different, and yet together, they offer us a new way of being in the world. Aries is ego, action and aggression; Pisces is associated with forgiveness and healing. The challenges we face in the world today require us to be fully integrated. Being a warrior is not enough, nor is merely being spiritual; we must put our spiritual principals and practices into conscious action.
From an astrological perspective.... Then she talks about the motion of the planets and what that means. Listen Virginia, I am afraid you are going to have to show your work. Astrology has never been demonstrated to work or be true in any way. Not to mention that earlier you said that astrology had nothing to do with the constellations why then should it have something to do with the planets?
"It's easy to prove Kunkle wrong or to poke fun at astrology, but we don't learn anything by doing that." If we're so afraid of giving up our astrological signs, maybe we should examine our attachments. We're all addicted to something, both as a nation and as individuals: money, power, oil, plastic, sugar, carbs -- the list goes on and on. And what about this 13th sign that suspiciously sounds like the uninvited 13th fairy godmother in tales like "Sleeping Beauty"? What is it that we need to wake up to? Extravagant Jupiter and that maverick Uranus are hanging out together in the sky; they offer us a unique opportunity to expand our mind and absorb new information.
It's easy to.... Did we not learn anything by this poking fun? We learned that what stars are out at night are different from what they used to be, and we learned about the mechanism that caused it. Already of more value then astrology has served, ever. Then a rambling metaphor mistaken for potential insight. Magical thinking relies on magic to work. Magic doesn't work.
Perhaps an astrological makeover is not such a bad idea. A little flirtation with another sign won't cause your partner to leave (unless he or she is a Scorpio), and it's certainly cheaper than investing in a new wardrobe or a facelift. Unlike plastic surgery, if you don't like the result, you can go back to the way you were. Aquarius would benefit from Capricorn's determination; Sagittarius could teach Capricorns to have more faith and enthusiasm. I'm a stubborn Taurus; my idea of change is switching from a scone to a muffin. But I need to learn to take more risks, something Aries excels at.
Blah blah blah this is bullshit
As an astronomer, Kunkle was probably trying to debunk astrology. Instead, he created tremendous interest. Folks have been communicating about it via Twitter and Facebook, searching the web for their horoscopes and putting their astrologers on speed dial. And the media is having a field day. Suddenly people who didn't know their sun from their moon are bantering around terms like tropical, sidereal and Vedic. Astrology has gotten more hits on the Internet than Sarah Palin and Lady Gaga! Kunkle's information may be misleading, but the attention, even the controversy, astrology has received is priceless.
He may have been trying to debunk it, or he may have realized that one way to get real information into peoples heads is to latch on to the lies already there. Sidereal is a term from astronomy, oh drat can't have people learning about that. Sure the attention is good for the practice of taking money off of suckers, why wouldn't it be. But you are missing the point, this wasn't a debunking. It did however point out some silly aspects to the practice.
*hot and steamy should be read as bullshit and not sexy in this case.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/new-astrological-dates-parke-kunkle-stunned-by-attention_n_809187.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-shostak/time-for-astrology-to-sig_b_809550.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gahl-eden-sasson/astrology-myths-debunk_b_809465.html
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/02/astrology-is-science---in-indi.html
Astrology is the idea that arbitrary visual arrangements of stars can influence people based on the position they are viewed to be in at the time of that persons birth.
Virginia Bell writing for the Huffington Post posted there article linked to here on the 19th of January 2011. I have decided to respond as an effort in speaking with restraint when confronted with the hot and steamy* realm that is astrology.
"The economy has tanked, the housing market has collapsed and the environment is being compromised. And now some astronomer in Minnesota is telling us that our astrological signs have changed and we're not who we thought we were."
Well actually I think the point that Dr. Kunkle (link) was making is that we are who we are stars not withstanding. But maybe that is to much benefit of the doubt.
To quote Dorothy Parker, "What fresh hell is this?" Fear not: Although the world is indeed shaky, your astrological sign, unlike your retirement fund, is perfectly secure.
"Because we're just making the shit we tell you up anyway"
There are different branches of astrology, a fact that astronomer Parke Kunkle failed to make clear in the interview he gave to the Star Tribune. Western astrologers use the tropical zodiac, which begins on the day of the vernal equinox and follows the seasons, not the constellations. It is true that the Earth wobbles and the constellations have shifted 23 degrees, but since Western astrology is not based on the constellations, it remains unchanged.
Not based on the constellations? What exactly is Scorpio or Virgo? They are constellations. You should probably just apologize to everyone you have taken money off of for this so far.
What Professor Kunkle is referring to is known as Eastern, or sidereal, astrology, which follows those famous constellations. For instance, Vedic astrology, the kind practiced in India and other parts of the world, is sidereal. If you consult a Vedic astrologer, then your sign indeed may have changed, but this knowledge has been around for hundreds of years. Sidereal astrologers already use these so-called "new dates."
This story about our signs changing, as well as the "discovery" of a 13th sign Ophiuchus, is nothing new; it surfaces every few years and is recycled by the media. What's different this time is the massive attention it has received. New York astrologer Shelley Ackerman made an excellent point on Fox News in reminding us that during this go-around, the story was fueled by the social networking sites, which caused it to spread like wildfire.
The real issue is that astrology is in the news at all despite never doing anything news worthy, oh well there was the Zodiac killer so I take that back.
Professor Kunkle's information, or rather misinformation, has definitely hit a nerve. Yet, is it possible, unbeknownst to him, that he has wobbled into something buried deep in the collective consciousness? He may have been wrong about our signs changing, but on another level, don't we all need to change? We can't continue to treat the Earth or each other in the same way and expect the planet to survive. Could the planets and the signs hold the key? Messages often come from strange quarters.
Yes his misinformation about the changing of what stars are overhead during what times of year. Oh wait that part is true. Was it that he didn't wade neck deep and upside-down into the pseudoscientific practices of fortune telling while presenting a neat little tidbit. I imagine that doesn't really matter much.
From an astrological perspective, something big is brewing, as several major planets are poised to change signs over the next few months. Both Jupiter and Uranus are about to bolt into fiery Aries; Neptune and Chiron will soon enter sensitive Pisces. These distant planets move slowly. Changing signs around the same time signals that there's new energy and consciousness entering the world. Aries and Pisces couldn't be more different, and yet together, they offer us a new way of being in the world. Aries is ego, action and aggression; Pisces is associated with forgiveness and healing. The challenges we face in the world today require us to be fully integrated. Being a warrior is not enough, nor is merely being spiritual; we must put our spiritual principals and practices into conscious action.
From an astrological perspective.... Then she talks about the motion of the planets and what that means. Listen Virginia, I am afraid you are going to have to show your work. Astrology has never been demonstrated to work or be true in any way. Not to mention that earlier you said that astrology had nothing to do with the constellations why then should it have something to do with the planets?
"It's easy to prove Kunkle wrong or to poke fun at astrology, but we don't learn anything by doing that." If we're so afraid of giving up our astrological signs, maybe we should examine our attachments. We're all addicted to something, both as a nation and as individuals: money, power, oil, plastic, sugar, carbs -- the list goes on and on. And what about this 13th sign that suspiciously sounds like the uninvited 13th fairy godmother in tales like "Sleeping Beauty"? What is it that we need to wake up to? Extravagant Jupiter and that maverick Uranus are hanging out together in the sky; they offer us a unique opportunity to expand our mind and absorb new information.
It's easy to.... Did we not learn anything by this poking fun? We learned that what stars are out at night are different from what they used to be, and we learned about the mechanism that caused it. Already of more value then astrology has served, ever. Then a rambling metaphor mistaken for potential insight. Magical thinking relies on magic to work. Magic doesn't work.
Perhaps an astrological makeover is not such a bad idea. A little flirtation with another sign won't cause your partner to leave (unless he or she is a Scorpio), and it's certainly cheaper than investing in a new wardrobe or a facelift. Unlike plastic surgery, if you don't like the result, you can go back to the way you were. Aquarius would benefit from Capricorn's determination; Sagittarius could teach Capricorns to have more faith and enthusiasm. I'm a stubborn Taurus; my idea of change is switching from a scone to a muffin. But I need to learn to take more risks, something Aries excels at.
Blah blah blah this is bullshit
As an astronomer, Kunkle was probably trying to debunk astrology. Instead, he created tremendous interest. Folks have been communicating about it via Twitter and Facebook, searching the web for their horoscopes and putting their astrologers on speed dial. And the media is having a field day. Suddenly people who didn't know their sun from their moon are bantering around terms like tropical, sidereal and Vedic. Astrology has gotten more hits on the Internet than Sarah Palin and Lady Gaga! Kunkle's information may be misleading, but the attention, even the controversy, astrology has received is priceless.
He may have been trying to debunk it, or he may have realized that one way to get real information into peoples heads is to latch on to the lies already there. Sidereal is a term from astronomy, oh drat can't have people learning about that. Sure the attention is good for the practice of taking money off of suckers, why wouldn't it be. But you are missing the point, this wasn't a debunking. It did however point out some silly aspects to the practice.
*hot and steamy should be read as bullshit and not sexy in this case.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/14/new-astrological-dates-parke-kunkle-stunned-by-attention_n_809187.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-shostak/time-for-astrology-to-sig_b_809550.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gahl-eden-sasson/astrology-myths-debunk_b_809465.html
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
The nature of discource and argument Part3
On Ignorance.
In the previous post of this series. I mentioned the appeal to ignorance. I would like to expand on the following text from it,
-----Ignorance (which is a lack of knowledge or information on a subject) and it's admission are important for truth seekers. This appeal, dismisses ignorance as a credible state or uses it as a wedge. The basic form is as follows; "You can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist therefore bigfoot exists." This is often an attempt to flip the burden of proof onto someone requesting evidence.-----
My reply to the appeal to ignorance goes something like this: Just because I admit that I don't know something does not mean that I accept that you do know, or that the subject is unknowable. These are three distinct states of being the first two being completely independent of each other, and both being dependent on the last. But I really want to talk about ignorance in a more general sense.
In the previous post of this series. I mentioned the appeal to ignorance. I would like to expand on the following text from it,
-----Ignorance (which is a lack of knowledge or information on a subject) and it's admission are important for truth seekers. This appeal, dismisses ignorance as a credible state or uses it as a wedge. The basic form is as follows; "You can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist therefore bigfoot exists." This is often an attempt to flip the burden of proof onto someone requesting evidence.-----
My reply to the appeal to ignorance goes something like this: Just because I admit that I don't know something does not mean that I accept that you do know, or that the subject is unknowable. These are three distinct states of being the first two being completely independent of each other, and both being dependent on the last. But I really want to talk about ignorance in a more general sense.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Ethics of blogging and reporting the news.
A conversation from October about blogging vs journalism.
My interest in this discussion began with a facebook post by a friend and journalist. (see it and the resulting discussion below, last names have been changed and facebookery removed to protect peoples identity, which should be the default)
I don't believe in citizen journalism because journalism -- like any
My interest in this discussion began with a facebook post by a friend and journalist. (see it and the resulting discussion below, last names have been changed and facebookery removed to protect peoples identity, which should be the default)
Jordan Said:
I don't believe in citizen journalism because journalism -- like any
profession worthy of the name -- has standards and ethics, and if you
don't sign on to those, I can no more trust you than I can a doctor who
refused the Hippocratic oath or a lawyer who failed the bar exam.
I do not believe in ``citizen journalism.'' Yes, I know that's heresy. Yes, I know the old model has changed: the monologue is now a dialogue. Yes, I know ordinary people with cellphone cameras now ``report'' newsworthy events and bloggers are indispensable to the national dialogue.
October 7 at 12:42am
- 7 people like this.
- Keri Said:
I absolutely agree with you, Jordan.
October 7 at 1:26am · - Mike Said:
A "cold" is putting it mildly.
October 7 at 1:48am · - Randy Said:
I think Mr. Pitts has exagerated his claim. Is a volunteer firefighter no less a firefighter because he is not paid? Would we call this person a "citizen firefighter." Is an EMT not less an EMT because he or she is not paid? Do we call this person a "citizen EMT."
The fact of the matter is, many cities and towns right here in our area, and across the nation, are not covered in the manner that best serves that particular community.
Just like in many other aspects of the community, it is ultimately up to the "citizens" of that community to step up to the plate and fill whatever that void happens to be.
And while that community might suffer from that lack of a "professional" journalist, I believe that a "citizen" journalist is better then darkness.October 7 at 9:53am · - Cindy Said:
@Randy, I believe volunteer firefighters and EMTs do receive extensive training and are committed to their work, unlike a "citizen journalist."
October 7 at 11:34am · - Randy Said:
I would not lump all "citizen journalists" together.
October 7 at 11:35am · - Mike Said:
One of the things about "citizen journalism" is that you never know what hidden agendas they may have
October 7 at 11:37am - Randy Said:
Hah! As opposed to "professional" journalists?
October 7 at 11:39am · - Randy Said:
The ny post has no agenda whatsoever!! Lol
October 7 at 11:40am · - Mike Said:
Yes, as opposed to professional journalists. Of course, the problem is that some people now think of people like Limbaugh and Olbermann as journalists. They're not.
October 7 at 11:40am ·
Philip Aitken
I think the author's point is clouded by disparaging those of us who are not professionals but wish to share our thoughts with others. It is however a good one. One of accountability. If Jayson Blair had been a blogger it would have been up to the community in general to warn others off of him. Where the Times had the responsibility to discipline him, because he was a professional journalist. Imagining that pay leads to professionalism, or doing something in your free time means not upholding standards of intellectual integrity is both elitist and false. So I guess I agree with the specifics of the article but disagree with the tone and broader implications.October 7 at 12:22pm ·- Randy Said:
Nicely said
October 7 at 12:39pm · - Mike Said:
I think sharing thoughts is great. However, the concept of going to blogs for "news reports" is a bad one.
October 7 at 1:35pm ·
Philip Aitken The idea that a given writer will be more objective about a subject because they are paid to write about it, seems more than a little naive. The actual problem with blogs and "citizen reporters" is that there are no editorial oversights to separate out the dross. That being said, journalism as a commercial venture necessarily plays to the idea of being consumed rather than a search for objectivity.
October 7 at 1:43pm ·- Jordan Said:
I think Phil's right. I have no beef with a proliferation of voices, but it worries me that most of them come with no editorial oversight. If I screw something up, I'm accountable to my bosses. Or, if I do something wildly unethical, I'll probably get canned or banished to some corner of newsroom purgatory. If some blogger does it, people get conned.
October 7 at 8:54pm · - Mike Said: bingo
October 7 at 8:55pm · - James Said:
I avoid the majority of reader reports and blogs because, as Philip pointed out, the quality control is greatly lacking. Even the articles that get picked up by legitimate news sources are often: wildly inaccurate, barely intelligible, or terribly slanted. I think this type of 'reporting' has its entertainment value, but that doesn't make it journalism.
October 7 at 11:14pm · - Randy Said:
What bout blogs hosted by major news outlets?
October 7 at 11:33pm ·
I was at the time just really starting to read science journalists and to follow them on twitter and through my blog reader, in that realm there seems to be much discussion of this idea. And scientists taking a more active role as direct to public reporters of their work. The idea of Press release journalism and false balance. etc.
Also these from later.
http://www.observer.com/2011/tech/end-blogging
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/death-of-blogging.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/14/journalism
http://www.editorsweblog.org/newsrooms_and_journalism/2011/02/blogging_is_dead_or_is_it_only_adapting.php
http://pressthink.org/2011/03/monsters-of-the-newsroom-id-why-bloggers-vs-journalists-is-still-with-us/
http://snarkmarket.com/2011/6727
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/06/28/am-i-a-science-journalist/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=technogenic-disasters-a-deadly-new-2011-07-06
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)