Sciency, scientifical and wackadoodle are now official

Standard

New words have been added to the Oxford English dictionary, the “definitive record of the English language”, including a few near and dear to me…

New words list March 2014 | Oxford English Dictionary.

  • bookaholic: Yes, I am a minor sufferer.
  • Coney dog*: I very much enjoy these and have since I was a kid.
  • demonizing: This word is getting around, overused, just like “evil”.
  • do-over: I like this word, employ it often.
  • ethnozoology*: A technical term for the actual scientific part of cryptozoology. [Definition given as "The traditional knowledge and customs of a people concerning animals; the scientific study or description of this."]
  • sciency*: This is one of my words, obviously. But they spelled it wrong. Sounds Sciencey [Definition given as "Of a somewhat scientific or technical nature; (also) having an interest in or aptitude for science."] The “somewhat” is important.
  • scientifical method*: I wish I knew what they meant by this versus the scientific method! [Definition given is as an older use meaning "scientific method"] *pffth*
  • scientificality*: Ditto. [Definition given is:  1. A scientific or technical issue, term, or detail. 2. The property or quality of being scientific.] For the 2nd def – I used the word “scientificity” but that’s not been recognized.
  • scientificness*: Ditto. [The quality of being scientific.] Ok, boring.
  • Scientological*: This was capitalized so I am REALLY curious. [Yep, having to do with Scientology.]
  • sword and sorcery: Cool!
  • wackadoo*: Citation needed. [Definition given as: A. Crazy, mad; eccentric. B. An eccentric or mentally unbalanced person; a crank, a lunatic.]
  • wackadoodle*: Love this word. On my list of favorites. [Definition given as the same as wackadoo although this does sound like a crazy poodle.]

As you can figure, the access to OED is paid and I don’t have a subscription which sucks. Can you help me out if you do and post the meanings to the 9 starrred words? I’d appreciate it. I want to be all definitive, you know. Thanks to those that sent the explanations to me!

Scientific people use words and their meaning properly. Scientifical people do not. I don’t want to just look sciencey, I want to get it correct.

You can also email paskeptic(at)gmail.com. Thanks.

Cranktastic

Standard

I am thoroughly enjoying The Philosophy of Pseudoscience on Kindle, edited by M. Pigliucci and M. Boudry. In chapter 8 by Erich Good, there is a discussion on that character we call the “crank”.

I have a gmail folder labeled “cranks”. I don’t often get through their 2000 word screeds of rambling jargon and ALL CAPS. But I feel it’s important to save these for later reference. That is, I don’t think they will be vindicated in their “Truth of Genesis”, etc., proposals but I’d best keep evidence just in case they contact me by other means (like my home phone) or if they get arrested, or harass other people. The latter is a typical behavior.

A crank is described as a “social isolate, a single person with an unusual, implausible, scientifically unworkable vision of how nature works.”

Some other characteristics of cranks are as follows:

  • Do not engage in science-like activities or associate with other scientists
  • Goal is to overturn, not contribute to, modern knowledge
  • Advance theories that are contrary to our existing knowledge and implausible to scientists in the field.
  • Work apart from orthodox scientists, do not belong to scientific societies or academies (because they are ignorant know-nothings to the crank)
  • A tendency towards paranoia accompanied by delusions of grandeur – they are visionaries and must continue the valiant quest to bring the Truth to the world.
  • Feel unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. (They use the Galileo gambit – but Galileo was persecuted only by the church, not his colleagues. And, you, sir or madam, are NO Galileo.)

Sounds sort of religious, eh? Hmm. Like creationists.

Goode also noted that most cranks are men but I get a few from woman – the HIV-AIDS denialist lady, for example, and Melba Ketchum (also a creationist, I’d guess) is a prime example showing most of the features above. Her Bigfoot DNA results clashed with evolutionary theory and to this day she thinks she deserves a Nobel prize and that she was unfairly excluded from scientific publication. The premise that the work is not good is not even considered.

Cranks are deluded.

I don’t appreciate cranks who send me email every day. I don’t respond. They are marked as spam. The deluge of nonsense from cranks continues in an unbroken gradient to the crap that appears every day from paranormal or fringe bloggers. Some of these folks are the best friends of cranks and allow them a stage for their kooky ideas. I get that the cranky ideas are interesting and sometimes fun to entertain. But not to me. I realized that I am turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the daily “news” flashes announcing “UFO sighted!” or “Bigfoot video!!” IT’S ALL CRANKY CRAP (uh oh, I used all caps, I must be cranky.) Is there a chance I’ll miss something good by ignoring this stream? Perhaps. But 99.999% of it is worthless and a waste of everyone’s time. I’ll take my chances. If it’s worth anything, it will come around via a reality-based source.

It’s a sad state to waste time pursuing nonsense. There is nothing we can do about those so obsessed with aliens or shapeshifters or all-encompassing worldwide conspiracies. True believers are so mired in a fantasy world of their own making that they miss real life, fail to appreciate reliable knowledge and they can’t rejoice in progress. They seem to only want to go backwards. I couldn’t say why but it’s nothing my response will change.

Reference:

Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem by Massimo Pigliucci, Maarten Boudry (2013). Kindle Edition.

Video: Media Guide to Skepticism

Standard

A while back, I produced with the help of many others, this guide to skepticism for beginners and for journalists and whomever else was interested.

In May of 2013, I was asked to come to L.A. to do a live presentation on the topic and a Q and A session as well for the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF). The video is now online. It’s an hour and 20 minutes of me and Barbara Drescher talking and demonstrating.

It’s gotten some nice views and compliments already, so enjoy.

I get tweets: What fringe subject is worthy of investigation?

Standard

I read every tweet and email and take them into consideration, answer or discard as necessary. I got a tweet yesterday that prompted me to write this post first thing when I woke up this AM. Here is is:

[W]hat fringe subject do you think is worth serious investigation? Obviously, it isn’t Bigfoot.

It’s a good question to answer considering that this person sees me as a “skeptic” (in the way they perceive “skeptic”) and apparently sees me as at least a bit dismissive of Bigfoot research. Perhaps this person only sees my opinion in dribs and drabs across the internet and has picked up that I don’t particularly like the field of Bigfootery these days. I’m not sure who could – it’s full of unprofessional, money-grabbing, sham research. Hoaxing is rampant and the “evidence” presented daily on certain websites is worthless.

Yes, I’m negative on Bigfoot research. No doubt. But there are two items that need to be clarified. Since Twitter is a poor media for such discussion and I could not point to something I’d written already or an interview I did that wasn’t really long and too much to hand out and say “read this”, I’m writing it here.

First thing: All fringe subjects are worth of investigation. Observations deserve explanation. Continue reading

Ketchum’s Galileo Gambit

Standard

One of my essential reading blogs, Respectful Insolence, has resurrected an older post on The Galileo Gambit. It was timely. It was in reference mainly to the day to day parade of quackery that passes by in the media. Orac coined the term “Galileo gambit” to describe a very common ploy used by quacks – they compare their persecution and non-acceptance to that of Galileo.

At least, I think I was the first to coin this term. I haven’t been able to find a reference to the “Galileo Gambit” dating before I wrote the original version of this post way back in 2005.”

Immediately, I thought of Dr. Melba Ketchum who recently pulled the Galileo Gambit when she announced the publication of her Sasquatch DNA paper.

We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history.  I am calling it the “Galileo Effect”.  Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry.  Another one leaked our peer reviews.  We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review.

Sorry, a lame excuse. It’s special pleading for why she had such trouble with her paper.

Continue reading

Dear doctor: “Tribal gathering” to achieve an “extraordinary lifestyle”

Standard

I got this great email yesterday…

Transforming Chiropractic and Revolutionizing Your Practice!

Dear Doctor,

We invite you to come to our next Tribal Gathering on February 7-9 in Orlando, Florida with your staff to hear our special guest speaker who created a new and unique team-building methodology that will absolutely revolutionize your practice! He has never before been seen or heard on any Chiropractic stage in the world. This is an event not to be missed as it is the launching pad of a new team concept for Chiropractic practice management that is sure to transform our profession. We’ll show you how to create your Best Practice Ever and how to use this new concept to take you and your practice to a completely new level.

They tell me they have discovered this new methodology for my team. “Tribal” – that’s like a buzz word now. Sounds new agey. Team building stuff is generally quite silly. The better form of office management is having good workers who like each other in a nice environment. The “Tribal Gathering” is February at the rather fancy Caribe Royale in Orlando, Florida. Ooooh, there is a nice environment!

Continue reading

Astrology sounds sciencey

Standard

This month on Sounds Sciencey, I discuss astrology.

Astrology: More like Religion Than Science

I looked into this topic back in graduate school after I saw it discussed in a book about the changing worldviews that occurred throughout our history. At one time, alchemy and astrology were the forebears of science. Astrology lives with us in its twisted illogic and nonsense violation of physical laws.

[...]going back to pre-scientific times, astrology was as real as it got. A precursor to astronomy, astrologers worked with facts that seemed apparent at the time. We have to give it some credit when considering the context.

Astrology sought to explain the nature of people in a time when humans were only vaguely aware of how hereditary and environmental influences affected their lives. The first concepts of astrology were based in the “facts” of the time—the universe was small, earth was at its center, the stars were part of a fixed sphere, the planets were imbued with deistic qualities, and an unknown force from these bodies certainly influenced humans at the exact moment of birth. In the sky, ancient man saw formations of animals and human figures and assigned them qualities. He split the sky into zones of the zodiac. He made attempts to define himself in terms of these assigned qualities. He zoned the sky into “houses.” The rules of astrology were (and still are) completely arbitrary, based on symbolism instead of experimentation or statistics.

Check out the article to see why astrology sounds sciencey…

There is a distinct tone of “sciencey-ness” to astrology. Practitioners will call it “scientific” based on the methodological, careful and systematic use of calculations and real astronomical position data. (Never mind the various natural laws these calculations utterly disregard.) They consider “research” to mean consulting tables and the rules.

but acts more like religion.

As always, you can send comments to shill@centerforinquiry.net

Better living without chemistry?

hill-bad-reaction-dangerous-chemicals
Standard

My latest article for my Sounds Sciencey column is about chemistry. Or, more precisely, how it is viewed by the public.

There is this thing you might see on labels of products ranging from baby health goods to fertilizer: “CHEMICAL FREE”. But what does that even mean? I say it’s meaningless and is harmful for consumers.

Over the last 4 decades, the idea of chemistry has gotten a terrible reputation. People just don’t like chemicals. Yet, they certainly don’t understand that EVERYTHING we eat or drink or use in our showers or on our bodies is made of chemicals. Everything we use or wear is derived from a chemical process. To be without chemistry is to not exist. Our bodies run on chemistry.

The word “chemical” has been hijacked to mean “toxic”. And “toxic chemicals” has become a buzz word for environmental and health movements against everything from fracking to vaccines. That’s dangerous. In order to be an informed consumer and citizen, when talking science terms, you need to understand what you are actually advocating for or against. When you say “toxic chemicals,” what science-trained ears perceive from you is “this person is not scientifically literate”.

So, I advocate not to fall into the hype of “chemical-free”. Check out my piece and see how we got here as a society and what can be done about it.

Bad Reaction: The Toxicity of Chemical-Free Claims

Facts? You keep using that word, Bigfoot hunters.

Standard

You are Not Entitled to Your Own Bigfoot Facts” is my latest piece up on Sounds Sciencey. It’s a continuation on this piece which still gets a lot of hits on the site.

In this one, I take to task some self-styled Bigfooters who consider speculation as “fact”. It gets pretty silly…

Self-styled Bigfoot researchers make claims that suggest they know more about Bigfoot than Bigfoot might know about himself. They can tell me what Bigfoot likes and doesn’t like, where he sleeps at night, how he avoids detection, and how he communicates. They tell the public that Bigfoot makes those sounds they hear at night. They find locations where a Bigfoot passed through or slept or built a shelter. These researchers even know about Bigfoots’ “culture”—what they do with their dead relatives, how they can fool humans. But apparently they don’t know enough to catch one.

Continue reading