My responses to Michael Shermer

[Diamond]

I am sick and tired of politicians, and just about everyone else, kowtowing to the religious right’s hypersensitivities and politically correct “tolerance” for diversities of belief—as long as one believes in God—any God will do, except the God who promises virgins in the next life to pilots who fly planes into buildings. Those of us who do not believe in god have had enough of this rhetoric. This is America. We are supposed to be good and do the right thing, not because it will make us rich, get us saved, or reward us in the next life, but because people have value in and of themselves, and because it will make us all better off, individually and collectively. It says so, right there in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—products of a secular eighteenth-century Enlightenment movement.

Religion and politics should be treated as separate entities. Religion is private and politics is public. If you want more religion, go to church. If you want more politics, go to the capitol. Don’t go to church to politic, and don’t go to the capitol to preach.

1. America is not the world, dumbass.
2. Read point 1 again until it sinks in, if ever.
3. "Religion and politics should be treated as separate entities" works great just so long as you don't insult Muslims by drawing their Prophet, even nicely. Ask the Danes about the ability of sectarians to conflate the actions of 12 cartoonists with the entire population of Denmark. Or Norway, Or France. Or Italy.
4. I don't live in a country that separates Church and State, what have you to say about that? See 5
5.
6. I thought so. It's amazing how tolerant you are of my lack of freedom, isn't it? Ever spoken on the subject?
7. No I didn't think so. You really should get out of the trailer park and see a bit more of the world.
8. First you need to crack an atlas and find where the "Rest of the World" is. Here's a hint: They're tiny specks just off the western and eastern seaboards. You might need a scanning electron microscope to find them.

[CFLarsen]

Did you email them to Shermer?

[moopet]

Silliness aside, it does really jar to read, "this is America" content when you're not expecting it. It's like when a friend you've known for years suddenly tells you they shoot dogs for fun at the weekends and you don't know whether they're joking or not.
I might be stretching a point.

[Medb]

I love reading things like this. Anonymous guy with an internet connection calls Michael Shermer a dumbass because he happens to be an American addressing the separation of church and state in America.

Tell us more about how Dr. Shermer lives in a trailer park, that was great!

[Diamond]

Did you email them to Shermer?

I was tempted to.

I don't think Randi ever confuses America with the world.

[LibraryLady]

I'm sorry; I'm totally lost. What is the context for this?

[TruthSeeker]

Dr. Shermer wrote this week's commentary. It seems to have upset Diamond.

[LibraryLady]

Dr. Shermer wrote this week's commentary. It seems to have upset Diamond.

I slept through Friday and forgot to read the Commentary until now.

I'm sorry, Diamond, I don't see what you are upset about. Yes, America and the the Rest of the World are separate, but America tends to influence the rest of the world and vice versa. I think this was well-written and thoughtful.

[kittynh]

Seperation of church and state has been part of AMERICA since the founding fathers.

He can't claim the same for many other nations. Including some Western ones.

I guess the point is that for the US, part of what made the Revolution so revolutionary was this seperation of church and state. I remember as a child being so proud when studying the founding father (for all their failures, including addressing the slavery issue in negative manner) that they were such radical dudes. No king! Anarchy will erupt! Seperation of church and state - those guys are GODLESS!!! Sure a lot of it was wishful PR on the part of some European nations, still it was kind of fun to read and study those wild and crazy guys Ben Franklin, Thomas Jeffereson and George Washington. If this crazy revolution failed, these guys would be hanging by a rope. These were men with property, wealth (sadly some with slaves), and reputations. They risked it all and one of the things they risked it all for was seperation of church and state. Admittedly, it has never fully happened. But I can't see Thomas Paine being a leader in the administration today! Back then, he was an important part of what made the US different. Losing that, Americans lose much of their short, but important culture.

I remember once being told how many flags are red white and blue, or copy the US flag in other ways. It was because at one point people respected our differences.

Yes there is the rest of the world. But the influence, thinking about the flag choices, was there, and should be there in a postive way again.

[Darat]

...snip...

I remember once being told how many flags are red white and blue, or copy the US flag in other ways. It was because at one point people respected our differences.

Yes there is the rest of the world. But the influence, thinking about the flag choices, was there, and should be there in a postive way again.

Hmm... nothing to do with the fact that the British flag was generally the Union flag and that was white, red and blue - I always thought the USA flag was red, white and blue because that was the colours of lag material the first USA flag makers had to hand... :)

[LibraryLady]

Seperation of church and state has been part of AMERICA since the founding fathers.




Perhaps Dr. Shermer is fearing the end of that separation--I certainly am.

[T'ai Chi]

Shermer wrote


This is America. We are supposed to be good and do the right thing, not because it will make us rich, get us saved, or reward us in the next life, but because people have value in and of themselves, and because it will make us all better off, individually and collectively.


And... ? Most people are good and do the right thing for the latter reasons, whether religious or non-religious.

[valis]

Perhaps Dr. Shermer is fearing the end of that separation--I certainly am.


Wow that is scary! You mean that in the early days of America there was less religion in government? And over time it has slowly been getting more and more religous?


Just one thing, where in the constitution is this seperation of church and state thing? I can't seem to find it.

[TV's Frank]

Just one thing, where in the constitution is this seperation of church and state thing? I can't seem to find it.


You know, where in the constitution is this "fair trial" thing? I can't seem to find it.

[CFLarsen]

I was tempted to.

What's the point of this thread, then? Shermer, AFAIK, doesn't read this forum.

If you think you have valid criticism of what someone wrote, take it to the person you criticize.

Shermer wrote

...

And... ?

Let us know what he said.

[Diamond]

How is it possible for so many intelligent posters to completely miss the point of what I wrote?

I didn't criticize the US Constitution or the Separation of Church and State - quite the opposite.

I criticized the fact that Shermer appeared to be speaking entirely to Americans without regard for other countries. I sarcastically alluded that this sort of Americacentric crap is the kind of thing that is associated with poor white trash.

He could have written "Brits what is it with the bad teeth. Can't ya afford dentists?" and it wouldn't have been any more offensive.

What has Shermer said about Church/State Separation in other countries including the UK?

The actual formula is \sqrt{f*** all}

[LibraryLady]

How is it possible for so many intelligent posters to completely miss the point of what I wrote?

...

I criticized the fact that Shermer appeared to be speaking entirely to Americans without regard for other countries. I sarcastically alluded that this sort of Americacentric crap is the kind of thing that is associated with poor white trash.

I wrote Yes, America and the the Rest of the World are separate, but America tends to influence the rest of the world and vice versa. So I did address this.

He could have written "Brits what is it with the bad teeth. Can't ya afford dentists?" and it wouldn't have been any more offensive.

Oh my, really?

What has Shermer said about Church/State Separation in other countries including the UK?

Nothing, but maybe he was just addressing the situation in which he actually lives.

The actual formula is \sqrt{f*** all}

Now that is offensive. I really don't think Dr. Shermer was saying this to The Rest of the World.

[CFLarsen]

I criticized the fact that Shermer appeared to be speaking entirely to Americans without regard for other countries. I sarcastically alluded that this sort of Americacentric crap is the kind of thing that is associated with poor white trash.

He could have written "Brits what is it with the bad teeth. Can't ya afford dentists?" and it wouldn't have been any more offensive.

What has Shermer said about Church/State Separation in other countries including the UK?

The actual formula is \sqrt{f*** all}

Hmmm....do we need to address the whole planet, whenever we say something?

I can't talk about things happening in my end of the woods?

[tkingdoll]

Ok, not keen on the general tone of this thread but I do think there is some validity in what Diamond is saying (if I have interpreted him correctly, he is saying that Shermer seems to have assumed that the audience for the commentary is all American?).

However, the 'this is America' comment comes right off the back of a comment about 9/11, and the hypocrisy of the government in promoting one god whilst condeming another. That is an America-specific context, so I don't think he's saying that this is a US-only problem, he's just using a US-only example.

Perhaps he has no idea how many non-Americans read the commentary?

[Diamond]

Hmmm....do we need to address the whole planet, whenever we say something?

I can't talk about things happening in my end of the woods?

Perhaps he should have prefaced it with "For American JREF readers only"

Was he addressing anyone not in the States of the Union? I must have missed it.

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps he should have prefaced it with "For American JREF readers only"

Was he addressing anyone not in the States of the Union? I must have missed it.

If he was only addressing American matters, didn't that tip you off?

Not even the slightest? Not a single blip on your radar?

[T'ai Chi]

I think this was interesting too

Shermee wrote


Since we don’t know, it makes more sense to assume there is no God and no afterlife, and act accordingly.


Not knowing is not knowing if there is or isn't. Just because one doesn't know, doesn't mean it necessarily makes sense to act as if there isn't.

Kind of like walking down a dark alley. I don't know if there is a thug around the corner, but acting like there isn't might not be the best of ideas. Or if there is a terrible glare from the sun while you're driving and you can't see the color of the approaching traffic light. It might not be the best of ideas to drive through it.

Best to keep an open mind and act accordinly without assuming as Shermer and others doo.

[tkingdoll]

I think this was interesting too



Kind of like walking down a dark alley. I don't know if there is a thug around the corner, but acting like there isn't might not be the best of ideas. Or if there is a terrible glare from the sun while you're driving and you can't see the color of the approaching traffic light. It might not be the best of ideas to drive through it.



Hmm. I find those analogies odd. You don't assume the alley is safe because dark alleys have a proven reputation for being unsafe. The glare from the sun whilst driving is a known cause of accidents.

Both of these assumptions/precautions are to protect your own safety.

Are you saying we shouldn't dismiss the notion of God because it might be detrimental to our safety to do so?

[CFLarsen]

I think this was interesting too

Shermee wrote



Not knowing is not knowing if there is or isn't. Just because one doesn't know, doesn't mean it necessarily makes sense to act as if there isn't.

Kind of like walking down a dark alley. I don't know if there is a thug around the corner, but acting like there isn't might not be the best of ideas. Or if there is a terrible glare from the sun while you're driving and you can't see the color of the approaching traffic light. It might not be the best of ideas to drive through it.

Best to keep an open mind and act accordinly without assuming as Shermer and others doo.

That's not what Shermer says at all, and you know it. You deliberately took it out of context:

This is why what we do in this life matters so much—and why how we treat others in the here and now is more important than how they might be treated in some hereafter that may or may not exist. If we knew for certain that there is an afterlife, we wouldn’t have great debates about it, and philosophers wouldn’t have spilled all that ink over the millennia wrangling over it. Since we don’t know, it makes more sense to assume there is no God and no afterlife, and act accordingly. That is, act as if what we do matters now. That way, we’ll think about the consequences of what we are doing.

You are perfectly aware that Shermer argues that, since we haven't any evidence of an afterlife, we shouldn't live life as if there was an afterlife.

You never grow tired of your pathetic attempts of misrepresenting skeptics, do you? Regardless of what it means to your own credibility.

[T'ai Chi]

Hmm. I find those analogies odd.


Not knowing is not knowing.

If I don't know A exists, why is it logical to therefore assume A doesn't exist?

It seems like it is truly logical to say "I don't know either way since I don't know."

[CFLarsen]

Not knowing is not knowing.

If I don't know A exists, why is it logical to therefore assume A doesn't exist?

It seems like it is truly logical to say "I don't know either way since I don't know."

You continue to leave out the pertinent part: That no evidence of A has been found.

True to form, you make it look as if Shermer jumps to an unfounded conclusion. He doesn't.

[tkingdoll]

Not knowing is not knowing.

If I don't know A exists, why is it logical to therefore assume A doesn't exist?

It seems like it is truly logical to say "I don't know either way since I don't know."

Yes, you're right. So where do you draw the line? You have to have a filter because otherwise you must assume that every idea conceivable might be true, and that's a pretty stupid way to live. You can be a skeptic, but you also have to be a functioning member of society.

I don't want to patronise you by mentioning, say, Santa Claus, but that would fall under your premise. True logic is fine as long as you allow it to remain theoretical and don't start a religion based on it.

[CFLarsen]

I don't want to patronise you by mentioning, say, Santa Claus, but that would fall under your premise. True logic is fine as long as you allow it to remain theoretical and don't start a religion based on it.

Good example. T'ai Chi argues that it is logical to assume that Santa exists.

[T'ai Chi]

You have to have a filter because otherwise you must assume that every idea conceivable might be true, ..


No, one does not. As mentioned, one can simply say

"I don't know either way since I don't know."

Not sure why one would have to come down on either side.

[tkingdoll]

No, one does not. As mentioned, one can simply say

"I don't know either way since I don't know."



You would say that about Santa?

Even though Santa is a stupid idea?

[Moochie]

Don't worry, mate. We're very used to it.

:)

M.

[T'ai Chi]

You would say that about Santa?


We believe Santa was made up, loosely based on the acts of St. Nicholas. We can trace the modern story to around the 1700s. In short, Santa is highly unlikely for these things that we know.

Now we don't know the same for god(s). We don't know it/their exact history and we haven't surveyed all of space and time to say anything about their non-existance as a fact. The best one is able to do is say that humans write about god(s). But since god(s) are typically credited with creation of the entire universe (not just delivering presents or coming down chimmineys or being fat or wearing red suits), it is infinitely more difficult to say something about.

But again, if there is no evidence of A, what logic tells you that there it is OK to assume A does not exist? By doing this one is really saying 'I believe A to not exist' or 'I don't want A to exist', or 'I cannot conceive of A existing' or 'I am biased against A'.

I have a box. There might be an item in it, there might not be. Sounds like some would say that because you cannot see inside the box, therefore it is OK to assume there is no item in the box. An equal but opposite error would be to say that there is an item in the box even though you cannot see inside the box. Seems to make more sense, logically, to say that one simply doesn't know what is or isn't in the box because one cannot see inside the box.

Allowing for the possibility by not coming down on any side isn't a hinderance; it is called keeping an open mind when you don't know something. Our minds aren't like stuffed attics where if we put something in we have to take something out.

[Doubt]

1. America is not the world, dumbass.
2. Read point 1 again until it sinks in, if ever.

I am pretty sure he knows that. Given that he has co-written a book about the holocaust.

It looks like you are miffed that he left out the situation in the rest of the world. It would have been nice to see that addressed, but is leaving it out worth the anger?

It is not as if he insulted the rest of the world. He only happened to address the problems the US is having.

I suspect the context of what has been written may be escaping a great many readers. There is an ongoing NPR feature called "This I Believe". It would appear that Shermer has written one but published it here. I suspect NPR may have turned him down on broadcasting it.

Even on it's face the anger here does not make any sense. Had he addressed the situation in Europe, he could probably have drawn the rath of some for discussing a situation that he does not have much expertise in.

[writerdd]

1. America is not the world, dumbass.

What's your problem? Get over it. No, American is not the world and I even have a bumper sticker with ther American flag that says "These Colors do not Run the World"... but I live in America and so does Shermer and that's why we talk about America. Doh. You are the dumbass if you don't see that.

[Igopogo]

Brrrr… such a mean and nasty tone. Totally unnecessary IMHO.

However, I got a different sense of bias from Dr. Shermer’s intro. Is it my bias, his or both that causes this? (I admit, probably both).

Most notably, take the from the second sentence from his commentary:

“Specifically, I believe that biodiversity is a good thing and that we have been rapacious in our treatment of the environment, although I think the environmental movement has greatly exaggerated our condition and that the environment is a lot more resilient than most environmentalists believe.”

Isn’t this a subtle ad hominem attack?.

I’m not sure what he means by most environmentalists. Is he referring to the global warming debate? PETA? EPA? Greenpeace? NASA? For any group with over-exaggerated claims of problems arising from environmental changes, one can find plenty of groups with understated claims of affects of the change. After-all, we live under a corporate capitalist system. It is rich and powerful, much like the Catholic Church was in Europe in the middle ages. Is our present system anymore in agreement with reality than the Vatican was? I think the system we live under can bias the debate if we are lazy in our analysis. Some science states that we are in the midst of a period of extinction, not caused by a cataclysm, but by human activity. Here in Canada, there is clear historic evidence from numerous sources as to radical changes to the make up of the environment.

In my own anecdotal experience, there has been quite noticeable man-made changes to the environments I have lived in. For instance, I can’t find frogs where I used to in the area I grew up as a kid, as the forest & ponds there are now houses. People in my present neighbourhood tell me that they used to hunt deer where my house now stands. I don’t even know where I’d find the nearest deer. I’d assert the environmental change is real, but the conclusions one can draw from it are less certain. Are these changes a good thing, bad thing or indifferent is a much more difficult and complex issue. Personally, I don’t know how one can conclude that “the environmental movement has greatly exaggerated our condition and that the environment is a lot more resilient than most environmentalists believe.”

One thing I question from Dr. Shermer’s intro is - is he un-biased enough, (and therefore skeptical enough) to argue his case? I’d like to hear more about what conclusions he came to, and how he arrived at them. Maybe I should read his magazine more, (only thumbed through it so far), but am less inclined to now from his intro.

It’s an important point for me, as he’s touted as such a positive force in the so-called ‘skeptic community’ - (An oxymoron IMHO, and should be). There's lot's of sources of info out there with varying degrees of bias. Life's too short to keep reading political tracts when I crave science & discovery. I’m withholding judgement for now.

[CFLarsen]

We believe Santa was made up, loosely based on the acts of St. Nicholas. We can trace the modern story to around the 1700s. In short, Santa is highly unlikely for these things that we know.

But you don't know, do you? You don't know that Santa doesn't exist, do you?

Now we don't know the same for god(s). We don't know it/their exact history and we haven't surveyed all of space and time to say anything about their non-existance as a fact. The best one is able to do is say that humans write about god(s). But since god(s) are typically credited with creation of the entire universe (not just delivering presents or coming down chimmineys or being fat or wearing red suits), it is infinitely more difficult to say something about.

Interesting that you refer to belief when it comes to Santa, but knowledge when it comes to god(s).

But again, if there is no evidence of A, what logic tells you that there it is OK to assume A does not exist? By doing this one is really saying 'I believe A to not exist' or 'I don't want A to exist', or 'I cannot conceive of A existing' or 'I am biased against A'.

I have a box. There might be an item in it, there might not be. Sounds like some would say that because you cannot see inside the box, therefore it is OK to assume there is no item in the box. An equal but opposite error would be to say that there is an item in the box even though you cannot see inside the box. Seems to make more sense, logically, to say that one simply doesn't know what is or isn't in the box because one cannot see inside the box.

Allowing for the possibility by not coming down on any side isn't a hinderance; it is called keeping an open mind when you don't know something.

The difference is that we have peeked inside the box and discovered that there is nothing inside the box. So, your analogy only shows that your argument is wrong.

Anyways: Do you know that Santa doesn't exist?

[thaiboxerken]

1. America is not the world, dumbass.


Yea, but we do rule the world.

[Darat]

Yea, but we do rule the world.

Only because China has hired you to... ;)

[jj]

Shermer wrote



And... ? Most people are good and do the right thing for the latter reasons, whether religious or non-religious.


Evidence, please?

[Pyrrho]

I live in Ohio. The leading candidate for governor is apparently enmeshed with a political organization posing as an evangelical crusade, run by evangelical preacher Rod Parsley. Church and state are melding in Ohio. It makes me quite uncomfortable.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/ohio_irs_inquiry_times_jan16_05.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Ohio%20Restoration%20Project

Everyone has the right to participate in politics. Churches acting as political action committees should be subject to the laws all political action committes are subject to.

The clerics who fan the flames of hatred by using the "Danish cartoons" as an excuse are not much different from the clerics who fan the flames of fear and loathing here in the United States of America. The difference is only one of degree. Here, the fearmongering focuses on evolution, homosexuals, and abortion. Lately, in Ohio, the religious groups support laws that target homosexuals. Soon there will be other targets.

The freedom protected by separation of church and state is freedom of religion. When the church is merged with the state, the state may then persecute all non-state religions.

Yes, many of us are tired of the kowtowing attitude toward the politically active evangelical Christians, and for my part, I am tired of it because it is the politics of division, not unity. I think it suits the purposes of the politicians to divide and polarize the country. When it no longer suits their purposes, the religious will find themselves excluded. Unfortunately, religion is a great tool for maintaining power.

Anyone who wonders why we are worried about the enmeshment of church and state need only look up the history of Anthony Comstock. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Comstock) That's how things were in this country when church and state were pretty much one.

[Ian Osborne]

Compare this...

Hmmm....do we need to address the whole planet, whenever we say something?

I can't talk about things happening in my end of the woods?

To this...

Could someone tell shanek that the Internet is not solely an American thingie....?
I am reacting to the AMERICAN-BY-DEFAULT part. Assuming that, if nothing specific is said, then it is about the US
I live in Denmark. Chaos lives in Germany. Patricio in Chile. Luciana in Brazil. Zep, Kiless & SixSixSix in The Danish province of Australia. You, Darat and tim in the UK. Ain't that great?

Check it out, folks - it's all from this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38061). Nice to see you've changed your mind, Claus...

[geni]

I guess the point is that for the US, part of what made the Revolution so revolutionary was this seperation of church and state.

Nope french were already trying that. The only significance of the american revolution in the short term was that it allowed the french to get one over the british


I remember as a child being so proud when studying the founding father (for all their failures, including addressing the slavery issue in negative manner) that they were such radical dudes. No king!

Already tried by both the french and the british. Also by the Romans and Greeks back in the day.


Anarchy will erupt! Seperation of church and state - those guys are GODLESS!!!

Again a french idea. Nothing new there.


I remember once being told how many flags are red white and blue, or copy the US flag in other ways. It was because at one point people respected our differences.

Umm no. France's tricolour has some influence as does the Union Jack but flags based on the US flag are pretty limited

[LibraryLady]

Okay, I’ve PM’ed with Diamond and I think I’ve got it.

I think Diamond has gotten the same feeling that I get when people blithely assume that the entire world is Christian, or the entire world is male, or the entire world is tall. Since all those categories exclude me, I get really annoyed. They think they are addressing me but, in fact, they are carelessly shunting me aside.

I don’t think this is Dr. Shermer’s intention, but we know where the road paved with good intentions goes. I don’t think he should have addressed his remarks specifically to Americans, but he might have made it clearer that he is talking about Americans.

I still think Shermer’s remarks are on point. However, I do see why non-Americans might take umbrage with the phrasing.

And everyone knows umbrage tastes better with tea. :)

[monoman]

Ok, lets rename it the james randi international educational foundation.


Michael Shermer has taken time out to write a commentary for the jrief, (grief). America is most probably closest to his heart (being an American). How dare he just speak for Americans.


Diamond, I've lost all hope in the skeptic wiki (sorry for all contributers). Not just because of this (re: dumbass) but because of your childish attitude to wikipedia. You child.

[kittynh]

ummm, and like WHY does France have a tricolored flag? Hello???

Even Cuba! Which is kind of ironic.

[PBTree]

Yea, but we do rule the world.


its all yours.

just remember what happens to those who are on top.

"there is only one way you can go from there" ???

[Outhere]

Perhaps Mr. Shermer felt it safest these days to stick to the country he knows best, his own. Just proves ya cain't say nothin' these days 'thout offendin' somebody. We best skedaddle home and hide under the bed.

[Number Six]

I can't believe someone would read Shermer's commentary and become outraged over it (other than a religious fanatic or a woo I mean). Really, that is a reach. It is a classic example of someone taking a tiny wrong and pretending as if it was a colossal mistake. There are better way of spending our time and energy than getting upset about something like that.

I was about to compare the reaction to Denise and the scholarship thing but then I realized that the JREF did a much bigger wrong with the scholarship (altnough it wasn't as bad as Denise makes it out to be) than did Shermer. Geez, I thought the Shermer piece was so good I almost pasted it on some sites I frequent with believers and now I'm reading some skeptics reacting to it as if it was Mein Kampf. I think it's an overreaction to say the least.

[Antiquehunter]

I have to admit that I'm scratching my head about the following sentence in Dr. Shermer's commentary:

And although I am a libertarian heterosexual who is about as unpink (in both meanings) as you can get, I believe people should have an equal opportunity to be unequal.

I'm not sure I get where he's going with this. Why is his sexuality a crucial element to this? Is he suggesting he is against same-sex marriage? Has he recently been hit on by a cute skeptical guy and feels it is important to demarcate his sexual preference in a public forum? Are most libertarians homosexual? (Alert Penn!) Any other interpretations as to what he's driving at here?

I appreciate that Dr. Shermer took time out from his busy schedule to give us a commentary - but it wasn't the best commentary ever posted to the JRef website IMHO...

-AH.

[kittynh]

I think Libertarians are very open to same sex marriages.

Also, legalized pot.

And I live in NH, so I should know!

[geni]

ummm, and like WHY does France have a tricolored flag? Hello???

There are at least 3 different theories. Other than unflunece from the US there is the idea that it shows the control of the people over the monarchy (Paris' colours - blue and red - bording monarchy's colour - white) or of course it could be that they just nicked the colours of the dutch falg and turned it through 90 degrees.


Even Cuba! Which is kind of ironic.

Not really. The campain the free cuba from the spanish was lauched from the US.

[Antiquehunter]

I think Libertarians are very open to same sex marriages.

Also, legalized pot.

And I live in NH, so I should know!

I'm open to the idea that I'm parsing his sentence incorrectly - but it reads strangely to me. I concur that most libertarians tend to support same sex marriage - which is why his sentence sounds weird...

[Jeremy]

I think he was simply taking an ideal opportunity to make a joke about communists and homosexuals.

[MLynn]

Diamond, after I read your initial post I re-read Dr. Shermer's Commentary. It was focused on issues in America, and I'm not sure if this was a special writing for Mr. Randi's Commentary Section or if it is an excerpt from another of his published works. Dr. Shermer writes a lot about what people believe. I can tell you that he is very much a humanitarian and cares about what people think.

If you were to send Dr. Shermer an email I think he would respond. I'm sure in his travels (and he does travel a lot), he gets lots of responses to his lectures and books.

[CFLarsen]

Nice to see you've changed your mind, Claus...

Note this little passage of mine:

Assuming that, if nothing specific is said, then it is about the US

Note this little passage of Shermer's:

This is America.

And one more:

It says so, right there in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights

AFAIK, only the US has those three.

Nice to see I am entirely consistent. Hm?

[Darat]

ummm, and like WHY does France have a tricolored flag? Hello???

Even Cuba! Which is kind of ironic.

Wanted some reflected glory from the super-power next door to it that had by then totally eclipsed the French Empire? ;) (I.e. Great Britain.)

Since the facts aren't known I tend to give more credence to the theory that the USA flag was an evolution of the British flag (from having the colours on hand red, white and blue to make Union jacks/flags to some early USA flags incorporating the Union flag).

[articulett]

How is it possible for so many intelligent posters to completely miss the point of what I wrote?

I didn't criticize the US Constitution or the Separation of Church and State - quite the opposite.

I criticized the fact that Shermer appeared to be speaking entirely to Americans without regard for other countries. I sarcastically alluded that this sort of Americacentric crap is the kind of thing that is associated with poor white trash.

He could have written "Brits what is it with the bad teeth. Can't ya afford dentists?" and it wouldn't have been any more offensive.

What has Shermer said about Church/State Separation in other countries including the UK?

The actual formula is \sqrt{f*** all}


Yes, but America has lately become more and more of a theocracy and an oligarchy...and many of us citizens feel embarrassed by it because we recognize that other countries feel forced to join in with the will of our imperialistic Jesus Freak of a dumb ass leader. Shermer is a former born again Christian who has started a grass roots effort similar to Randi's and Richard Dawkin's in scewering the sacred cow of religion. His organization, like Randi's is in America, and things have been increasing divisive--

Dawkins (Shermer's UK cohort and friend) is a major spearhead behind the notion that religions pretend to always be warring in a battle of "good" vs. "evil", but, for many of us--it's really two evils. And in Europe it's a little easier for public personalities to say so--Everyone is every war in every battle feels that God (or good) is on their side. Which might be okay, if those who didn't believe weren't killed in the name of eradicating evil. America was founded, theoretically, so that no one would be forced to believe any sort of religion--so it's Michael Shermer is exorting Americans to take back that right.

I don't think Dr. Shermer was neglecting or slamming other countries...I think he's feeling apologetic towards our own and eager to keep it from descending further into the dark ages...I know I don't want to be associated with my country's politics...and, during the current political climate, those who seek to keep church and state separate are often made to feel like they are "unpatriotic"...

[Ian Osborne]

Note this little passage of mine:
Note this little passage of Shermer's: [This is America]

And one more: AFAIK, only the US has those three.

Nice to see I am entirely consistent. [I]Hm?

So Shane's request for "all Americans on this forum to write their Senators" and reference to the FEC and the Senate don't stop his post implying that we're American by default, but Shermer's stating "This is America" on an international website and writing from an unqualified American perspective that doesn't even acknowledge a non-US readership does?

Once again, Shane's thread from last April is over here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38061). If you've changed your mind, that's fair enough, though I'd be interested in what's inspired this U-turn. But to claim your posts are consistent is a nonsense.

[CFLarsen]

So Shane's request for "all Americans on this forum to write their Senators" and reference to the FEC and the Senate don't stop his post implying that we're American by default, but Shermer's stating "This is America" on an international website and writing from an unqualified American perspective that doesn't even acknowledge a non-US readership does?

Once again, Shane's thread from last April is over here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38061). If you've changed your mind, that's fair enough, though I'd be interested in what's inspired this U-turn. But to claim your posts are consistent is a nonsense.
What part of "Assuming that, if nothing specific is said, then it is about the US" don't you understand?

[Ian Osborne]

What part of "Assuming that, if nothing specific is said, then it is about the US" don't you understand?

The bit where it applies to Shermer's "this is America" but not Shane's "all Americans on this forum".

[CFLarsen]

The bit where it applies to Shermer's "this is America" but not Shane's "all Americans on this forum".

The Internet is international. The Declaration of Independence, The American Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not.

If there are restrictions of the Internet, it influences us all: China & Google is a recent example.

If Americans change their constitution, it doesn't affect other people than Americans.

[Ian Osborne]

If there are restrictions of the Internet, it influences us all

...which is precisely why Shane's concerns about a bill going through the Senate, and his plea for Americans here to write to their senators, is not evidence of America-by-default.

Your differing responses to Shanek's thread and Shermer's commentary owe more to your opinions of Michael Shermer and Shane Killian than the specifics of what they said.

[CFLarsen]

...which is precisely why Shane's concerns about a bill going through the Senate, and his plea for Americans here to write to their senators, is not evidence of America-by-default.

Your differing responses to Shanek's thread and Shermer's commentary owe more to your opinions of Michael Shermer and Shane Killian than the specifics of what they said.

Whatev.

[atari24]

1. America is not the world, dumbass.
2. Read point 1 again until it sinks in, if ever.
3. "Religion and politics should be treated as separate entities" works great just so long as you don't insult Muslims by drawing their Prophet, even nicely. Ask the Danes about the ability of sectarians to conflate the actions of 12 cartoonists with the entire population of Denmark. Or Norway, Or France. Or Italy.
4. I don't live in a country that separates Church and State, what have you to say about that? See 5
5.
6. I thought so. It's amazing how tolerant you are of my lack of freedom, isn't it? Ever spoken on the subject?
7. No I didn't think so. You really should get out of the trailer park and see a bit more of the world.
8. First you need to crack an atlas and find where the "Rest of the World" is. Here's a hint: They're tiny specks just off the western and eastern seaboards. You might need a scanning electron microscope to find them.

Cry me a freakin river...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm open to the idea that I'm parsing his sentence incorrectly - but it reads strangely to me. I concur that most libertarians tend to support same sex marriage - which is why his sentence sounds weird...

Another option may be, that by defining himself outside of those groups, and then recognizing those groups as equal would lend more weight to the opinion. *shrug*

[Overman]

I think Libertarians are very open to same sex marriages.

Also, legalized pot.

And I live in NH, so I should know!


I think If we meet at a future TAM we might have to make a trip to the parking lot!

Where has Diamond gone in all this! I see Diamonds points but still don't understand the rage! Is JREF an international organization? I know it has members worldwide but where does it pay taxes....Does it have to address which country it is speaking too with each offical post?

[Ian Osborne]

I see Diamonds points but still don't understand the rage!

Exactly. Shermer certainly wrote like he forgot the rest of the world existed, but his commentary hardly justified calling him a 'dumbass'.

[Admiral]

It seems pretty clear to me that Dr. Shermer wrote this for another purpose. I don't mind- I thought the message was good and well-written. However, some members of this forum seem to get really angry when people write messages for American readers.

Frankly, I wouldn't get angry for reading a British writer, on a British website, talk about the way Parliament was run or what rights Brits. I certainly wouldn't call him a "dumbass."

I'm not saying that this website should be read only by Americans- I know that there are many readers from around the world. But show me where Dr. Shermer said anything that should offend the rest of the world.

Frankly, I'm pretty offended by Diamond's implications that all Americans live in trailer parks.

[PBTree]

Frankly, I'm pretty offended by Diamond's implications that all Americans live in trailer parks.



they don't ???

[Manny]

they don't ???Some of us live in urban slums. :D

[Numenaster]

Dropping back to the "It makes sense to assume such and such" thread, but leaving Santa out of it:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Pascal's wager yet: a logical argument for belief in God (but not a proof of Her existence). It goes like this: if there is a God, and you believe and go to Heaven, the consequences are infinitely good.
If there is a God and you disbelieve and go to Hell, the consequences are infinitely bad.
If there is no God, the consequences are inconsequential whether you believe or not.
Therefore the greatest balance of risk and reward comes from believing. If you are wrong, it costs you nothing.

[Pyrrho]

Dropping back to the "It makes sense to assume such and such" thread, but leaving Santa out of it:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Pascal's wager yet: a logical argument for belief in God (but not a proof of Her existence). It goes like this: if there is a God, and you believe and go to Heaven, the consequences are infinitely good.
If there is a God and you disbelieve and go to Hell, the consequences are infinitely bad.
If there is no God, the consequences are inconsequential whether you believe or not.
Therefore the greatest balance of risk and reward comes from believing. If you are wrong, it costs you nothing.
Cost you nothing except your dignity, honesty, and self respect, but those things have worth only to the individual.

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it requires hypocrisy, and it's still a gamble that St. Peter won't let you into Heaven on the basis that you were just playing the odds and weren't sincere.

I think I'll gamble that the afterlife, if it exists, really isn't a Chick Tract.

[Czarcasm]

Dropping back to the "It makes sense to assume such and such" thread, but leaving Santa out of it:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Pascal's wager yet: a logical argument for belief in God (but not a proof of Her existence). It goes like this: if there is a God, and you believe and go to Heaven, the consequences are infinitely good.
If there is a God and you disbelieve and go to Hell, the consequences are infinitely bad.
If there is no God, the consequences are inconsequential whether you believe or not.
Therefore the greatest balance of risk and reward comes from believing. If you are wrong, it costs you nothing.
And what are your odds if you factor in all the possible "gods" that people believe in?

[TJ]

I heard of this thing once, long ago. I'm trying to remember what it's called. It has something to do with...how do you say? Point of view, I think. Basically, it's a statement made by one person about a given topic, expressing that person's take on it. It's an amazing thing because it encloses the upbringing, experience, beliefs, biases...everything really, into one, concise...Wait! I have it!

It's called an opinion.

[RandFan]

Oh dang, bad michael bad. Let's all hate him forever. Sheesh, can you imagine the horror of not mentioning the world. Yeah, Americans, myself included, tend to ignore the rest of the world from time to time. Yeah, perhaps Shermer should have written something more for the rest of the world, I guess. Whatever.

[Dogdoctor]

Exactly. Shermer certainly wrote like he forgot the rest of the world existed, but his commentary hardly justified calling him a 'dumbass'.
Yeah an ad hominem attack is hardly something any logic using person should resort to in a logical discussion. You want to make a logical point then use logic and leave this inflammatory language out of it Especially when the person is taking up the slack for James Randi who is recovering from surgery.

[aaarrrggh]

Just one thing, where in the constitution is this seperation of church and state thing? I can't seem to find it.

From Wikipedia:


The clause of the First Amendment that adopted the founders' principles of separation of church and state and freedom of religion is known as the Establishment Clause. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

[Nitedawg]

On behalf of the United States I would like to apologize for anything said in this site which tends to indicate that we have forgotten about the rest of the world.

Having said that, I have to say how disappointed I am that people will take such a positive piece of writing such as that done by Dr. Shermer and turn it into a "what about me" issue.

If someone had written an article focused on a dangerous trend in the British Parliament, or a issue troubling Denmark, I would have hoped that people would have been interested in seeing what was going on in those parts of the world and perhaps pondering those issues, instead of immediately reacting with venom that no one mentioned the problems in Japan or South Korea.

Perhaps the part of Dr. Shermer’s article we should all focus on for at least a moment is that part which speaks about being intentionally divisive and the damage it does to the common good of all.

Americans have a tendency to focus on American issues and we Americans should be aware of that. But walking around with a chip on your shoulder about Ameri-centrism is not healthy either.

[Hellbound]

Excellent post, Nitedawg. Captured my sentiments exactly.

[Dr Adequate]

Dropping back to the "It makes sense to assume such and such" thread, but leaving Santa out of it:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Pascal's wager yet... Pascal's Wager

[drfrank]

Hmm... nothing to do with the fact that the British flag was generally the Union flag and that was white, red and blue - I always thought the USA flag was red, white and blue because that was the colours of lag material the first USA flag makers had to hand... :)

That's almost as fun as the fact that the American national anthem is set to the tune of an old English drinking song :D

[articulett]

Evidence, please?

Most people don't kill, start wars, rape, plunder, etc. However those who do such things tend to have one thing in common. Religion? (maybe)--but I'd say those who do the most egregious acts tend to have one particular genetic trait---a Y chromosome.

No matter how you define morality--those who epitomize it in my world are all atheists. And they save animals, fight for civil liberties, donate to charities and refrain from inflicting cruelty upon others just because of the way such behavior makes them feel--it's their natural inclination. Are religious people who behave similarly doing so to get heaven bonus points or to avoid everlasting torment. This doesn't seem particularly moral from my perspective.

[articulett]

Dropping back to the "It makes sense to assume such and such" thread, but leaving Santa out of it:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Pascal's wager yet: a logical argument for belief in God (but not a proof of Her existence). It goes like this: if there is a God, and you believe and go to Heaven, the consequences are infinitely good.
If there is a God and you disbelieve and go to Hell, the consequences are infinitely bad.
If there is no God, the consequences are inconsequential whether you believe or not.
Therefore the greatest balance of risk and reward comes from believing. If you are wrong, it costs you nothing.

And Pascal didn't live in a world where he could see very many different versions of god (gods) and hells. I think only 144,000 people get to Jehovah Witness heaven--should one believe in that god so as not to end up in Jehovah witness hell. Different religions attribute different blind faith beliefs for heaven worthiness. And if Marshall Applewhite was correct, you already missed the spaceship.

[Jesus Baby Daddy]

Wow Diamond, did somebody pee in your Cheerios this morning?
To me your response just screams the typical anti-American, anti-Bush world view. Totally overreacting to a brief statement, that shouldn't invoke so much negativity. Hey, I understand not agreeing, but your acting like a total jerk. Face it dude, the JREF, Shermer, Randi, most of the people who post here, live in the U.S. And so he was writing to the "core" audience. Was it a slight? No. Was it an insult? No. Did he overlook the larger group of people? Sure did.
Sounds to me like you just have a bug up your a** about anything that is targeted for Americans, or possibly anyone but you. Get over it dude.
And you might want to see somebody about your inferiority complex.


"That's almost as fun as the fact that the American national anthem is set to the tune of an old English drinking song " Nearly all Americans LOVE the Brits, we're proud of that fact. I like the fact that when I hear the national anthem I usually have a beer in my hand. :mysteryma Or maybe that's because the only time I hear it is at sporting events. :uk:

[gypsynuke]

Why should Shermer write about Denmark or Afghanistan if he lives in the US? Should he make assumptions and assertions about a nation he knows nothing about in order to appear more PC? I'm not even sure that would be PC.

[jj]

Well, since Shermer made it pretty clear he was talking about America, I can't really figure out what the OP is so peeved about, myself. Yes, other world politicians also recognize religion, do we need to mention Mr. Berlusconi, for instance, or perhaps any of the middle eastern governments?

So read as I may, I can't see what Diamond is so peeved about.

[aggle-rithm]

That's almost as fun as the fact that the American national anthem is set to the tune of an old English drinking song :D

Yes. And one that is very difficult to sing. Most people (at sporting events, etc.) don't even try. There is a concerted effort to change the national anthem to "America, the Beautiful".

Speaking of music, I am faced with the same type of cultural bias all the time that Diamond is spouting off about. As a listener and composer of serious music (what the Neanderthals inaccurately refer to as "classical"), I am constantly bombarded with references to music that assumes that all of it is of the popular variety. The common question, "What's your favorite song?" reveals the depth of this bias, since only a small percentage of serious compositions are songs, while the figure is closer to 100% in popular music.

It irks me no end, but you don't hear me bitching about it.

Wait. I'm doing it right now, aren't I?

Never mind.

[aggle-rithm]

Frankly, I wouldn't get angry for reading a British writer, on a British website, talk about the way Parliament was run or what rights Brits. I certainly wouldn't call him a "dumbass."


Oh, I would! Here I am, reading an article, thinking it's about REAL issues in a REAL country, but then realize I'm just wasting my time reading about some place where they can't even speak American properly! Who cares if there's a Spotted Dick shortage, or a scurvy epidemic raging through the hedgehog population, or some other such nonsense! And what's this about the "Labor" party? Obviously a made-up name! And what the hell is a "scone", and why does it taste like cardboard?!?


(See, Diamond, THAT's the proper way to rant!)

[Diamond]

Ok, lets rename it the james randi international educational foundation.


Michael Shermer has taken time out to write a commentary for the jrief, (grief). America is most probably closest to his heart (being an American). How dare he just speak for Americans.


Diamond, I've lost all hope in the skeptic wiki (sorry for all contributers). Not just because of this (re: dumbass) but because of your childish attitude to wikipedia. You child.

Thank you very much. You may not know this, but I am not the SkepticWiki and the SkepticWiki is not me.

In the same way, America is not the world and the world is not America.

You conflate my beliefs about Wikipedia (which have more currency than you'd believe) with whether or not the Skepticwiki is to be supported. Shame on you, but not on me.

Michael Shermer chose to write an entire sermon (that's what it was) from the JREF pulpit to only one part of the JREF audience without mentioning or addressing anyone else. I've met the guy, he's smart.

It does not mean that his sermon from the JREF pulpit was appropriate to the occasion.

[DrMatt]

Shermer volunteered. He's usually not as interesting a read as Randi, but hey, this was all quite unexpected to many of us. The subgenius must have slack!

Oh, and "Sermon" isn't quite it. It's a "This I Believe" radio essay. For comparison, see Penn's essay, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5015557

[Diamond]

Wow Diamond, did somebody pee in your Cheerios this morning?
To me your response just screams the typical anti-American, anti-Bush world view.

Amazing. You misunderstood what I said, and you managed to stretch this to a supposition that to dislike America is to dislike Bush. What flexible strawmen you can build!

Nearly all Americans LOVE the Brits, we're proud of that fact.

Actually you don't. Unless representing them as evil all of the time represents a form of love I am unaware of.

[Diamond]

Why should Shermer write about Denmark or Afghanistan if he lives in the US? Should he make assumptions and assertions about a nation he knows nothing about in order to appear more PC? I'm not even sure that would be PC.

Who said anything about political correctness? I didn't.

Let's go back to what Shermer did say:

I am sick and tired of politicians, and just about everyone else, kowtowing to the religious right’s hypersensitivities and politically correct “tolerance” for diversities of belief—as long as one believes in God—any God will do, except the God who promises virgins in the next life to pilots who fly planes into buildings. Those of us who do not believe in god have had enough of this rhetoric. This is America. We are supposed to be good and do the right thing, not because it will make us rich, get us saved, or reward us in the next life, but because people have value in and of themselves, and because it will make us all better off, individually and collectively. It says so, right there in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—products of a secular eighteenth-century Enlightenment movement.

Stirring stuff, makes me want to sing the Star Spangled Banner and wave the flag.

It's just that...I'm not in America. I don't have a written constitution to restrain my government, I don't have a Bill of Rights that means anything. I don't live in a state that guarantees freedom of speech or that separates Church from State (quite the reverse, in fact).

What does Shermer say? I might as well not exist. Shermer could have mentioned the cause of freedom for religious intolerance that the Danes are currently undergoing. Maybe they don't exist either.

I assumed that the JREF was an international organization with an international perspective. Clearly I was wrong.

[ImaginalDisc]

Who said anything about political correctness? I didn't.

Let's go back to what Shermer did say:



Stirring stuff, makes me want to sing the Star Spangled Banner and wave the flag.

It's just that...I'm not in America. I don't have a written constitution to restrain my government, I don't have a Bill of Rights that means anything. I don't live in a state that guarantees freedom of speech or that separates Church from State (quite the reverse, in fact).

What does Shermer say? I might as well not exist. Shermer could have mentioned the cause of freedom for religious intolerance that the Danes are currently undergoing. Maybe they don't exist either.

I assumed that the JREF was an international organization with an international perspective. Clearly I was wrong.

Diamond, perhaps I need to point out the abundtantly obvious. You are not his audience. His audience is quite clearly American. For more international Shermer action, consult his other books. Not everything has to include you.

[skepticdoc]

Not really. The campain the free cuba from the spanish was lauched from the US.

What is your source? You are showing complete ignorance about the Spanish-American War.

There were no Nations or territories left to conquer under in 1898 to start building an American Empire. The USS Maine had a fire from spontaneous combustion of oily rags in the engine room, and they accused the Spanish of torpedoing it. The Spanish Navy was ill equipped, all of their torpedoes leaked, none exploded, most of the American casualties were from Yellow fever.

Go somewhere else to sell your liberator propaganda!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
I assumed that the JREF was an international organization with an international perspective. Clearly I was wrong.

Why are you extrapolating an op-ed piece onto the whole of the organization?

[jj]

I assumed that the JREF was an international organization with an international perspective. Clearly I was wrong.

I think you're looking for something to fight about at this point.

[opqdan]

How is it possible for so many intelligent posters to completely miss the point of what I wrote?

I didn't criticize the US Constitution or the Separation of Church and State - quite the opposite.

I criticized the fact that Shermer appeared to be speaking entirely to Americans without regard for other countries. I sarcastically alluded that this sort of Americacentric crap is the kind of thing that is associated with poor white trash.

He could have written "Brits what is it with the bad teeth. Can't ya afford dentists?" and it wouldn't have been any more offensive.

What has Shermer said about Church/State Separation in other countries including the UK?

The actual formula is \sqrt{f*** all}The simple fact is that Shermer lives and votes in the United States. He has no say on what happens in others. Not that we shouldn't care what happens in other countries (we should) or that we should not try to get other country's policies changed (we should), but domestic policy trumps foriegn policy everytime.

If he went after the lack of separation of church and state in other nations, he would recieve tons of responses along the lines of "fix your own country first, idiot." That is exactly what he is doing here.

Maybe it was slightly out of place as many readers are located outside of the US, but you must remember that the JREF is an American institution (by that I mean on US soil and subject to US policy).

As a skeptic, I lose a little bit of "faith" in the whole movement whenever I see a (I assume) knowledgeable skeptic resort to writing/speaking like you did, with the ad hominem attacks and complete lack of respect for other points of view. Please stop, I know that you are better than this.

[Ian Osborne]

Diamond, perhaps I need to point out the abundtantly obvious. You are not his audience. His audience is quite clearly American.

That's kinda Diamond's point. And with a few tweaks, it all could've been avoided:

Here in America, I am sick and tired of politicians, and just about everyone else, kowtowing to the religious right’s hypersensitivities and politically correct “tolerance” for diversities of belief—as long as one believes in God—any God will do, except the God who promises virgins in the next life to pilots who fly planes into buildings. Those of us who do not believe in god have had enough of this rhetoric. In America, we are supposed to be good and do the right thing, not because it will make us rich, get us saved, or reward us in the next life, but because people have value in and of themselves, and because it will make us all better off, individually and collectively. It says so, right there in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights—products of a secular eighteenth-century Enlightenment movement.

Still an American talking from an American perspective, but without assuming his entire audience is also American.

Once again, though, 'Dumbass' was far too strong.

[Jesus Baby Daddy]

Amazing. You misunderstood what I said, and you managed to stretch this to a supposition that to dislike America is to dislike Bush. What flexible strawmen you can build!


Nah, Nope. I thunk me own thoughts. Living in this here trailor park unemployed gave me a lot of time to think of why you might be so against the fact that Mr Shermer wrote a brief blog, that didnt' include you. Yes the Bush thing is pretty much a given, so I just threw it in there. Quite frankly I can't think of anybody outside of the Saudi Royal Family that loves Bush, so I figure its pretty safe to assume a hater like yourself doesn't as well. If you love him then I apologize, but I sure as heck don't love him.
Strawmen?? (give me a min, I have to go look up what that is...OK, done) How the heck is that a strawman?
I think your just trying to deflect the fact you came off as rude for your overraction.
Look dude, face the facts. You were acting like a turd, and were called out on it.

[ImaginalDisc]

That's kinda Diamond's point. And with a few tweaks, it all could've been avoided:



Still an American talking from an American perspective, but without assuming his entire audience is also American.

Once again, though, 'Dumbass' was far too strong.

With respect, I must disagree. Diamond's point is that Dr. Shermer has somehow slighted him unforgivably by addressing Americans. This is silly.

[gypsynuke]

Who said anything about political correctness? I didn't.

It was implied. You're upset he didn't acknowledge everyone on the planet.


[/QUOTE] Let's go back to what Shermer did say:


Stirring stuff, makes me want to sing the Star Spangled Banner and wave the flag.

It's just that...I'm not in America. I don't have a written constitution to restrain my government, I don't have a Bill of Rights that means anything. I don't live in a state that guarantees freedom of speech or that separates Church from State (quite the reverse, in fact).

What does Shermer say? I might as well not exist. Shermer could have mentioned the cause of freedom for religious intolerance that the Danes are currently undergoing. Maybe they don't exist either.

I assumed that the JREF was an international organization with an international perspective. Clearly I was wrong. [/QUOTE]

It appears from what you've written that you're upset because you feel every discussion or statement about anything should include everyone. If we're discussing the AIDS crisis in Africa it would be wrong not to include Iceland in the converstion. A conversation about the IRA must involve what the Egyptian stance is on Catholicism and Protestantism. It would be blasphemy to talk about mardi gras in New Orleans without talking about carnivale in Brazil.
Shermer was writing about the United States. What happens outside the United States would be irrelevant to what he was saying.

[Numenaster]

Pascal's Wager

Well, see, that doesn't count as "yet" since it came after my post.

And I note that someone else thought of the same wrinkle that I was contemplating last night: there are many gods and pantheons in the world, who allegedly require very different behaviors from their adherents, and not all of whom promise a heaven OR a hell.

Pascal's wager is only a compelling argument if you ignore all those other gods. But since there's the same amount of evidence for all of them (i.e. none) it's not logical to privilege one with belief above the others. And since you can't ensure your entry into all possible heavens through belief in any one god or following one set of practices, life is simpler if you just ignore them all.:D

[Jesus Baby Daddy]

Actually you don't. Unless representing them as evil all of the time represents a form of love I am unaware of.

You must be joking?
I live here, and I honestly don't know of anybody who represents them as evil?
"some of my best friends are brits" :mdance: ;) I consider it my Motherland.
And most of the people on this forum that i've noticed ripping on them are doing it quite lite heartedly. "most".

[Ian Osborne]

You must be joking?
I live here, and I honestly don't know of anybody who represents them as evil?

Go watch 'Braveheart'. Then watch 'The Patriot'.

And if you're wondering why we Brits get a little peeved at Americans not realising the rest of the world exists, watch 'U-571'. It's based on a true story, y'know. Sort of. Remember the scene where those brave American sailors were drowned entering a sinking u-boat to retrieve essential code equipment? It really happened. Except in reality, they were British. What an insult to their memory...

[egslim]

Though I personally find Diamond's post over the top, I do agree with his point. Let me somewhat paraphrase Schermers quote:

"These cases of childabuse by Catholic priests must come to an end (1). We are Christians (2). Children need to be protected by their elders, not taken advantage of by them (3)."

I assume everyone agrees with (1), because of (3). (2) however, is either completely redundant or implies non-Christians are somehow less likely to hold this position.
Similarly, the "[...] This is America. [...]" - so what? Are non-Americans less likely to be good and do the right thing? If not, then why mention it?

Those aren't retorical questions, by the way. I think Schermer did it to appeal to American patriotism, to get the message better across. However, since any patriotism is generally a claim to superiority it will always be somewhat offensive to foreigners. Second, an appeal to patriotism is really an appeal to emotion - thus a logical fallacy.

[T'ai Chi]

Overall I liked Shermer's commentary because it is a nice chance from the commentaries that poke fun at someone or are the same things over and over.

There are some things that were odd, IMO, such as


I don’t mind eating cows and fish, but dolphins and whales have big brains and they’re cool, so I don’t think we should kill them.


Glad to know that one wouldn't kill something due to brain size and because something is "cool". Things with small brains, things we subjectively consider uncool, let's kill em?

And


As for evolution, it happened


And happens, of course.


I dislike how he confuses IMO a scientific outlook with atheism. They are not necessarily the same. At the beginning of the article, even in the title, he talks about science: "I believe in the power of science.. ". By the end of the article, he talks about "..those of us who do not believe in god..". He says "I don’t know why the God question is so interdigitated with political and economic issues, but it is.", but he himself brought up other issues when talking about the "God question", so why can't others?

[Kimpatsu]

Hmm... nothing to do with the fact that the British flag was generally the Union flag and that was white, red and blue - I always thought the USA flag was red, white and blue because that was the colours of lag material the first USA flag makers had to hand... :)
Not far wrong; it's actually the cheapest materials to hand, so many flags could be churned out quickly.
FYI, that's the reasons why British soldiers wore red coats; red was the cheapest dye available.

[Kimpatsu]

Those aren't retorical questions, by the way. I think Schermer did it to appeal to American patriotism, to get the message better across. However, since any patriotism is generally a claim to superiority it will always be somewhat offensive to foreigners. Second, an appeal to patriotism is really an appeal to emotion - thus a logical fallacy.
That's not patriotism, it's jingoism--an even worse emotion.

[aggle-rithm]

There are some things that were odd, IMO, such as

......

Glad to know that one wouldn't kill something due to brain size and because something is "cool". Things with small brains, things we subjectively consider uncool, let's kill em?






Ever hear of something called "context"? Google it some time.

[T'ai Chi]

Ever hear of something called "context"? Google it some time.

Vagueness. It's your friend.

[Nyarlathotep]

Go watch 'Braveheart'. Then watch 'The Patriot'.


The first is a movie about a Scottish rebellion against the English and the second is a movie about our own Rebellion agianst England. Who should have been portrayed as the bad guys in those movies, the Swiss?

I'm sorry that's just friggin absurd. There are a lot of movies about WWII. In those movies the villians are usually either German or Japanese, because those were our opponents in that particular war. So does it then follow that Americans hate the Germans and Japanese because they are usually the villains in WWII movies? Then we've got all those cold war spy movies with Russian spies as the villians. We hate Russians too. Oh and I can think of a few movies where Americans were plotting dastardly deeds against other Americans, so we hate ourselves too. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

To be brutally honest, I see a lot more hatred of Americans coming from the British than vice versa, around here.

[Hellbound]

Well said, Nyarl.

Since we're assuming that movies are directly representative of the populace, how about James Bond? That's, what, like twelve movies to your two? HAH!

It's far more common to see the Englishman as an ally or even the main character, than as the villian.

I have to agre,e most of the ill will I've seen flowing on the board comes west across the Atlantic. Of course, I don't go into the religion or politics forums, perhaps it's different there.

There's no institutionlized or general ill will towards the English here. IN fact, on of the tricks we used to pull when teenagers was talking with a British accent...the chicks dig it. England is regarded as one of our almost always allies on the world stage (as far as politics go), which means a lot (even if we aren't doing the best thing. If the U.S. tried to shoot itself in the foot, England would help us steady the gun :) ).

I think a lot of this "Americans hate the Brits" sentiment is projection, it's unfounded. First, it's a sweeping generalization that ignores the diversity present in the U.S., second, it's backed up by nothing more than opinion (no evidence), and finally, it's contraindicated by the stances taken by the countries in world politics, as well as in popular television and film.

[egslim]

That's not patriotism, it's jingoism--an even worse emotion.
While I agree with that, it really doesn't matter - appeals to emotion clearly don't belong at JREF.

I will add though, that I'm all open to hearing other explanations. As a sceptic should be. ;)

[Czarzy]

Not far wrong; it's actually the cheapest materials to hand, so many flags could be churned out quickly.
FYI, that's the reasons why British soldiers wore red coats; red was the cheapest dye available.

Why use dye at all? No dye = no expense.

Hypothesis (not original to me but to many historians and which I find logical) is that red was chosen in an attempt to make the gushing arterial blood from egregious battle wounds less visually (and therefore less viscerally and immediately) shocking to comrades.

Whether screams and smells of mortally wounded people you know, without the accompanying realization of blood, is less stupifying than JUST (dripping irony) those screams and smells: any evidence?

Let's NOT test that hypothesis.

[Nyarlathotep]

I have to agre,e most of the ill will I've seen flowing on the board comes west across the Atlantic. Of course, I don't go into the religion or politics forums, perhaps it's different there.



Nope. The politics forum is the worst for it, imo.

[Nyarlathotep]

Well said, Nyarl.

Since we're assuming that movies are directly representative of the populace, how about James Bond? That's, what, like twelve movies to your two? HAH!

It's far more common to see the Englishman as an ally or even the main character, than as the villian.




Oh, and Robin Hood, We have been making Robin Hood movies for DECADES. Of course the bad guys in those movies are as English as the good guys, so maybe that means we are conflicted.

Oh and Die Hard, the main villian is actually German but he is played by an English actor, I don't even want to think what deep down psychological ramifications that has.

And Austin Powers, the good guy is English but is played by a Canadian, the bad guy is Belgian and the villians #2 man (#2) seems like an American. So that means we like Canadians when they pose as English, we hate Belgians and we aren't fond of Americans working for the Belgians either, but since the villians in The Rock were American, we already know we hate ourselves. The villian has a tiny henchman, who is presumably also Belgian, since he is a clone of the first character. What that means, I have no idea. Maybe it means we hate Luxembourg, since it is smaller than Belgium, I dunno. Maybe it just means we hate bald midgets.

This is all so confusing.

[Nyarlathotep]

Amazing. You misunderstood what I said, and you managed to stretch this to a supposition that to dislike America is to dislike Bush. What flexible strawmen you can build!


So you dislike America but LIKE Bush? I gotta say, that's novel. I usually hear "I don't have aproblem with America but I don't like Bush", you are the first to switch that around. It's novel, I must say.

[Nitedawg]

What does Shermer say? I might as well not exist. Shermer could have mentioned the cause of freedom for religious intolerance that the Danes are currently undergoing. Maybe they don't exist either.

Diamond, I'm an American and I would have liked to have heard about the Danes current struggle regarding religious intolerance. And you could have enlightened me about that too, except you chose to spend all your energy spouting hate over an article who's only real fault is that it could have been worded better.

Every one in here has gotten your point already. We understand you feel slighted because he focused his article on an American audience and pretty much all we've been saying in his defense is that it was not done intentionaly. It looks to me like he cut an article from another place and just forgot to tweek it for an international audience. Is that really worth this much anger?

Now...what ABOUT the Danish struggle???

[Nyarlathotep]

It looks to me like he cut an article from another place and just forgot to tweek it for an international audience. Is that really worth this much anger?


Five bucks says it was originally intended for NPR's 'This I Believe' series.

[epepke]

How is it possible for so many intelligent posters to completely miss the point of what I wrote?

I didn't criticize the US Constitution or the Separation of Church and State - quite the opposite.

I criticized the fact that Shermer appeared to be speaking entirely to Americans without regard for other countries. I sarcastically alluded that this sort of Americacentric crap is the kind of thing that is associated with poor white trash.

I agree with you, and I'm even an American!

Actually the Sherman commentary reads to me like a few randomly selected paragraphs from the tail end of the first draft of a rant. However, in form, it might seem to be an abortive entry to that PBS/NPR (?) What I Believe thingie.

Just had a premonition. I will not defend or explain it, but I'm willing to put it on the line. Shermer will be running JREF five years from now.

[Diamond]

So you dislike America but LIKE Bush? I gotta say, that's novel. I usually hear "I don't have aproblem with America but I don't like Bush", you are the first to switch that around. It's novel, I must say.

It's entertaining to say the least that I have to qualify every statement. Perhaps I should have put this into the thread:

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/8/10540268_F_tn.jpg

To the point:

Shermer's sermon was an Americacentric nationalistic rant. What was it doing on Swift? Did Shermer realise who he was talking to? (Answer: No) Are people from other countries fighting for their political and religious freedoms or just Americans? With all that is happening recently in the defence of freedom of expression and liberty, with Danish, Norwegian and Italian embassies and citizens attacked, do you think Shermer could have mentioned them?

I'm absolutely certain that Randi would never have addressed only Americans on Swift. I can't recall Shermer ever addressing the issues of liberty in my country or anywhere else in Europe.

The idea of Shermer taking over the JREF in a few years is quite frightening.

[Ian Osborne]

Shermer's sermon was an Americacentric nationalistic rant.
No it wasn't, though it was mildly irritating that he chose to address America in an international newsletter. I agree with the posters who said his piece was probably intended for something else. Perhaps he was due to produce a Swift but failed to get it in on time, necessitating a late substitution and an indtroduction from Hal to pad it out?

[Antiquehunter]

Umm.. this thread is getting a lot of legs that are probably unnecessary. Was Shermer's commentary the best one ever posted? No. As I pointed out, I took (minor) issue with some of his statements as well.

But - considering Randi is recuperating, it was nice he volunteered to give us SOMETHING to rant about in the weekly newsletter.

Is this really worth getting our collective panties in a bunch over? In my opinion, no.

Shouldn't we be debating something much more worthwhile such as... the fact a distillery in Scotland is about to brew some 184 proof hooch?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060227/wl_uk_afp/britainwhiskyoffbeat

Personally, I doubt something THAT potent would have much taste beyond a pleasantly numbing burning sensation. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

-Hic!

[Nitedawg]

With all that is happening recently in the defence of freedom of expression and liberty, with Danish, Norwegian and Italian embassies and citizens attacked, do you think Shermer could have mentioned them?

Yes he could have mentioned them but SO COULD YOU! You could have taken his general message about the danger that religious zelotry poses to free speech and used it as a springboard to compare it to the assault on free speech going on in Europe.

That would have been the high road and would have reduced defensiveness and won respect. You then could have mentioned your irritation about the perceived Ameri-centrism in a more positive and constructive way.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Shermer coulda, Diamond coulda...Can we move on now?

One good thing about this extended rant...It helps remind us that being smart and skeptical does not protect us against emotionalism. It also doesn't make any of us perfect either. Not the Shermers, not the Diamonds, not even the Nitedawgs.

[JohnF_73]

Personally, I doubt something THAT potent would have much taste beyond a pleasantly numbing burning sensation. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I have drunk Bacardi 151 neat. (So potent, the bottle comes with a flame guard)

I bought some 160 proof absinthe in Athens last week. They sold it with shot glasses. I had to laugh.

The difference (4.5%) was quite noticeable.

But I didn't find anything "pleasant" about the sensation. 180 proof would probably put me off booze for life, and I certainly wouldn't put it in a shot glass and down it.

[Nyarlathotep]

It's entertaining to say the least that I have to qualify every statement. Perhaps I should have put this into the thread:

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/8/10540268_F_tn.jpg



Ah, but you said you like Bush but dislike America, that's the opposite point of that sticker or whatever it is. It is also the reverse of what I usually hear and I find that odd.

[valis]

You know, where in the constitution is this "fair trial" thing? I can't seem to find it.

Amendments V and VI.

[Ian Osborne]

180 proof would probably put me off booze for life, and I certainly wouldn't put it in a shot glass and down it.
I don't see how it's possible to drink anything that potent without water, which makes its extreme strength somewhat pointless. Unless you factor in the marketing angle and the endless free publicity they get for it, of course.

If anyone knocks back a wee dram as if it were a standard whiskey and dies or goes blind, I hope they get sued.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Personally, I doubt something THAT potent would have much taste beyond a pleasantly numbing burning sensation. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

I have drunk Bacardi 151 neat. (So potent, the bottle comes with a flame guard)

I bought some 160 proof absinthe in Athens last week. They sold it with shot glasses. I had to laugh.

The difference (4.5%) was quite noticeable.

But I didn't find anything "pleasant" about the sensation. 180 proof would probably put me off booze for life, and I certainly wouldn't put it in a shot glass and down it.


Nothing compared to Everclear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everclear_%28alcohol%29

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't see how it's possible to drink anything that potent without water, which makes its extreme strength somewhat pointless. Unless you factor in the marketing angle and the endless free publicity they get for it, of course.

If anyone knocks back a wee dram as if it were a standard whiskey and dies or goes blind, I hope they get sued.


I used to knock back straight Everclear, which is 180 proof. So it is possible.

[ranson]

Everclear is actually 190 proof. It was always fun as a liquor retailer to steer freshly-legal kids who had never had a drink away from the Everclear because they heard it was good. Most often, though, I only managed to steer them to purchasing the pint for a group of four instead of the half-gallon.

We also sold a bourbon that ranged up to about 140-150 proof. I was a hand-selected cask strength, so it varied a little. Booker's, I think? It was part of Jim Beam's small-batch bourbon line.

EDIT: Correction . . . Booker's only hits 127 proof at the top end.

[Nitedawg]

hooray we have moved on!

[aggle-rithm]

In those movies the villians are usually either German or Japanese, because those were our opponents in that particular war.

Not if you're German, Japanese, Finnish, Italian, or Swiss, or any number of other nationalities that were not one of the Allies.

Allied-Centric!!!

[aggle-rithm]

Vagueness. It's your friend.

Oh, good. I could use a friend right now. ;)

[Pyrrho]

Rumor has it that the next Guest Commentary will be from Sylvia Browne.

[RSLancastr]

Rumor has it that the next Guest Commentary will be from Sylvia Browne.And that it will be directed only to those people who live in Santa Monica, California.

On 5th street.

With even-numbered addresses.

[Walter Wayne]

Rumor has it that the next Guest Commentary will be from Sylvia Browne.I hope it doesn't target dead people, so many of the readers are alive.

[RSLancastr]

I hope it doesn't target dead people, so many of the readers are alive.You have to admit, we're in the minority.

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

I wanna hear about religious intolerance and the Danes!!!

[Hastur]

Wow that is scary! You mean that in the early days of America there was less religion in government? And over time it has slowly been getting more and more religous?
That would be an accurate statement. Religious folk stayed out of politics until Justice Black handed down the Court's decision in Engel v. Vitale. Then they really got upset.

But again, if there is no evidence of A, what logic tells you that there it is OK to assume A does not exist?
Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor: Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. Learn it, love it.

By doing this one is really saying 'I believe A to not exist' or 'I don't want A to exist', or 'I cannot conceive of A existing' or 'I am biased against A'.
No, what one is saying is "Because I have no evidence of A's existence, I will presume for the time being that A does not exist for the sake of keeping my theories clean. When I am provided with credible evidence for A, I will modify my theories accordingly."

[Jeff Wagg]

Rumor has it that the next Guest Commentary will be from Sylvia Browne.

Close..very very close. You will see.

[Mrs. Hmmphries]

Close..very very close. You will see.


Is it JE?!

Maybe a WE network reprisentative?
Ha ha.

[jj]

I used to knock back straight Everclear, which is 180 proof. So it is possible.

You should try some Stroh's Inlander Rum, then :)

[Nyarlathotep]

You should try some Stroh's Inlander Rum, then :)

I don't know that I could do it anymore. I am becoming a wuss in my old age. Heck, I think I only did it to show off anyway, back then.

[DrMatt]

And that it will be directed only to those people who live in Santa Monica, California.

On 5th street.

With even-numbered addresses.

With an E in their names. And either a T or an N.

My theory is that Everclear is ALMOST ready for use in automobiles.

[Flange Desire]

No, one does not. As mentioned, one can simply say

"I don't know either way since I don't know."

Not sure why one would have to come down on either side.

Excuse a bit of snippety-snip here, as I have not yet read through to the end of this thread, but ...

Surely the weight of evidence will determine which side of the fence you will come down on.

[valis]

That would be an accurate statement. Religious folk stayed out of politics until Justice Black handed down the Court's decision in Engel v. Vitale. Then they really got upset.



So it is incorrect to think that states had offical religions or that public servants had to be of certain faiths to hold office in early America? I have been terribly misinformed.

[Hastur]

So it is incorrect to think that states had offical religions or that public servants had to be of certain faiths to hold office in early America? I have been terribly misinformed.

This was certainly true within some of the states (there was no religious test for FEDERAL government employees). Madison recognized this in his Remonstrance and intended that as people expanded out westward and moved around that these state-established churches would eventually dissolve.
I could not say which states had established churches (my educated guesses would be Pennsylvania and Maryland), but I do know the Northwest Ordinances (which would include Ohio) had its own version of the Establishment Clause.

[Spiro]

Oh dear! Stand by for another blast from Diamond! This week's commentary is all about NASA. How could Phil Plait discuss a topic that's so obviously only to do with the USA? Doesn't he realize there's lots of countries out there with no space program at all whose citizens will be offended by discussion of such a US-centric topic in a Randi commentary?

Ouch. My tongue just penetrated my cheek!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oh dear! Stand by for another blast from Diamond! This week's commentary is all about NASA. How could Phil Plait discuss a topic that's so obviously only to do with the USA? Doesn't he realize there's lots of countries out there with no space program at all whose citizens will be offended by discussion of such a US-centric topic in a Randi commentary?

Ouch. My tongue just penetrated my cheek!

Dang! Beat me to the punch; I was on my way to this thread to post something similar.

[Number Six]

This is from the January 20 Swift commentary, which is the next to last real Randi commentary before TAM and then his surgery. I've included the whole section. He quotes a Maureen Dowd column that is obviously referring to the US and yet Randi doesn't qualify the remarks to say that they are US-specific.


SOME WISE WORDS

From The New York Times column written by Maureen Dowd:

Despite George Washington and the cherry tree, we no longer have a society especially consecrated to truth. The culture produces an infinity of TV shows and movies depicting the importance of honesty. But they're really talking only about the importance of being honest about your feelings. Sharing feelings is not the same thing as telling the truth. We've become a country of situationalists.

[The Bad Astronomer]

I guess I'm confused. An American writer, discussing a topic about America, on a website hosted in America, and run by Americans, needs to write about global topics every time?

(sarcasm off)

I'm watching my country (America, for those who haven't figured that out) being subverted by religious and political ideologues, and I decided to speak up about it. If you have similar problems in your country, then please also speak up, and maybe we can get a global perspective on it.

[treble_head]

I guess I'm confused. An American writer, discussing a topic about America, on a website hosted in America, and run by Americans, needs to write about global topics every time?

(sarcasm off)

I'm watching my country (America, for those who haven't figured that out) being subverted by religious and political ideologues, and I decided to speak up about it. If you have similar problems in your country, then please also speak up, and maybe we can get a global perspective on it.

pfff! Using your clever "logic" and "reasoning skills" won't help you this time! We need to take a broad and global view of everything so that everyone can feel all smug and included and stuff. Everyone knows global vision and political correcntess don't stifle us by trying to make us all the same. They nurture us by making us all the same. You're just one of those xenophobic, jingoistic and other long words type guys.

Sheesh. Next, somebody's gonna tell me you've got experience with these things and "credentials" and stuff.

You should read the commentary by the guy THIS week. Now THAT guy knows how to write.

[treble_head]

Owww... I think I impaled my cheek with my tongue.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Everclear is actually 190 proof.
I can't find 190 proof Everclear anymore. I last time I looked I could only find it somewhere around 150 proof (I don't remember the exact proof).

LLH

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I can't recall Shermer ever addressing the issues of liberty in my country or anywhere else in Europe.
:v:

[Antiquehunter]

Is that the worlds smallest violin-smiley playing just for Diamond?

[Nancarrow]

Ouch. My tongue just penetrated my cheek!

I take it you've been following the Everclear sub-thread then? Dude, you're not supposed to hold it in your mouth for any length of time!


(As a brit, I've never had the opportunity to try Everclear. But I have had the "pleasure" of that Stroh Rum. 80% by vol. Neat. My tongue was sore for most of the next day. For a disembodied bespectacled brain without a tongue to speak of, that's quite a feat)

[Gayle]

The idea that Americacentric crap is the kind of thing that is associated with poor white trash and that Shermer should get out of the trailer park and see a bit more of the world is probably the most offensive thing I have read in this forum. That is not a valid criticism of Shermer's commentary. It is a personal attack.

Just in case you don't realize it, Diamond, where I come from the terms you used are considered racist and hate-mongering against low-income people, generally of Scots-Irish descent. Perhaps in your limited and provincial world view you didn't realize that.

[T'ai Chi]

Parsimony, aka Occam's Razor: Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. Learn it, love it.


I have learned it, apparently better than you. :)

OR says that if you have two theories; T1 which has m assumptions going into it, and T2 which has n assumptions going into it, and both T1 and T2 explain event E equally well, choose T1 as the leading theory if and only if m < n.

If the event E is 'no evidence of object A', T1 is 'A doesn't exist' and T2 is 'A might exist', it actually seems that T1 is assuming more.

[catbasket]

If the event E is 'no evidence of object A (fifty three invisible pink unicorns tap-dancing naked on my dining table)', T1 is 'A doesn't exist' and T2 is 'A might exist', it actually seems that T2 is assuming more.
T'ai - I fixed your post.

ETA -
Do try and stay on topic.

Pot, meet kettle, meet T'ai, meet BHG.

:)

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai - I fixed your post (snip)


Your argument would be better if you didn't edit ones' posts.

Actually, you posit an A with contradictory properties, so your example is nonsense. Something cannot be both invisible and pink. Try again.

[catbasket]

Your argument would be better if you didn't edit others' posts.
T'ai, I fixed your post.
Actually, you posit an A with contradictory properties, so your example is nonsense. Something cannot be both invisible and pink.
The invisible pink unicorns are only invisible to people (like you) who do not believe in them. Us bleevers see them, and they look pink.
Try again.
Pot, meet kettle, meet T'ai, meet BHG.

Edit for speeling

Edit(2) for wahey, 100 posts! WAHGERTY11!

[T'ai Chi]

The invisible pink unicorns are only invisible to people (like you) who do not believe in them. Us bleevers see them, and they look pink.


I'm sure making up stuff as you go really makes you think you have a good argument.

Of course, we know the entire history of the IPU, who dreamed it up, when, the purpose behind it, etc. We do not know the same about god(s).

Try again.

[articulett]

Is it JE?!

Maybe a WE network reprisentative?
Ha ha.

JE will channel the dead miners that Sylvia Browne bumbled about!

[articulett]

I'm sure making up stuff as you go really makes you think you have a good argument.

Of course, we know the entire history of the IPU, who dreamed it up, when, the purpose behind it, etc. We do not know the same about god(s).

Try again.

I think he learned the "making it up as you go" stuff from You and Vitor.

[articulett]

I think he learned the "making it up as you go" stuff from You and Vitor.

And in his example--since you admit yourself that there is evidence behind IPU--it appears that that theory is more likely to be true.

Just because your version of T1 is not definable--doesn't mean that this undefinable thing is more likely to exist.

You've even twisted occams razor to help you support your shakey beliefs--amazing.

I love seeing how people fool themselves...it's charming, really.

[CFLarsen]

Something cannot be both invisible and pink.

Prove it.

[Pyrrho]

http://www.colourware.co.uk/cpfaq.htm

[CFLarsen]

http://www.colourware.co.uk/cpfaq.htm
This FAQ concerns the measurement and control of coloured surfaces such as plastics, textiles, surface coatings etc.

Doesn't say anything about the surface of unicorns.

[Pyrrho]

Doesn't say anything about the surface of unicorns.
What's the point of challenging people to prove that "invisible" and "pink" are mutually exclusive? They are demonstrably exclusive of each other. We can argue that a pink object can be invisible if cloaked in total darkness, and then it can be argued that it isn't pink anymore. We can argue that it's invisible to us, yet visibly pink if we use special filters. Maybe the IPU is made of hydrogen, in which case it wouldn't be a unicorn, yet could still be pink using false color. We can play innumerable logical games, all of them irrelevant, all of them exercises in sophistry.

The "Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a rhetorical device intended to demonstrate the logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance. It does not exist in reality, and we all know this.

The IPU is invisible because it is a concept. It is "pink" because someone picked the word "pink" instead of blue, red, green, or PMS 458, yet we all know that concepts have no color as color is most widely defined.

[T'ai Chi]

The "Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a rhetorical device intended to demonstrate the logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance. It does not exist in reality, and we all know this.


I understand that some like to pretend though, and pretend that IPU is a devestating argument. Of course, it falls on its face because we know everything about it.

[Pyrrho]

I understand that some like to pretend though, and pretend that IPU is a devestating argument. Of course, it falls on its face because we know everything about it.
Actually, it is a very effective way of showing the absurdity of arguments such as "you can't prove XYZ isn't true", the old trick of demanding that skeptics disprove claims instead of the claimant providing evidence.

The IPU device shows that any absurd claim can be made. Proving it true is the burden of the claimant. The skeptic doesn't have to disprove anything.

In the classic form, the arguments follow these lines:

Claimaint: "Psychic Joe hears messages from the dead and you skeptics can't prove that he doesn't!" (Argument: you can't prove it isn't so, therefore it's so)

Skeptic: "Well, you can't prove that I don't have an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my garage, but that doesn't mean I have an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my garage."

Claimant: "LOL, everybody knows there's no such thing as Invisible Pink Unicorns!"

We can't prove there isn't a God. Similarly, we can't prove there aren't Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Common sense tells us that there aren't, but if our basic claim is that anything is possible, well, then anything is possible.

IPU is often used to try to illustrate a simple logical concept to the willfully ignorant. If it fails, it is usually due to sheer obstinancy on the part of the willfully ignorant, not because the underlying argument is weak.

To take a real-life example, we can't prove that there aren't sea serpents in San Francisco Bay, but that doesn't make the pixelated video that has been offered as evidence into anything resembling evidence, let alone proof.

[Diamond]

Oh dear! Stand by for another blast from Diamond! This week's commentary is all about NASA. How could Phil Plait discuss a topic that's so obviously only to do with the USA? Doesn't he realize there's lots of countries out there with no space program at all whose citizens will be offended by discussion of such a US-centric topic in a Randi commentary?

Ouch. My tongue just penetrated my cheek!

Here's the blast. You have no idea why I wrote what I wrote.

[CFLarsen]

What's the point of challenging people to prove that "invisible" and "pink" are mutually exclusive? They are demonstrably exclusive of each other. We can argue that a pink object can be invisible if cloaked in total darkness, and then it can be argued that it isn't pink anymore. We can argue that it's invisible to us, yet visibly pink if we use special filters. Maybe the IPU is made of hydrogen, in which case it wouldn't be a unicorn, yet could still be pink using false color. We can play innumerable logical games, all of them irrelevant, all of them exercises in sophistry.

The "Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a rhetorical device intended to demonstrate the logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance. It does not exist in reality, and we all know this.

The IPU is invisible because it is a concept. It is "pink" because someone picked the word "pink" instead of blue, red, green, or PMS 458, yet we all know that concepts have no color as color is most widely defined.

Sure, it's a concept. But the point is: You can't determine how I "see" - experience - the IPU. If I see it as invisible and pink, then you are not to tell me that I am not experiencing this.

This would be tantamount to telling people that they are not talking to dead people. You can't do that, because it could be a possibility.

If I told you I could see infrared, would you believe me? That's invisible as well, but what if the receptors in my eyes showed the color as pink?

I understand that some like to pretend though, and pretend that IPU is a devestating argument. Of course, it falls on its face because we know everything about it.

You do?? Know? You know that the IPU doesn't exist? How can you determine that?

You argue the exact opposite point here, for Chrissakes! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51236&page=5)

[Pyrrho]

Sure, it's a concept. But the point is: You can't determine how I "see" - experience - the IPU. If I see it as invisible and pink, then you are not to tell me that I am not experiencing this.

This would be tantamount to telling people that they are not talking to dead people. You can't do that, because it could be a possibility.

If I told you I could see infrared, would you believe me? That's invisible as well, but what if the receptors in my eyes showed the color as pink?

That's an example of the sophistry I referred to earlier.

"Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a rhetorical device intended to show that any absurd claim can be made. Proving the claim is the burden of the claimant.

If you claim to see infrared, I would say, "Evidence, please." and "We can help devise a test to prove your claim."

Given what we know of the physiology of human vision, there's a very good chance you can't see in the infrared, but it's a testable claim. You'd have to prove it. I wouldn't have to disprove it.

If you claim to talk to the dead, I would say, "Evidence, please." and "We can help devise a test to prove your claim."

I can't prove that you don't have infrared vision. You can't prove that I don't have an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my garage.

[Pyrrho]

Here's the blast. You have no idea why I wrote what I wrote.
Explain yourself, then, and educate us.

[valis]

This was certainly true within some of the states (there was no religious test for FEDERAL government employees). Madison recognized this in his Remonstrance and intended that as people expanded out westward and moved around that these state-established churches would eventually dissolve.
I could not say which states had established churches (my educated guesses would be Pennsylvania and Maryland), but I do know the Northwest Ordinances (which would include Ohio) had its own version of the Establishment Clause.


But the point I am making is this. I get in a time machine and go back to 1790 I am going to see less religon in public and particularly government life, correct? And if I stop every ten years or so I will see how the republic started out with less overt religion in public life than today and how it has gradually been forced upon us by evil fundimentalists?

[RandFan]

What's the point of challenging people to prove that "invisible" and "pink" are mutually exclusive? They are demonstrably exclusive of each other. We can argue that a pink object can be invisible if cloaked in total darkness, and then it can be argued that it isn't pink anymore. We can argue that it's invisible to us, yet visibly pink if we use special filters. Maybe the IPU is made of hydrogen, in which case it wouldn't be a unicorn, yet could still be pink using false color. We can play innumerable logical games, all of them irrelevant, all of them exercises in sophistry.

The "Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a rhetorical device intended to demonstrate the logical fallacy of appeal to ignorance. It does not exist in reality, and we all know this.

The IPU is invisible because it is a concept. It is "pink" because someone picked the word "pink" instead of blue, red, green, or PMS 458, yet we all know that concepts have no color as color is most widely defined. Thank you. How and why people don't get this rhetorical device to demonstrate a logical fallacy is beyond me. I'm not sure which is worse, appealing to ignorance or asking someone to prove that invisible unicorns can't also be pink.

Logic, it escapes most of us from time to time. Some more often than others.

[drfrank]

I always thought the pinkness of the IPU was an article of Faith, whereas the invisibility property was considered self-evident.

[aggle-rithm]

I always thought the pinkness of the IPU was an article of Faith, whereas the invisibility property was considered self-evident.

To use a quasi-C.S. Lewis type argument:

Everything with the property of pinkness has a corresponding reality. Since the unicorn is pink, it must exist. The same goes for invisibility.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

But the point I am making is this. I get in a time machine and go back to 1790 I am going to see less religon in public and particularly government life, correct? And if I stop every ten years or so I will see how the republic started out with less overt religion in public life than today and how it has gradually been forced upon us by evil fundimentalists?

You're assuming linear growth, which may, or may not, correctly model the situation.

Consider though, "under God" was not added to the Pledge until 1954.

[Jekyll]

The IPU is invisible because it is a concept. It is "pink" because someone picked the word "pink" instead of blue, red, green, or PMS 458, yet we all know that concepts have no color as color is most widely defined.
Just for you (and randfan).

Invisible green dots.
http://www.patmedia.net/marklevinson/cool/cool_illusion.html

[ranson]

I can't find 190 proof Everclear anymore. I last time I looked I could only find it somewhere around 150 proof (I don't remember the exact proof).

LLH

A lot of companies adjust proof to meet local regs. West Virginia, for example, allowed the 190 stuff, while Virginia outlawed it. Since it's just grain alcohol, it's easy to dilute down to whatever the local legal maximum happens to be.

[/liquor subthread]

[LordoftheLeftHand]

A lot of companies adjust proof to meet local regs. West Virginia, for example, allowed the 190 stuff, while Virginia outlawed it. Since it's just grain alcohol, it's easy to dilute down to whatever the local legal maximum happens to be.

[/liquor subthread]

Yeah that is what I was going to do with it. My girlfriend needed lots of 100 proof alcohol for a project and I was trying to figure out the cheapest way to get it. I was thinking about just watering down 190 proof alcohol, but they didn't have it. I eventually just bought cheap 100 proof vodka.

LLH

[valis]

You're assuming linear growth, which may, or may not, correctly model the situation.

Consider though, "under God" was not added to the Pledge until 1954.


Well I admit in that quote I am using an example that implies linear growth. But from what I understand that is what people are complaining about. The religous folks want to now push religion into public life contrary to the historical seperation of church and state. Maybe I am wrong but I find this highly suspect. At what period was there LESS religion in public life? Not in my lifetime. I am 44 and I can remember prayer time in public school. For that matter I can remember evangelical groups being allowed to conduct assemblies in my public elemntry and middle school.

[Spektator]

I always assumed that the unicorns were infra-pink, a shade of pink beyond the realms of pinkness that we know on Earth. Perhaps the pink known to the unimaginable inhabitants of the dread planet Yuggoth.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I always assumed that the unicorns were infra-pink, a shade of pink beyond the realms of pinkness that we know on Earth. Perhaps the pink known to the unimaginable inhabitants of the dread planet Yuggoth.

I thought the Mi-go had hunted the IIPU to extinction...

[The Bad Astronomer]

Here's the blast. You have no idea why I wrote what I wrote.

That's an interesting admission. If someone didn't understand why I wrote something, I would take it as meaning I didn't write it very well.

[Ducky]

That's an interesting admission. If someone didn't understand why I wrote something, I would take it as meaning I didn't write it very well.


I don't understand.


Why did you write that?

[blutoski]

(erased, as it was posted prematurely during a system crash)

[blutoski]

Well I admit in that quote I am using an example that implies linear growth. But from what I understand that is what people are complaining about. The religous folks want to now push religion into public life contrary to the historical seperation of church and state. Maybe I am wrong but I find this highly suspect. At what period was there LESS religion in public life? Not in my lifetime. I am 44 and I can remember prayer time in public school. For that matter I can remember evangelical groups being allowed to conduct assemblies in my public elemntry and middle school.

I think it depends on how far back you want to go... the First Great Revolution was in the early 19th century.

[catbasket]

The spokesunicorn for the fifty three invisible pink unicorns who claimed to be tap-dancing naked on my dining table has now stated that they were in fact fifty three visible pink horses in fancy dress pogoing fully clothed on my dining table.

In light of this factual update I still assert that T2 is assuming more.

[Chris Haynes]

I can't find 190 proof Everclear anymore. I last time I looked I could only find it somewhere around 150 proof (I don't remember the exact proof).

LLH

HA! It is not even available in my state! Which means I cannot make a drink that my dad used to make around Christmas, Eier Likor (there are supposed to be two dots over the "o"). You beat 5 egg yolks with 5 oz. (7 Tbs) of sugar, then add 1 pint of Half%Half milk, 1 tsp of vanilla and 7 oz. of Everclear. Stir until mixed, and chill in the fridge.

Please label it, because it thickens and starts to resemble mayonaise. My mother made the mistake of spreading it on bread when she made her lunch one day.

By the way, I've noticed some people do get "whatever country they live in" centric. It is unfortunately natural.

Oh, I've been meaning to ask: Diamond, are you still looking for a job that will let you live in Hawaii permanently? Because if you are, you might want to try Panama. My dad always liked it better... similar terrain and weather, but much cheaper. Though now you have to deal with the more interesting politics (something with the fact that it has a Spanish Empire legacy versus a British one... at least the latter had a Magna Carta). There is still a large contingent of ex-USA folks (but also Canadian and other countries). You might like it... or try other places nearby surrounded by warm water like the Virgin Islands, Trinidad and Tabogo (or is it Tobago... one of which is in Panama, I keep mixing them up), Cayman Islands, the Bahamas or Bermuda.

[Hastur]

At what period was there LESS religion in public life? Not in my lifetime. I am 44 and I can remember prayer time in public school. For that matter I can remember evangelical groups being allowed to conduct assemblies in my public elemntry and middle school.
All right, let me break this down for you:
In the 19th century, there were no public schools; they were set up by Protestant determinist churches (Methodists and Baptists for the most part). Prayer was part of those schools' education cirricula. As far as most Christians were concerned at that point in time, everything was fine. They were giving people an education to bring along the Second Coming and the government was not going to stop them. There were no Patrick Robertsons or James Falwells creating Christian Coalitions to lobby Congress.
Fast forward some years and American begins receiving evangelical Catholics from Europe. These Catholics do not want their children being brought up in Protestant mores so they begin their own religious schools (the predecessor to modern-day parochial schools).
Fast forward again to the 1930s-1940s. The government is running its own public school with a secular curriculum. There has also been an influx of Jews from more theocratic countries (mostly eastern Europe and Russia) who fear that level of government encouragement of religion. At the same time, the Catholic schools are asking the government for financial aid equal to what the government gives the Protestant schools. This goes all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Justice Hugo Black, a Christian, member of the Ku Klux Klan, and an exemplar of what the modern lawyer is NOT supposed to be, is faced with a quandry: He could allow those "evil" Papists to have equal access to government financial aid (he can't just disallow them or the government is establishing a national religion) and allow them to spread their message to the masses, or he can just cut off all financial aid to all religious schools. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater but its still keeps those Papists poor.
And that is how the evangelicals got howling mad at the government over church and state. It wasn't because separation didn't exist; they always posited it did, at least in the Christian ethos of "give to Caesar what is Caesar's . . . " and they were to avoid Caesar as much as they could.

[petre]

I'm a bit nervous about the FSM and IPU becomming so popular. What if 2010 years ago someone tried using the same rhetoric style and said, "Suppose I say something totally against how we know the world works, like there's some guy that was born from a virgin, and that he died and came back to life..."

[catbasket]

I'm a bit nervous about the FSM and IPU becomming so popular. What if 2010 years ago someone tried using the same rhetoric style and said, "Suppose I say something totally against how we know the world works, like there's some guy that was born from a virgin, and that he died and came back to life..."
ThenT1 is 'A doesn't exist' and T2 is 'A might exist', it actually seems that T2 is assuming more.
Which, I think, was the point. ;)

[blutoski]

I think it depends on how far back you want to go... the First Great Revolution was in the early 19th century.

Sorry, I was on crack when I wrote this. I meant: First Great Revival.

[moopet]

Why use dye at all? No dye = no expense.

Because choosing a blank white flag as the symbol of your country may convey the wrong meaning? :)

[moopet]

OK, catching up quite late, I have to say something regarding the US-centric argument against Shermer's commentary:
People focussed on whether he should have written an article that was important only to Americans. Well, as has been said before, it's important to everyone - people who care about their American friends and people who care about the knock-on effects around the rest of the world. Of course he should write about what he knows, what's on his mind, etc, provided it's reasonably on-topic. It's been said before by a thousand people, it's hardly news, but it's still important opinion.
The problem is that when Randi writes, he writes little snippets about all sorts of different places and nobody cares - he says, "Meanwhile, in England, someone has done something completely trippy", and that's the rub. "In America" would have worked for everyone. "This is America" looks bad to anyone who isn't in America, and some will get offended, because he's a professional writer who knows he has an international audience yet alienates them, either by choice or by laziness.
It's a tiny turn of phrase but it will set anyone with any kind of misgivings about American attitudes against the remainder of the article, and make them notice things in the OP they probably wouldn't have otherwise.

It's very common on the Internet to see Americans being "patriotic" and making statements assuming all their readers live on the same bit of turf, and I don't know whether it's because they're the majority, but to my subjective eyes it appears that people of other nationalities don't have this tendency. In itslef, changing it might go some way to stopping more and more people from hating the US.

[CFLarsen]

That's an example of the sophistry I referred to earlier.

"Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a rhetorical device intended to show that any absurd claim can be made. Proving the claim is the burden of the claimant.

If you claim to see infrared, I would say, "Evidence, please." and "We can help devise a test to prove your claim."

Given what we know of the physiology of human vision, there's a very good chance you can't see in the infrared, but it's a testable claim. You'd have to prove it. I wouldn't have to disprove it.

If you claim to talk to the dead, I would say, "Evidence, please." and "We can help devise a test to prove your claim."

I can't prove that you don't have infrared vision. You can't prove that I don't have an Invisible Pink Unicorn in my garage.
It's not just a question of me being able to see in the infrared. It's also a question me perceiving it as pink. It's far from impossible, even: Eyes could be picking up infrared, and some people see some colors as something else.

Ergo, pink and invisible are not exclusive.

[RSLancastr]

It's very common on the Internet to see Americans being "patriotic" and making statements assuming all their readers live on the same bit of turf, and I don't know whether it's because they're the majority, but to my subjective eyes it appears that people of other nationalities don't have this tendency.I'm an American, and I think this tendency may be at least in part due to the size of our country.

I live on the West Coast (of the USA), and can drive 3,000 miles due east, and never leave the country. It is not uncommon for people here to live their entire life without ever being outside our national borders.

In many other countries, this isn't the case. The fact that you may have several other countries within a day's drive, and that all those countries have immediate effects on each other, helps keep it firmly in a person's mind that theirs isn't the only country around.

Back in 1999, I spent a few weeks in Europe on business, and one thing I noticed when watching the nightly news was that things happening in neighboring countries were nearly as prominent in local news as were events in the country I was visiting. For example, there was a mad-cow scare in Belgium at the time, which of course had a direct and imediate effect on all of the other countries I was visiting (Netherlands, England and France).

Here, unless a person lives near the Mexican or Canadian border, that just isn't the case. And even then, it's just the one other country which has an immediate effect on the locals.

For me, having grown up in Los Angeles county, California, even other STATES in the USA seem distant. It's a four-hour drive to the nearest state, and I could drive for 12 freeway hours due north and still be in California.

People who grow up in New England, where there are several, smaller states grouped together, have a different way of thinking about "other states." A person can live in one of those states and drive to work two states away. Here in L.A., that's a very foreign concept!

Here in L.A., it is very easy to think of other states as something which don't have much effect on us (whether it is true or not). And it is very easy to think of other countries as almost being on another planet entirely.

This is also largely responsible for the fact that so many Americans speak only English. In Europe (for example), you can't travel far in any direction without being in a country where your native language is not spoken. Here, that's just not the case.

So, when you notice an American on the Internet writing in a way which makes it obvious he or she isn't taking readers from other countries into account, please know that it isn't necessarily due to some misguided, "patriotic" snub of you furriners.

Sometimes, it isn't patriotism. Its just geography.