I did a larger write-up of the event on the Skeptic North blog, here: http://www.skepticnorth.com/2009/10/michael-shermer-in-toronto.html. You should go check it out!

However; perhaps a bit more interesting than a run-of-the-mill psychosomatic disorder, is the origin of the sudden interest in the topic. This sentence, found at the bottom of The Sun’s article*, might explain why:

Steve’s new Afterlife album, Electrosensitive, is out now on Defected Records.

*This is one of the articles quoted in the Ars article.

There was a live recording of the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe during breakfast, and the talks ranged from subjects on Big Foot and UFO Abductions to developments in the Anti-Anti-Vaccination movement.

I was especially glad to see that James Randi is not just still alive, but seems to be doing rather well, despite recent health problems.

And that’s not all! There are more talks to come tomorrow from Penn & Teller, Adam Savage, and Michael Shermer all giving talks, among many others.

A complete set of photos (so far) can be found below:

• Wednesday
• Thursday
• Friday

I would highly recommend coming out to this event if you’re in the area. It only costs $5 for students if you pre-order or your tickets. More information can be found below:

The War Between Science and Religion

Toronto, Ont. (October 10, 2008)—The University of Toronto Secular Alliance, in coordination with the Centre for Inquiry-Ontario, will present “Science Education: The War Between Science and Religion” with Dr. Paul Z. Myers, PhD, at 7:30 p.m. Friday, October 31 at the University of Toronto’s McLeod Auditorium, 1 King’s College Circle. A catered reception with the speaker will precede the event from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m at 216 Beverley St.

In America schools are fighting to keep evolution in their science curriculum while others are fighting to keep the religious movement of creationism out of their schools. This isn’t a fight happening only in America. In Alberta schools are facing the same fight. Here in Ontario we have catholic schools that are funded by the public. The publicly funded Catholic schools in Ontario frequently deny access to their schools to non-Catholic students, while we all pay for the schools to function. In fact funding to keep these separate school systems amounts to $200 million dollars for secondary schools alone.

Dr. PZ Myers has been a longtime critic of intelligent design in acedemia, and has written extensively on the topic on his popular website and weblog (http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula) devoted to scientific research of biology (specifically cephalopods), and criticism of religion and creationism. Earlier this year Dr. Myers was accused by the Catholic League of Anti-Catholic Bigotry, after he publicly criticized those who had sent death threats and hate mail to a young man who took a communion wafer back to his seat and didn’t consume it in traditional catholic behaviour. Dr. Myers job was threatened as the Catholic League asked the University of Minnesota to take legal action against his discrimination and anti-religious sentiments of the Catholic church. Dr. Myers has shown other signed of religious discrimination on his blog by ripping out pages of the Q’uran and throwing them in the garbage with “old coffee grins and banana peels”. Thankfully the school dismissed the call for action by stating that their faculty is allowed to express themselves however they see fit.

The Center For Inquiry Canada welcomes Dr. Myers October 31 for a presentation on the intersection of religion and science within education.

About the speaker:

Dr. Paul Z Myers, PhD is a professor of biology at The University of Minnesota, Morris campus. He works with zebra fish in the department of evolutionary developmental biology. His blog, Pharyngula is the most widely read science and atheism blog on the Internet. He is a self-avowed godless liberal and as such is one of the most vocal skeptics on all forms of religion, pseudoscience and superstition.

The Center For Inquiry Canada is devoted to the promotion of freedom of inquiry and expression in all human endeavors and as such this presentation is part of their ongoing Freedom of Expression Campaign which will host other such events such as a series of authors in November and December and a multi-faith panel on religion early next year. Please visit cfiontario.org for more information on these events. It was established in January 2007 as the premiere Canadian branch of CFI and as the nation’s first dedicated meeting and event space for humanists and freethinkers. The Centre for Inquiry-Canada is located in downtown Toronto, directly across College Street from the University of Toronto’s downtown campus.

For more information on the event and to arrange an interview with Dr. Myers, contact Katie Kish at (647) 267-5780.

In a series of studies for the Federal Aviation Administration, scientists simulated the effects of altitude, performing blood alcohol tests on groups of subjects who drank under ground-level and high-altitude conditions. They found no difference.

Go New York Times!
—

• NYTimes.com: Really? — The Claim: You Get Drunk Faster at High Altitudes

“Philosophy will clip an angel’s wings, conquer all mysteries by rule and line, empty the haunted air, and gnome mine unweave a rainbow.”

This criticism has been leveled both at me, personally, and has been leveled at the entire skeptical movement for quite some time. Most of the people I talk to about skepticism don’t understand why we have to go around raining on others’ parades. However, skepticism isn’t about parades or precipitation, but rather looking for the true beauty in the world around us, rather than settling for apparent surface beauty. Great skeptics, like Carl Sagan, have pointed out that we need not divorce our sense of wonder from our skeptical mindset in order to further scientific inquiry and understanding[1. Pale blue dot photo omitted for fear of violent reprisal.]:

“The size and age of the Cosmos are beyond ordinary human understanding. Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. In a cosmic perspective, most human concerns seem insignificant, even petty. And yet our species is young and curious and brave and shows much promise. In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival. I believe our future depends on how well we know this Cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.”[2. From Cosmos (1980) by Carl Sagan.]

Science has shown us that we can find more beauty through unweaving the rainbow then we could ever have hoped to find just by looking at, and being content with, the pretty colors in the sky. But there is another concern that is often raised about skepticism. Few people argue that logic and rationality lack a place in our understanding of the world, but some feel that skepticism fails to account for the magic and mystery of fantasy and fiction. Good stories are often capable of reaching people in ways that good logic and scientific inquiry often can’t, and appeals to emotion are able to evoke responses much stronger than can be generated through logic and reason.

To begin, it’s important to note that skepticism is not an attack on fiction. Like most people, I recognize the value of a good story, and would never give up my Science Fiction. The difference is that when I read a book, or a fantastic story, no matter how believable the author makes it, I can still distinguish reality from fantasy. I don’t actually believe that in some far-off galaxy, a galactic empire is at war with a group of rebels lead by the remnants of a Jedi order.

My problem is not with fictional or fantastic stories, but rather the people who believe them to be the truth. I wouldn’t even care if people chose to hold these beliefs personally; however, it’s rarely the case that a set of personal beliefs fail to manifest themselves in public ways. Humans tend to live and work together in closely-knit social spheres, and chances are that, sooner or later, privately held beliefs will find a way out into the public sphere. To a certain degree, there is nothing wrong with this, but once these beliefs start taking the form of religion-based public policy, and superstition-based public medicine, then these beliefs start to become a public issue. It is often the case that other people privately held religious or superstitious beliefs come to affect the way I live, and the laws that I have to follow. It is for this reason that it is so important for everybody to be able to be able to think critically, and be able to distinguish reality from fiction.

But there’s often a positive side to these beliefs. Religion, you could say, has motivated millions of people to do good things. “Who cares if the beliefs are irrational”, you might say, “as long as they result in a positive outcome.” A lot of religion teaches morality, charity, and a whole boat-load of other good things, but that does not make the beliefs themselves good. The problem does not lie with what religion teaches, but rather how it teaches. An appeal to emotion can often motivate people to be kinder, or more charitable, but it can also have the opposite effect. It can motivate people to carry out unspeakable acts of hatred or violence without thinking them through. Ultimately, faith and emotion are great at provoking radical responses – both good and bad. If we are to see these results as desirable, we must accept all of the bad consequences along with the good. I’d much prefer to live in a world which lacks either end of the radical spectrum. Good and bad people would still exist, but without an emotional cause to rally around, moderation would prevail[3. Granted, this will never happen, but it’s a nice dream]. Emotional appeals might yield quick results in the short term, but they are lazy, and ultimately do more harm than good.

And that’s why I’m a skeptic. I’m not cynical – I don’t believe that people are fundamentally bad, or beyond saving. I believe in humanity’s ability to think and reason. We’ve managed to barely elevate ourselves above our environments through these faculties, and so far, I like what we’ve found. I only hope that we never cease to yearn to understand the world. Since I could never hope to improve upon what has already been said on this topic, I will leave you with another quote from Carl Sagan:

“The choice is with us still, but the civilization now in jeopardy is all humanity. As the ancient myth makers knew, we are children equally of the earth and the sky. In our tenure of this planet we’ve accumulated dangerous evolutionary baggage — propensities for aggression and ritual, submission to leaders, hostility to outsiders — all of which puts our survival in some doubt. But we’ve also acquired compassion for others, love for our children and desire to learn from history and experience, and a great soaring passionate intelligence — the clear tools for our continued survival and prosperity. Which aspects of our nature will prevail is uncertain, particularly when our visions and prospects are bound to one small part of the small planet Earth. But up there in the immensity of the Cosmos, an inescapable perspective awaits us. There are not yet any obvious signs of extraterrestrial intelligence and this makes us wonder whether civilizations like ours always rush implacably, headlong, toward self-destruction. National boundaries are not evident when we view the Earth from space. Fanatical ethnic or religious or national chauvinisms are a little difficult to maintain when we see our planet as a fragile blue crescent fading to become an inconspicuous point of light against the bastion and citadel of the stars. Travel is broadening.”

So what does this video have to do with science/skepticism?

To me, this video encompasses the internet, and what it has become in the past few years. “Web 2.0″ as it has been dubbed is all about user contribution and social networking. With one video (Well, two, technically), we are taken all over the world, and we get to see things (in an entertaining context) that people never would have been able to see even 100 years ago. I love technology, and I love the internet. It provides me with entertainment, information, and has connected the world in such a way as to aggregate the awesomeness of billions of people.

We must never forget that science, and scientific inquiry, is what makes technologies like this possible. When global warming deniers and alternative medicine promoters get their views into the mainstream, they are helping delegitimize the scientific method. When religious leaders lobby to have intelligent design taught in the science classroom, they are undermining the future of scientific education. All of these great technologies that we have come to rely on, and the increased standard of living we have become accustomed to, are a direct result of the scientific method, and our focus on scientific education.

To me, this is one of the most important reasons to fight anti-science.

A 21-year-old kid telling you the way things are. Preposterous! What business do I have writing about science while I’m still in school, and not even taking a degree in science? Well… I’ll tell you.

Being who I am puts me in a unique* an appropriate position to comment on issues of science (and anti-science) in the media and popular culture. We have a systemic problem in our culture where science is often elevated above the heads of the average person, and in turn, the average person tends to turn away from science and skepticism and towards faith and credulity. However, this approach is certainly not an ideal one, and in a society like ours where science and technology play an integral role in how we live our lives, it can even be a dangerous one. One of the goals of this site is to show that anybody can (and should) learn to think skeptically, and embrace science as the oh-so-important part of our lives that it already has become.

The number of people and organizations out there who are willing to give you their take on the truth are just as numerous as ever. If you aren’t careful, it’s easy to get lost in all the pseudo-science, mysticism, and new age thinking. However, the truth isn’t something that is, or should be, only accessible to the spiritually enlightened, highly educated, or old/wise. It takes great minds to uncover the truth, but once we know what it is, there is nothing to stop everybody from learning and embracing it.

So who am I? I like to imagine I’m somewhat in the middle of all this. I have a casual interest in – and a fairly good grasp of – science, yet I don’t study or specialize in it. I’m just another average person with a keen interest in science, and want to know as much about the world around me as I possibly can, both so that I can make proper decisions, and just for the wonder of it all.

*It was pointed out to me that this probably wasn’t the best choice of words, since it isn’t really a unique position.

However, what nobody realizes is that this could all very well be a tactic on behalf of the International Creationist Conspiracy. The skeptical community is being lured into complacency by only having to respond to canned and unoriginal arguments. One of these days, a creationist is going to come up with a truly original argument, and then we’ll all be fucked.

Hume, in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, tells us that our ideas originate in things that we observe or experience. All ideas can be simplified to the point where they can no longer be reduced or defined; causation is one of these ideas. The only way to define these ideas any further is to look to the external source of these ideas. However, we notice the natural events that we call causal do not actually display this trait of causation. It would therefore appear that causation is not something that we can observe, but rather is something that we invent and project onto nature in order to explain certain patterns. However, failing to find causation in the places we would first think to look for it does not necessarily entail that we cannot find examples of causation. One such example, which is readily accessible to us, is our causal view of our identities, and using this example we can establish the existence of causation.

Certain ideas are so fundamental to our thoughts that they shape the way we view the world. One such view is that of the causal connection between events in the natural world. Hume defines these ideas as those, “…when we have pushed up definitions to the simplest ideas, and find still more ambiguity and obscurity…” (Enquiry, VII, 1). In other words, these ideas are those, which we cannot reduce to more basic definitional components. When we reach these ideas, we must ask how we can examine them. Hume posits “…that it is impossible for us to think of anything, which we have not antecedently felt, either by our external or internal senses.” (Enquiry, VII, 1) This means that all of our ideas are those things that are first experienced outside of us, and then internalized. Because of this, Hume says that the way we should go about understanding causation is to look to those things in nature that display cause and effect.

Where does causation come from?

We witness related events all the time. We will see a stationary billiard ball struck and then begin to move, or we will see lightning hit a tree and the tree will burst into flame. The aforementioned instances (and many others) form the basis for our view of causation. When we see these events happening in such proximity and with such regularity, we begin to say that A causes B. However, what do we really witness when we see these two events?

When the billiard ball is struck and then begins to move, we are witnessing two separate events: the event of the billiard ball being struck, and then the event of the billiard ball moving away. There is nothing that suggests that the two events are necessarily connected to one another, aside from the regularity of the connection. If in fact we had only observed the two proximate events once, we might never give the idea of a causal relationship a second thought. Causation starts to enter the picture when we repeatedly observe one event (or several events) following from a first event. However, nothing fundamentally changes between the first time and the hundredth time we observe the two events. The addition of causation is something not that we observe from the events, but rather something that we make up to explain why two or more events occur in such proximity and with such frequency. When we make the claim that ‘A causes B’, what we are really saying is that ‘when I regularly observe event A, event B follows shortly thereafter’. Causation is something that we make up in order to explain the regularity of this correlation; we then project this notion of causation onto nature[1]. This does not necessarily mean that causation does not exist, but it means that we do not observe it in what we usually think of as causal relations.

Apodictic vs. Empiric Truths

Hume believed in apodictic truths, which is to say he believed it impossible to know anything that is dependent upon contingent knowledge. The only things we truly know are those things that are necessarily true, and not merely contingently true. By this definition of knowledge, we know that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle will add up to 180 degrees, but we do not know that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is with this in mind that we draw the crucial distinction for Hume when he talks about causation. When we repeatedly witness temporally related events, we are not actually witnessing a connection between the two events to the point where we know ‘A causes B’. Rather, we come to expect the second event to follow after the first. Because we have not actually observed a reason for a necessary connection between the two events, we do not know that one exists.

Continuity & Identity

The question remains as to whether or not we actually experience causation in such a way as to adequately explain our idea of causation. Hume correctly pointed out that we do not observe causation in the natural world (Enquiry, VII, 1), but that is not to say that we do not experience causation. Humans live in four dimensions; meaning not only are we extended in space, but that we are also extended in time. Just as we have a feeling of connection between our bodies and arms, or with our hands or fingers, so do we have a feeling of connection between our past, present and future selves. We experience this causal connection, in that I know that my identity today is connected to, and dependent upon, my identity yesterday. Furthermore, we know that actions or decisions made in the present have a direct causal relationship with ourselves in the future. It is this internal experience of causation that provides the basis for our ideas of causation. It may be the case that this idea of causation is then projected onto temporally connected events we observe in nature. Regardless, unlike these natural occurrences, the sensation of the continuity of our identity across time necessarily leads to an experience of causation. It is these sensations that allow us to conclude that causation exists, and provide meaning to the term.

We therefore have a mechanism by which we can explain the existence of a causal connection that we do not seem to observe or experience in nature. This internal experience is what provides meaning to our idea of causation. This is not to say that causation does not exist in nature; merely that we do not observe it. Furthermore, the sense of causation obtained internally is not contingent, as are natural events. Whereas the sun not rising tomorrow might be highly unlikely, it is not absurd to imagine the possibility. Conversely, it is absurd to imagine that we could obtain any cohesive amount of identity should our identity not be necessarily causally dependent over time.