Showing posts with label Skeptics' Circle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Skeptics' Circle. Show all posts
Friday, July 03, 2009
Skeptic's Circle - On the Tendency of Skeptics to form Circles; and on the Perpetuation of Circles and Skeptics by Natural Means of Selection
It's up and running at HOMOLOGOUS LEGS. Head over and enjoy a very creative and clever circle by Young Aus Skeptic Jack Scanlan.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Skeptics' Circle 108
The 108 Skeptics' Circle is over at Podblack. We've gone from a podcast, to a youtube!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Skeptics' Circle 107 (Hunting Humbug 101 Podcast Episode 22)
This is the 107th edition of The Skeptics' Circle. And it's in the form of a podcast. Hunting Humbug 101 - Episode 22: Skeptics' Circle 107.
In the podcast we discuss the submitted posts. There's a great variety of material for you to enjoy. All the links to the posts discussed in the podcast are below. You can listen to the podcast by downloading the mp3 or using the embedded player below. Of course, you could go crazy and subscribe! (Warning - this is about half an hour of me speaking crap... some people seem to like it though.)
In the podcast we discuss the submitted posts. There's a great variety of material for you to enjoy. All the links to the posts discussed in the podcast are below. You can listen to the podcast by downloading the mp3 or using the embedded player below. Of course, you could go crazy and subscribe! (Warning - this is about half an hour of me speaking crap... some people seem to like it though.)
- Being skeptical is about having Epistemological Modesty.
- Karen Stollznow, argues how we should reclaim the word "skeptic". (Having a dirty mind helps too...)
- Romeo Vitelli gives us a history lesson. Different names, same old woo.
- Josh Zelinsky looks at the use, abuse and magic of electronics.
- Ron Britton draws parallels with ID and astrophysics.
- Socractic gadfly has a go at Schrodinger and his famous cat.
- Bob Carroll's entry is on one of my favourite frauds, Andrew Wakefield.
- Jack Scanlan attacks an article in the creationist publication "Journal of Creation" about gene duplication.
- Seth Manapio gives an example of a common misconception people have about evolution.
- Greta Christina says "Shut Up, That's Why". How do you talk to people about something they don't want to hear?
- Andrew evaluates the "minimal facts" of the historicity of Jesus.
- Danny looks at my favourite way of organising my beer fridge - Feng shui.
- Martin Rundkvist avoids investing with muppets.
- Kylie Sturgess, the next host has an interview with Dr Karen Stollznow, CEO of Aust Skeptics. But that's not as impressive as being 8 years old and psychic.
Next Circle in a fortnight - March 26 - at Podblack Cat. Head here: http://skepticscircle.blogspot.com/ for the schedule, guidelines, etc.
And these just missed the podcast.
- From David Gorski at the excellent blog Science Based Medicine: The incredible shrinking vaccine-autism hypothesis shrinks some more
- And of course, the man himself, Orac, on cancer quackery.
________________________
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Submissions for Skeptics' Circle
Just a reminder that the next Skeptics' Circle is here. I've already received a bunch of good posts but am happy for more!
Hit the contact page and send me your links - preferably straight the the email address - but just use the form if you're feeling lazy.
The deadline for entries is Monday the 9th of March!
(I make the deadline early but I'll almost certainly include late submissions.)
Hit the contact page and send me your links - preferably straight the the email address - but just use the form if you're feeling lazy.
The deadline for entries is Monday the 9th of March!
(I make the deadline early but I'll almost certainly include late submissions.)
Friday, February 27, 2009
Skeptics' Circle 106
The latest Skeptics' Circle is up at Disillusioned Words.
Guess what! The next one's here - March 12!
Hit the contact page and send me your links - preferably straight the the email address - but just use the form if you're feeling lazy.
The deadline for entries is Monday the 9th of March!
Guess what! The next one's here - March 12!
Hit the contact page and send me your links - preferably straight the the email address - but just use the form if you're feeling lazy.
The deadline for entries is Monday the 9th of March!
Thursday, November 06, 2008
99th skeptics' circle
The 99th skeptics' circle is up @ Ferret's Cage. Go and read it.
My post is this one.
Website:
Share on Facebook
Podcast:
My post is this one.
Website:
Share on Facebook
Podcast:
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Skeptics' Circle 97
Evolved and rational is hosting the 97th Skeptics' Circle. Even though I'm a skeptic, I've no doubt you'll enjoy it and find much food for thought.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Skeptics' Circle 95
The 95th skeptics' circle is up and more than worth a read. @ Skeptic's Dictionary.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Skeptics' Circle 90
It's on at the Millenium Project - an excellent site run by Peter Bowditch. It lists some of the WWW's most offensive websites. In Peter's words:
When I say that I am going to list offensive sites, that does not mean "adult" sites or even many of the more dim-witted hate sites. What really offends me is people telling lies to support a political agenda, or to exploit other people's ignorance, or to hurt and damage people with no good reason. Expect to see links to medical frauds, holocaust deniers, paedophile apologists, terrorist and survivalist groups, fanatics of all kinds, bigots, and all those other places which make rational people angry when they see them.And my favourite bit:
Owners of sites linked to from here may be offended and feel that I am holding them up to ridicule by calling them arseholes. Good. If they wish to send me messages telling me of their displeasure, I will publish them here. If they request that the communications be kept private, I will ignore the requests and publish the messages anyway. If they get really insistent on privacy, I will publish the messages here and also send them to newsgroups and mailing lists. Similarly, all communication from lawyers will be given the widest possible distribution, including relevant bar and legal associations. Written complaints will be scanned, published here and elsewhere, and otherwise ignored.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Vegas is a long way away
...but you can still have fun reading posts from the 89th Skeptics' Circle: The I'd Rather be in Vegas Edition at Ionian Enchantment.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
The GIGO fallacy
Here, at humbugonline, from time to time, we find the need to either coin or promote a name for a new type of humbug. Not necessarily because we have made an original discovery of a hitherto unidentified error in reasoning; but because there seems to be a niche for a new term. I.e., people have previously recognised the flawed reasoning, but have not yet given the flaw a name or the name is in not yet in common use. This could happen because the “new” form of dodgy reasoning has only recently gained prevalence and has not been dealt with before, or simply because an old term doesn’t encapsulate the error as well (in our view) as a new term. For example, I think I am right in saying we can claim originality to LAME claim (Look At Me Everybody), WTF? Fallacy, Argument by Artifice, Burden of Solution, and False Attribution, and promoting Appeal to Celebrity. There is a varying level of merit with these new fallacies. Some are more for humour than critical analysis. However, they do seem to “work”.
With that in mind, I was recently reminded of a concept that, though not yet explicitly recognised as a fallacy, has been used as if it is a fallacy. Given a google search does not produce a substantial result for “GIGO fallacy” I think I can claim some “originality” (for whatever that’s worth when you simply re-contextualise someone else’s idea). The closest I've seen it being used explicitly as a fallacy is by Gary Curtis.
GIGO is actually a reasonably well known (if you mix in my circle anyway) principle: Garbage In, Garbage Out. See this Wikipedia page for the history of GIGO.
The way I like to put it is Garbage In = Garbage Out.
My working definition for GIGO is:
Garbage In = Gospel Out.
(As with the original meaning of the second “G” in GIGO, I don’t claim originality to second “G” in this second version.)
The GIGO fallacy – Description
The advocate is certain his or her belief is true, even though the data, evidence or underlying theory used as the basis of the belief is demonstrably flawed or unsubstantiated. Another way of putting it is when the advocate treats conclusions leading from some poorly controlled or flawed data, unsubstantiated evidence or theory, as gospel.
Example
Rose Well is having an online discussion at AboveTopSecret.com, explaining to her friend Joan Mack why she believes there is “life out there”.
“The Drake equation proves it”, she says. “It states that: N = R* x Fp x ne x fℓ x fi x fc x L, where N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate; and R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy, fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets, ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets, fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point, fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life, fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space, L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
When you substitute all the right values into it, you get an answer of 5000! That means there are at least 5000 civilisations in our galaxy that we can communicate with. Imagine how many more there are in the entire universe!”
Joan Mack is a well respected psychologist and as such has an understanding of fallacies. She types back:
“Look, you can get whatever answer you want with the Drake equation – so long as you pick the input values that give you the answer you want. GIGO! I am happy to accept the equation itself as valid. But this doesn’t mean we can get any useful information from it. For example, we can calculate the strength of the Earth’s gravitational field (g) at the surface, using the equation: g = GM/r2. Where G = the universal gravitational constant, M = the mass of the Earth, and r = the radius of the Earth.
If we didn’t know the actual values for G, M and r, we could just choose numbers that “feel” right (i.e., based on our best guess). If enough people have enough guesses, we might even chance upon the right answer (9.8 N/kg), because the equation works (though this would be extremely unlikely in itself). However, we’d never know, because we were just guessing at the values we assigned to the input variables. Even if the equation is right, it is useless without the correct input data.
The problem with the Drake equation, why it falls into the GIGO category, lies with the parameters. There is no way to tell if the values we assign to the input parameters are garbage or not. Given the impossibility of assigning justifiable values to them, we can treat them all as garbage (though we can argue about which values stink more). All probabilities found using the Drake equation are therefore, to some extent, invalid (even if you accidentally guessed the right values). Some are more reasonable than others, but all the answers the Drake equations spits out still suffer from GIGO.”
Rose replies: “So, are you saying you don’t believe?”
“Of course not”, replies Joan. “Just that the Drake equation is not a good argument. However, in my practice as a psychologist I have specialised in treating patients who have been abducted and fiddled by aliens. Now that’s conclusive proof. Unfortunately the rules of doctor-patient confidentially prohibit me from backing up this claim with any specific evidence – other than the cash money I’ll no doubt make when my book comes out. I’ve also been very successful in treating my patients with my anti-alien mind control helmet.”
“Cool.” Types Rose. “Where can I order mine?”
More examples of GIGO:
With that in mind, I was recently reminded of a concept that, though not yet explicitly recognised as a fallacy, has been used as if it is a fallacy. Given a google search does not produce a substantial result for “GIGO fallacy” I think I can claim some “originality” (for whatever that’s worth when you simply re-contextualise someone else’s idea). The closest I've seen it being used explicitly as a fallacy is by Gary Curtis.
GIGO is actually a reasonably well known (if you mix in my circle anyway) principle: Garbage In, Garbage Out. See this Wikipedia page for the history of GIGO.
The way I like to put it is Garbage In = Garbage Out.
My working definition for GIGO is:
If the data, evidence or underlying theory used as the basis of a claim is flawed, then the claim and all conclusions based on it should be treated with great skepticism. (The claim and any conclusions may or may not be true; however there is simply no reasonable evidence either way.)From this principle we can derive the "GIGO fallacy". In this case GIGO stands for:
Garbage In = Gospel Out.
(As with the original meaning of the second “G” in GIGO, I don’t claim originality to second “G” in this second version.)
The GIGO fallacy – Description
The advocate is certain his or her belief is true, even though the data, evidence or underlying theory used as the basis of the belief is demonstrably flawed or unsubstantiated. Another way of putting it is when the advocate treats conclusions leading from some poorly controlled or flawed data, unsubstantiated evidence or theory, as gospel.
Example
Rose Well is having an online discussion at AboveTopSecret.com, explaining to her friend Joan Mack why she believes there is “life out there”.
“The Drake equation proves it”, she says. “It states that: N = R* x Fp x ne x fℓ x fi x fc x L, where N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate; and R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy, fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets, ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets, fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point, fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life, fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space, L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
When you substitute all the right values into it, you get an answer of 5000! That means there are at least 5000 civilisations in our galaxy that we can communicate with. Imagine how many more there are in the entire universe!”
Joan Mack is a well respected psychologist and as such has an understanding of fallacies. She types back:
“Look, you can get whatever answer you want with the Drake equation – so long as you pick the input values that give you the answer you want. GIGO! I am happy to accept the equation itself as valid. But this doesn’t mean we can get any useful information from it. For example, we can calculate the strength of the Earth’s gravitational field (g) at the surface, using the equation: g = GM/r2. Where G = the universal gravitational constant, M = the mass of the Earth, and r = the radius of the Earth.
If we didn’t know the actual values for G, M and r, we could just choose numbers that “feel” right (i.e., based on our best guess). If enough people have enough guesses, we might even chance upon the right answer (9.8 N/kg), because the equation works (though this would be extremely unlikely in itself). However, we’d never know, because we were just guessing at the values we assigned to the input variables. Even if the equation is right, it is useless without the correct input data.
The problem with the Drake equation, why it falls into the GIGO category, lies with the parameters. There is no way to tell if the values we assign to the input parameters are garbage or not. Given the impossibility of assigning justifiable values to them, we can treat them all as garbage (though we can argue about which values stink more). All probabilities found using the Drake equation are therefore, to some extent, invalid (even if you accidentally guessed the right values). Some are more reasonable than others, but all the answers the Drake equations spits out still suffer from GIGO.”
Rose replies: “So, are you saying you don’t believe?”
“Of course not”, replies Joan. “Just that the Drake equation is not a good argument. However, in my practice as a psychologist I have specialised in treating patients who have been abducted and fiddled by aliens. Now that’s conclusive proof. Unfortunately the rules of doctor-patient confidentially prohibit me from backing up this claim with any specific evidence – other than the cash money I’ll no doubt make when my book comes out. I’ve also been very successful in treating my patients with my anti-alien mind control helmet.”
“Cool.” Types Rose. “Where can I order mine?”
More examples of GIGO:
Friday, May 09, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
The Skeptics' Circle #85, "Looking Under Rocks"
is now up at Andrea's Buzzing About:
It’s amazing what you can find if you start looking under rocks. You can find isopods, fossils, a spare key to the front door, ant colonies, Hitler Zombies … and of course, the inevitable proof of physics (F = m*a) if you stumble and “OW!”
Thursday, March 01, 2007
I'm back!
The combination of changing both residential address and ISP has kept me quiet for a few weeks; I’ll start blogging it up soon.
In the meantime the 55th skeptics’ circle is up at The Second Sight.
In the meantime the 55th skeptics’ circle is up at The Second Sight.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Skeptic's Field Guide by Theo Clark and Jef Clark is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.