Minnesota Skeptic

My driveway is smarter than your driveway

2010-05-01T18:03:00.001-07:00

Well, at least until it rains, anyway...

This is a great way to keep your niece occupied and get a calc problem that you are working on done at the same time. And you know, there might even be a bigger lesson here that I could extrapolate from this little afternoon activity. Like how I made her tell me the product of 3 squared if she wanted to take her shoes off. And show her work. She's 5. But I think the point is that math can be fun whether you're five or you're twenty five. Oh, and that my driveway is totally smarter than your driveway.

Minneapolis Skeptics - May Drinking Skeptically

2010-04-29T11:15:00.001-07:00

Since I'm in the mood for posting skeptic meetups today, here is the May Drinking Skeptically meetup for the Minneapolis Skeptics here. It's at the Be'Wiched Deli, which I've heard some buzzing about as of late. Let's go and join the skeptical festivities!

SKEPCHICKCON 2010

2010-04-29T08:21:00.000-07:00

I would be infinitely remiss in my Minnesotan Skeptic blogger duties if I did not plug the 2010 Skepchickcon early and often. Long story short, for those who don't know, Convergence (http://www.convergence-con.org/) is an "annual convention for fans of Science Fiction and Fantasy in all media." It's akin to Comic-Con but is held in Minnesota and is pretty much a big deal in the science fiction/fantasy world. Here's where the geek slows down and the skeptic picks up; there is a skeptic track hosted by the marvelous and insanely sexy Skepchicks (http://skepchick.org/blog/). You can read about the event and the speakers that will be at the Skeptic track on their Facebook event page (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=257067676338). Yes, it is expensive ($55 before May 15 and $80 at the door). Yes, it will be totally worth it (did I mention the Skepchicks will be there?) Yes, you can probably get in on some of the skeptic fun anyway (if you can't afford the arm and a leg to get in for the weekend). However, I'm pretty sure that there are very few things that you will buy this year that will be as worth the money and also bring you as much fun, joy, and camaraderie as the skeptic track at Convergence. Were you not a total jerkface, that is. If you are going to go, buy the ticket early and save yourself the money. If you aren't planning on going, why are you still reading this blog? You should probably be YouTubeing Dane Cook videos and torturing small animals instead. Get it together, people.

In response to those who don't believe in evolution, moon landing, and global warming and why I think you are annoying

2010-04-26T07:21:00.000-07:00

Hey, I have an awesome idea. Let's take a stance that disagrees (against the near insurmountable and still growing body of evidence) with nearly every informed mind in science. That would make us sound really smart and on the inside. Even though all I have to back me up is some non peer reviewed internet sites or, at best, papers published and swiftly dismissed by experts in their respective field. The best way to sound like you are a science genius is to completely disregard the entire concept of science and to think that you know more than an entire field of experts who have dedicated their lives to exploring the precise topic you have declared yourself a new found expert in.

As ridiculous as this line of reasoning sounds, unfortunately, I meet people who employ this kind of reasoning nearly every day. They are a dime a dozen on the internet. Now, as a disclaimer, there are times when an entire field of experts are wrong. There are times when a renegade idea turns out to more accurately reflect reality than the accepted theories of the time. However, this case is relatively pretty rare, and is more often than not proposed by an educated expert in that specific field. A rather helpful aspect of science is that it is self correcting. Additionally, in order for this self correcting process to work, we need people to look at ideas with fresh eyes and question assumptions that other scientists make and take for granted.

Now, I am not really here to debate the issues addressed in the paragraph above. I just wanted to make sure I had that base covered before I get assaulted by commentors addressing those points. What I am here to talk about is hedging your bets. I'm not saying that there are any sacred cow theories in science that cannot be questioned. What I am saying is that there are good ideas in science, bad ideas in science, and ideas that we just simply don't know enough about yet to come to a consensus as a community. Now, being a man who likes to be occasionally right, which idea do you think I would take a stance on?

I like to make an analogy when thinking about this specific topic. If I were a gambling man who found himself at a horse racing track I would have many options. I could bet on a horse that is likely to win (in which case I would likely win) or I could bet on another horse that is less likely to win but offers a bigger payoff (I would be less likely to win). I could also make a side bet with a neighbor that a raccoon will dig itself up out of the ground, run the race faster than any of the horses, and be declared the winner of the race (I would have virtually no chance of winning, but let's say it is not out of the realm of possibility in this hypothetical situation). I liken the idea of choosing to not believe in evolution, moon landing, and global warming to those who bet on the raccoon. Admittedly, if the raccoon were to win the race I would be astonished at your foresight to make this bet with me. I would also be reminded by my common sense that there was really no way you could have known this outcome was going to come to fruition and just got extremely lucky in this specific example. However, the chances of this outcome happening are so slim that there are essentially zero chances I have to pay you off. In my mind, this is essentially the same case with those who choose not to believe theories that have withstood so much scrutiny that it is very unlikely that they could turn out to be wrong.

Why do people choose to believe wild theories and ideas that run counter to these well established ideas, theories, and facts? I have some ideas, but I think this format will be more fun:

People who disbelieve evolution, moon landings, and global warming

What you think you sound like:
Hey, I'm not one of those sheeple like you, you poor sucker. I'm not going to let the scientific community pull the wool over my eyes. I have read a blog post on a website that totally disproves hundreds of years of work and false belief in one paragraph. I'm such a genius that I can totally see through the lies of the establishment and one day you will all look back on me and think 'wow, that guy was so ahead of his time'. I'm probably going to spread the truth as soon as it is my turn in the conversation (related to this topic or not) because you poor sheeple deserve to know the truth about this and also the truth about my outstanding intelligence in the process.

What you really sound like:
Hey, I'm not one of those intelligent people who bothers to read up on things that interest me or keeps a skeptical mind towards things that so blatantly require it. I'm not going to let the scientific community help me understand the world I live in. In fact, I prefer my information to come from people who are the black sheep of their field, experts in other fields that think their expertise somehow magically transfers, or isn't an expert in anything at all, from what I can tell. I am easily convinced of just about anything that I read on the internet or hear through one of my conspiracy-loving stoner friends. I'm probably going to make you want to gouge your eyes out every time I open my mouth on this topic. In fact, even if this conversation has nothing to do with the topic that I have this wild theory about, I am going to steer it that way right away so you can get a chance to see how uncritical and annoying I am as soon as possible.

So, the long and short of it is that there are ideas, theories, and hypotheses in science that are not resolved yet. Evolution is not one of them. Neither is the fact that we landed on the moon. Do you want to take a stand on something in science that you have a feeling towards one way or the other? Awesome! That rocks! There are so many things unresolved issues like this that no matter what your interest, you could certainly find somewhere to hedge your bets that is not akin to a raccoon winning a horse race.

In fact, there are some pretty heady ones like this (like quantum theories of gravity, for example) that would make you sound really smart if you were to bring up in conversation. So go for it! If you were to bring up a quantum theory of gravity that you are totally married to at a cocktail party, I would think you are a pretty smart, savy, and engaged person that I find interesting and want to know more about. If you are intent on citing debunked theories of how we did not land on the moon, I am going to be looking for any excuse to politely excuse myself and stay as far away from you as possible. Not because we can't debate this, but because the truth is out there and so accessible that if you were interested in the truth you would have already found it. Some people might not know the difference between some old, tired, debunked alternative theory to evolution and some legitimate debate in science, but I do. And there are more people like me everyday thanks to the free exchange of information and the continuation of science education. Your time of not being dismissed as a lame, uneducated crackpot are rapidly coming to an end.

04-26-10 UPDATE

2010-04-26T07:04:00.000-07:00

Hey Skeptical guys and gals and otherwise,
So, here's the deal. I had tried to make a run at creating a society devoted solely to skeptical issues in the Twin Cities with a close high school friend of mine. I viewed this as important because, as far as I could tell, there was not a group in Minnesota devoted solely to this purpose. However, shortly after this initial push, my friend moved to St. Louis for law school and my time and energy were swallowed up by the University of Minnesota undergraduate physics program. However, this does not mean I have given up, this just means that we will have to wait a little bit longer. I fully intend to continue this push just as soon as my schedule allows and I will continue to post updates on this page about the progress. I will also be posting skeptical news on this blog, with extra attention to those events which concern Minnesotans specifically. I will also be blogging here about all things skeptical and science-y with a relative magnitude of greatness. Thanks to everyone who showed interest and please stay tuned!

Also, please notice the three top links on the blog that link to organizations in the Twin Cities that tackle skeptical issues as part of their broader agenda. Also, I will make sure to post here their events that I find relevant to skeptical minds, so follow my blog or check back often!

11-20-08

2008-11-20T16:30:00.001-08:00

Wow, I have been putting this off for awhile. Every time I have had a good thought or idea to post about I have not had the time to do anything about it. Then it seemed every time I did have the time to post I was just brain dead or uninspired. I'm not sure which one of those I am right now, but I do have some data to report back from the real world. I have recently learned that it is quite difficult to try to bridge two parts of yourself that used to both be independent of each other. It is akin to trying to force two magnets together at their north poles. At first it resists, but if the magnets are small enough and you are big and strong enough you can force them together in an uncomfortable, if unsustainable pair. I think this is the difficulty of trying to have the best of both worlds. I suppose there must be some kind of drawback. There is no free lunch. However, right now I am happy with this uncomfortable, if unsustainable person. I have recently been able to really appreciate beauty more deeply and in more places than ever. Beauty in science, beauty in logic, beauty in art, beauty in acting on your damn animal instincts in a structured way, beauty in nothing, beauty in being bored, the beauty in just being aware of time passing and precious, irreplaceable moments fleeting me, the beauty in getting drunk, strutting like a peacock, and pounding on your chest like a gorilla- but not all necessarily in that order. There can be order and chaos. There can be disarray and structure. However, I might forewarn the unsuspecting. It is not easy. Whether you are someone who is all over the place, flying by the seat of his pants, trying to schedule your life more carefully, or someone who normally plans his every day down until the last minute trying to just break out and do something crazy. Prepare to spend a lot of time at each one of the poles of them when they are really fighting it. But if you can somehow weather the storm you will come out a new, improved, better-than-ever butterfly from the cocoon, but more like a Frankenstein with bits and pieces from everywhere bolted together. Gotta go. Time for a show. Something I see more of in my future. Just as long as I'm home by a certain time. And I only have a certain number of beers. And I make sure to floss my teeth and rinse too, for a long time this time, I'm serious, when I get home. OK, so maybe I got the worst from both worlds. Whatever- at least I've got 'em.

Why Science Chose Me

2008-09-20T08:08:00.000-07:00

Those who know me know that this is definitely a valid question and/or discussion. For someone who spent 10 years as an athlete in multiple sports, spent 15+ years as a musician, has a degree in politics, and who has embarked on a nearly infinite number of other, different paths, one might legitimately ask; what it is about science that "stuck"? I'm glad you asked! Instead of explaining why I chose science over every other thing I've ever been interested in, I will instead just use a few examples from my life that I spent the most time pursuing and then I think you will get the underlying logic that applies to other examples. Or if you don't then I haven't accomplished my goal here and I will undoubtedly need a sequel or need to do some serious editing!

Why I chose science over sports

I will readily admit that this argument is a little weaker in the logic department but is really more of a personal reason. I believe that the true nature of sports is not personal accomplishments for the individual, but inspiration for everyone else in the world but the athlete. Any athlete that knows any history about their sport knows that records are only established to be broken. I hate psychology (soft science) but I am quite confident in stating that we record achievements in sports so at some later time we can surpass these benchmarks and believe that we are improving as a collective species. No matter how fast you can cover a distance of 400 meters on foot, how far you can throw a chunk of lead without your arm going with it, or how many golden cylindrical discs you win at a big meeting of athletes and sports enthusiasts, I can almost guarantee you, at some point, someone will one-up you. For all those athletes out there that this is the first time they are hearing this, I'm sorry to be the one to break the bad news. But there is a gray lining.

As I said, I don't believe that the importance of sports lies in the current recorded feats. It lies in the inspiration that these incredibly talented and dedicated people give to the rest of us. When someone is having a hard time dredging through 8 hours of waiting tables, or operating a machine that makes EasyMac (I love you Chris!), or whatever ungodly task you are set to for your daily acquisition of resources, just knowing that the human body is capable of so much more can really help put your life in perspective. Knowing that Samuel Wanjiru can run 26.2 miles in just 2 hours, 6 minutes, and 32 seconds makes me feel as if though 8 hours of contract administration (sitting on my ass) and 5 hours of math and science night classes really isn't that brutal. Especially when you take into account the thousands and thousands of miles that Samuel had to run in order to prepare himself for this incredible feat. However, I was not in sports for this reason. I was in the sport for personal acheivements and other personal reasons. Admittedly, I am not a great big-picture person. I would offer from experience that those involved in sports for these reasons will probably not last. Drawing your strength from a single source (yourself) just can never achieve the same result as drawing your strength from the entire world. I believe sports are important (this may surprise those who know me, especially because I do not often follow many sports) but I could not distinguish from personal motivations to why sports are really important, and, alas, it did not last.

Why I chose science over music and arts

The logic is a little more substantial here. I suppose this is to be expected since I have had much more experience with arts and music than anything else in my life. The importance of the arts is once again not so much in personal accomplishments, at least not the way it is dealt with in this context. The importance of arts is the inspiration and effects that the artist has on its audience. The right artist, with the right exposure, has the chance to change the world and the way people see it. However, this is very infrequently the case. One only has to do a little browsing on Wikipedia to realize how many bands there have been that have never really done anything but entertain people for an hour or two at a time and how few bands have really made an impact like, say, the Beatles (feel free to pronounce "the Beatles" in your head in some funny European accent, I do).

The more common use of music and art is simply entertainment, which I do believe is important. However, I feel that it is important to distinguish that I am not saying that any of these pursuits like athletics, arts, or politics are not on some level important, but just that I regard them with less overall greater importance than I do science. Arts, to me, are like a drug (another area where I unfortunately have a little too much expertise). When you are high (experiencing the art, the culmination of the artist's work) you are whisked away to a world where your problems are not as important, if they still exist in your conscious mind at all. When I listen to Hide and Seek by Imogen Heap, for 4 minutes and 22 seconds my problems do not exist. Patterns are not being run through the algorithms in my brain. Pressing problems are not being attacked by my logical conscious mind. I am not concerned about my daily whining. I am free. Just like when I am running, playing music, or being a drunkard.

However, like being high on drugs, at 4 minutes and 23 seconds of Hide and Seek (or at some point), the high is over. I am no longer free, and, in fact, I am now further from where I need to be than when I started. This I where I think the arts are sort of weak in their overall intrinsic value. For a while you feel better, but then when you come back to reality the same problems are still there biting you and have often even compounded while you were escaping them. You might have forgotten about your bills for a few hours while you were smoking weed and eating Funyuns but when you come back down they are still there, often with late fees if my stoner friends are any indication. This is not to say asprin, music, movies, and booze don't have their function in a well moderated life but it is to say that I do not think they can hold a candle to science. Science can be just as enjoyable and gratifying as watching a good movie, and when the credits roll on our experiment we are one step closer to a cure for cancer. Or we are one step closer to curing alzheimers. Or we are one step closer to understanding ourselves. Arts make you feel better for a little while but science actually makes us better, more often than not, forever.

Why I chose science over politics

After getting my undergraduate degree in Urban Studies (basically a catch all, urban politics degree) from a Big 10 University I seemed poised to skip, hop, and jump onto graduate school, maybe get my PhD., and get a lucrative job as a planner or city council member at some big, shiny city hall in some big urban city. I said poised. The problem was, I was drowning in politics. After spending some time with friends that had hard science degrees, I realized that I hadn't really learned much about anything but how to manipulate people and referee the rich and the poor. How sad, I thought. Boiled down, politics usually makes you the big kid in the sandbox who is not a bully.

There is often a bully in the sandbox (the rich) and a small, weak red headed kid (the poor) who are both desiring the same, much sought after toys to play with. It is not hard to imagine the bully ending up with all the toys. Politics injects kids who are capable of being bullies (artifically, with political power, but also brute strength when required, see Wikipedia: "police", or "U.S. Army") into the sandbox to make sure that everybody shares, and hopefully does not use their power to take all the toys for themselves. This is the ideal working of politics from my understanding.

However, the saddest part, to me, is that this amounts to society more or less admitting the intrinsic selfish nature of the human race. We have decided that without big guns and laws and threats of punishment up to, and including, death, we cannot get along. There will never be a group of kids in the sandbox that will just share. There will always be at least one kid big enough to take all the toys and leave all the other kids bored and, in our case, starving to death. As sad as this is, I suppose that maybe this is correct and politics is a necessary evil. However, if you are starting to see a common thread you may predict that I do not discount the importance of politics I just suggest that, to me, there is something of even greater importance.

Now imagine there is a kid in the sandbox that figures out a way to make toys from sand. This kid is able to make enough toys so that even when the bully takes most of the toys he wants, there are still enough toys left over so that every kid can have at least a few to play with. I would say that this kid is an even more important addition to our sandbox than is the kid who is large but not a bully. As you might have guessed, this kid is our scientist. This kid does not simply referee the game but changes it completely, forever. The large kid who is not a bully simply referees for the time being, but after these kids leave and a new group of kids comes to the sandbox, there are still only a finite number of toys that the new kids will undoubtedly fight over. After the scientist is gone, the new toys are still there. They have changed the sandbox forever, for everybody. Especially if he leaves a note to future kids on how to make even more toys. I think politics is important and necessary but I do not think that it is even apples to apples when compared to science.

Why science chose me

What I have been discussing thus far is prety straightforward, although it did take me awhile to come to these conclusions. Perhaps the most shocking thing to me is how the rest of the world regards these things. What do most kids want to be when they grow up? A professional basketball player or an entomologist? A rap superstar or a biochemist? Who inputs these desires into their minds? Surely not every kid is born with the burning desire to score touchdowns. They must have been programmed for this at some point. Perhaps even more startling is the economy behind the whole operation. Do your homework: how much money is spent on professional sports every year? On music and entertainment? Politics and government? How about science? I can assure you your research will return very discouraging results. You will find that a very, very small and disproporationate percentage of the overall economy is spent on science and research. Ask any graduate physics student that can't afford groceries. I'm sure they will be more than happy to give you a healthy earful of their economic problems. It is simply not enough (at least in my mind) to say that I chose science because it sucks less than politics or anything else I can come up with. This is a good reason to not do any of the rest of the options but not a solid idea of why I should do science. The reason I choose science is because science needs me. And you. In fact, right now science and critical thinking need all the help they can get. Although I will caution you: do not get into science for the reasons I got into sports. No matter how genius you are, no matter how many breakthroughs you make, no matter how many long standing ideas you overturn, there will always be someone better who will eclipse your accomplishments before they even graduate high school. That is just the way it is. We are evolving, still. There will always be someone better, faster, stronger. If not now, someday. Sooner rather than later, usually. Do science for everyone, for ever. Do science because you could be that kid who leaves the note in the sandbox. Do science because I quite frankly do not know who invented the process that gives us beer, but boy am I glad he did. That is why I chose science, or rather, why science chose me.

Welcome Letter

2008-09-18T18:32:00.000-07:00

Dear Member,

Welcome to the Minnesota Skeptics Society! The Minnesota Skeptical Society is a non-profit organization based in the Twin Cities to promote critical thinking and skeptical inquiry in Minnesota and among our members worldwide. We strive to debunk paranormal claims and provide information about pseudoscience to better inform and equip our society. Our society's goals include:

Creating a new generation of critical thinkers through lively discussions, demonstrations, and lectures at various venues throughout the Twin Cities

Demonstrating to the society the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.

Discussing current events and using critical thinking to rationally analyze claims made by the media and other organizations

Fostering and nurturing a community, online and otherwise, where skeptical inquirers can meet and discuss ideas

We have recently acquired the domain http://www.minnesotaskeptics.org and also will be posting on our blog at http://minnesotaskeptics.blogspot.com/. We will be launching our website soon and we will be setting a monthly time and date where and when the Minnesota Skeptical Society will meet. The society can be reached at MinnesotaSkeptics@Gmail.com. We are also pleased to announce that the Society is currently recruiting volunteer employees as well as new members. We especially need help with getting the website up and operating. I have business cards for whoever wants them, and the society is, as always, encouraging members to reach out to non-members and try to encourage them to join or participate. Many people are already skeptics at heart, but just do not know it yet. Some people just need a little extra push in the right direction. We are still in the beginning stages, so things are moving slowly as of yet. We would also like to extend many warm wishes to our former head, Robert W McCoy, who is suffering from Alzheimer's Disease and is no longer able to head our Society. We cannot stress enough how much volunteers would be appreciated at this point, as every skeptic has some valuable skill to offer, and hopefully, a little time. Please please please forward the Gmail address to anyone who you think might be interested and we will make sure to get them added to the mailing list and the register. Also, here are a few links to enjoy and peruse until we get our sites up and operating at full speed and thank you very much for your interest!

http://www.randi.org/
http://skeptoid.com/
http://skepchick.org/blog/
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/
http://www.csicop.org/

Thank you very much and we look forward to seeing you soon!

Sincerely,
Jason Brisson
Minnesota Skeptics Society
Head
MinnesotaSkeptics@GMail.com