tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-309708752024-03-07T13:10:58.943-05:00InfophiliaKnowledge is power. Information is key.Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.comBlogger211125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-1508963815829912532012-09-07T16:00:00.001-04:002012-09-07T16:00:10.977-04:00The US government is punishing whistleblowers and protecting criminalsAlright, I've finally gotten mad enough to be broken out of my blog hiatus (slash-abandonment). Here's the situation: The US government has now blocked all prosecution of people who have committed war crimes, including torture, under the Bush administration. I don't mean that these people were tried in court and found innocent. I mean that the Obama administration went into court and argued that they shouldn't be tried at all.
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/31/obama-justice-department-immunity-bush-cia-torturer">Not one person has even been tried for committing torture in the name of the US government.</a>
Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/durham-torture-cia-obama-holder">the Obama administration has gone ahead and prosecuted whistleblowers</a> who have exposed war crimes committed by the government and its agents. <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/john-kiriakou-cia-leak-investigation">John Kiriakou revealed the torture techniques being used by the Bush administration</a>, and he's being tried for it. Bradley Manning revealed various war crimes being committed by soldiers in Iraq, and <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/12/17/bradley-manning-wikileaks-alleged-sources-life-in-prison.html">has been subject to inhumane conditions of imprisonment for months on end</a> before even facing trial. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Want to argue that these people deserved to be tried, as their revelations of classified information can indeed do real harm? Fine, that's an argument we can have. Want to argue that they deserve to be prosecuted, while those who committed the various harms they exposed should be protected? No.
The US government has made it the case where you're safer committing a war crime than you are exposing one. If this doesn't stop, future generations of government agents will feel they can get away with anything, and the government will protect them for it.
I've had enough. I've started a petition on whitehouse.gov to demand a response on this issue. <a href="http://wh.gov/DQkz">You can find it here</a>, and I strongly encourage you to sign it, and to spread word of it. I need your help to get the Obama administration to respond to this. We have a chance to make sure they listen. Let's take it.
Now, I know people have a lot of reasons why they don't sign petitions like this, so I'll take a moment to address them:
1. It probably won't do any good.
This may be true. But it also may be wrong. In the end, this is often pulled out as an excuse not to try to make a difference. I've done it myself, I admit, and I've come to regret those decisions.
There are many types of "slacktivism" that have little to no chance of making a difference, such as forwarding chain letter petitions, changing your Facebook picture for a day, etc. With this one, if it reaches 25,000 signatures within the next 29 days (from the time of posting this), we can at least make someone in the administration realize that people care about this. At the very least, they'll have to try to explain their logic to us. Hopefully this will make them think twice about prosecuting whistleblowers or blocking prosecution of war criminals in the future. They might even drop prosecution of current whistleblowers, or not put as much effort into it. It's too late to go back and prosecute most war criminals that have gotten off, but that doesn't mean we can't help protect those who exposed these crimes.
2. I'm not a US citizen/resident.
The website does not actually require a US citizenship to sign a petition. You can see the terms of participation <a href="https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/terms-participation">here</a>. Nothing about citizenship or residency is ever mentioned. There is a field for entering a zip code when registering, but it's not a required-entry field.
In short, non-citizens and non-residents are allowed to use the website, just as citizens and residents are.
3. It's a hassle to sign up.
Perhaps it is. It wasn't that hard for me, but it's possible that other people with different browsers will have more issues. I encourage you to at least try. Think about it this way: If 25,000 people go through the hassle of signing, the total time they've used up will only be a small fraction of the amount of time Bradley Manning has spent in solitary confinement for exposing US war crimes, and it could save people in the future from having to put up with this. (At two minutes per person, that's about a month worth of time used, compared to over a year of solitary confinement for Manning.)
To add to this, once you've signed up once, it's a lot easier to sign future petitions on the site. You only have to go through this "hassle" once.
Please, <a href="http://wh.gov/DQkz">sign this petition</a>, and then help spread the word about it.Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-45506184822484122222008-12-23T14:22:00.003-05:002008-12-23T14:27:08.805-05:00What's the difference, really?It seems the US has let its bigotry seep through once again, in refusing to sign a UN resolution against it:<br /><br /><blockquote>According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race; on the federal level, blacks are not allowed to serve in the military.<br /><br />Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the United States -- despite its unwillingness to sign -- condemned any human rights violations related to race.</blockquote><br /><br />EDIT: After copying this, I noticed that there may have been a couple of transcription errors in the quote. I apologize for any factual errors, but I do not apologize for the overall message, which remains unchanged.<br /><br />Hat tip to <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/12/us_refuses_to_sign_un_resoluti.php">Ed Brayton</a> for bringing this to my attention.Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-5923802683559811922008-10-28T15:08:00.002-04:002008-10-28T15:16:35.450-04:00Six random things*is stirred from sleep by <a href="http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2008/10/six-random-things.html">a metallic canine</a>*<br /><br />Rules:<br /><br />1. Link to the person who tagged you.<br />2. Post the rules on your blog.<br />3. Write six random things about yourself.<br />4. Tag six people at the end of your post and link to them. (let's pretend this one doesn't exist, okay?)<br />5. Let each person know they've been tagged and leave a comment on their blog.<br />6. Let the tagger know when your entry is up.<br /><br />In any case, here we are:<br /><br />1. I haven't stopped reading skeptical blogs, I just don't have time to post anymore.<br /><br />2. The reason I haven't had time to post is that I'm deep into graduate school, studying astrophysics.<br /><br />3. To keep sane in what spare time I have, I mostly occupy myself with video games.<br /><br />4. I do still get ideas for posts every once in a while, but I'm never able to get myself to sit at the computer long enough to write them without being dragged into work I still have to do.<br /><br />5. I have a book open to where I need it for work next to me at this moment, and my work in another window.<br /><br />6. Okay, something that doesn't have to do with work... I got a new girlfriend a bit over a month ago.Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-48358875580929079452008-06-24T13:52:00.002-04:002008-06-24T13:58:27.918-04:00Reverse Censorship, RebornWith the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/06/23/carlin.obit/index.html">death of George Carlin</a>, I've decided to come out of pseudo-blogging-retirement to honor him in the only way appropriate: By declaring a week of <a href="http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2007/04/reverse-censorship.html">Reverse Censorship</a>. For this week, I will consider the use of any letter profane. They must instead be replaced by the following alternatives: (The list has been changed a bit in honor of George.)<br /><br /><span id="fullpost">A as "The Asshole-letter"<br />B as "The Bitch-letter"<br />C as "The Cunt/Cocksucker-letter"<br />D as "The Damn-letter"<br />E as "The Epidermis-letter"<br />F as "The Fuck-letter"<br />G as "The God-letter"<br />H as "The Hell-letter"<br />I as "The IDiot-letter"<br />J as "The Jesus-letter"<br />K as "The Knockers-letter"<br />L as "The Lesbian-letter"<br />M as "The Motherfucker-letter"<br />N as "The Nigger-letter"<br />O as "The Orgasm-letter"<br />P as "The Piss-letter"<br />Q as "The Queer-letter"<br />R as "The Retard-letter"<br />S as "The Shit-letter"<br />T as "The Tits-letter"<br />U as "The Unclefucker-letter"<br />V as "The Vagina-letter"<br />W as "The Whore-letter"<br />X as "The XXX-letter"<br />Y as "The Yarbles-letter"<br />Z as "The <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=zuffle">Zuffle</a>-letter"<br /><br /></span>Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-80445754827360468512008-06-11T13:35:00.003-04:002008-06-11T13:38:36.213-04:00Poll Crashing, Astro-StyleIt appears that the poll of the day over at <a href="http://www.gamefaqs.com">GameFAQs</a> is "Do you believe humans actually landed on the moon?" <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/">PZed</a> seems to have a lot of fun with poll crashing, but I suspect that if he landed on this one, he'd ask people to choose the "I don't believe the moon actually exists" option just to mess with <a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog">Phil</a>. I won't tell you guys what to vote for, though. you know what to do.Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-2821166195107863042008-05-02T14:22:00.003-04:002008-05-02T14:51:26.329-04:00Lessons in quote-mining #1<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Lesson #1: Don't quote-mine the person you're trying to convince</span><br /><br />You may remember Dana Ullman, noted homeopath who doesn't know the difference between <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wanderer57/Problem_with_Homeopathy_Discussions">this page</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wanderer57/Problem_with_Homeopathy_Discussions&diff=194939851&oldid=194900463">this page</a>, and who thinks magic water can cure cancer. Well, he's now taken the stupid to another level.<br /><br />Right at the moment, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy">an arbitration case</a> is going on at Wikipedia looking specifically at his behavior (arbitration is Wikipedia's equivalent of the Supreme Court), and also surrounding issues related to Homeopathy. To put it metaphorically, Dana's in a hole. Now, everyone knows that the first thing you're supposed to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. However, Dana's a homeopath, and he believes that like cures like. So he keeps digging himself deeper. (He did consider briefly diluting the digging process, but he reminded himself that dilution was only to remove side-effects. It's the succussion (shaking) that does all the work, so he mixes in beating himself in the head with his shovel.)<br /><br />To break from the metaphor, what a smart person would do when they find themself in this position would be to refrain from any possibly argumentative behavior and compose themself as well as possible. Not Dana. He keeps up arguing all over the place, causing just the same problem. You know, in case the other evidence against him gets stale. I could dig into a lot of it, but I'll stick the one most idiotic example. In this, Dana quote-mines the very person he's arguing with, and then argues that his quote-mined version is correct and this person is wrong about what he means.<br /><br />The idiocy in question takes place at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Potassium_dichromate&oldid=208575124#Frass.2FChest_Paper_was_archived">talk page for Potassium dichromate</a>. You can read through the linked section yourself to get the full picture, but allow me to sum events up. On this page, one editor, Scientizzle, made the following comment:<br /><br /><blockquote>I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Potassium_dichromate&oldid=207227219#Homeopathy" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Potassium_dichromate&oldid=207227219#Homeopathy" rel="nofollow">simple inclusion</a> that directs the reader to <a href="/wiki/List_of_homeopathic_preparations" title="List of homeopathic preparations">List of homeopathic preparations</a>, which <i>is</i> an appropriate place to deal with the topic. (Even at <a href="/wiki/List_of_homeopathic_preparations" title="List of homeopathic preparations">List of homeopathic preparations</a>, I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & <i>nothing</i> else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.<sup>[ref]</sup>" statement). — <a href="/wiki/User:Scientizzle" title="User:Scientizzle">Scien</a><i><a href="/wiki/User_talk:Scientizzle" title="User talk:Scientizzle">tizzle</a></i> 22:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Later on, Dana tries to use this to justify including a mention on the current article:<br /><br /><blockquote>Scientizzle, no, not at all. Did you see your words: "I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a simple inclusion that directs the reader to List of homeopathic preparations, which is an appropriate place to deal with the topic.... I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & <i>nothing</i> else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms. " <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APotassium_dichromate&diff=207290774&oldid=207229636" class="external autonumber" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APotassium_dichromate&diff=207290774&oldid=207229636" rel="nofollow">[30]</a> It is interesting how you chose to not give the entire quote from your posting at that same time. You clearly say that you're NOT against inclusion...this strongly suggests that the conversation is open. I hope that you will stop stonewalling. You did recommend providing reference to this study in at least a minimalistic way. Therefore, I continue to assert that the archiving of the active conversation is part of a bullying behavior conducted without consensus, in a <a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:TE" class="mw-redirect" title="Wikipedia:TE">WP:TE</a> manner with the audacity to inaccurately blame me for TE. <a href="/wiki/User:DanaUllman" title="User:DanaUllman">DanaUllman</a><sup><a href="/wiki/User_talk:DanaUllman" title="User talk:DanaUllman">Talk</a></sup> 05:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)</blockquote><br /><br />Note the ellipsis in Dana's quote. Now go back to what Scientizzle actually said (section that was cut out now bolded):<br /><br /><blockquote>I am not as against the inclusion of homeopathy information as others here...Assuming the case for this being a remedy of note is solid, I support a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Potassium_dichromate&oldid=207227219#Homeopathy" class="external text" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Potassium_dichromate&oldid=207227219#Homeopathy" rel="nofollow">simple inclusion</a> that directs the reader to <a href="/wiki/List_of_homeopathic_preparations" title="List of homeopathic preparations">List of homeopathic preparations</a>, which <i>is</i> an appropriate place to deal with the topic. <b>(Even at <a href="/wiki/List_of_homeopathic_preparations" title="List of homeopathic preparations">List of homeopathic preparations</a>,</b> I can't see the published state of the research--i.e., Frass et al, & <i>nothing</i> else--meriting more than a minimalist "it's use has been investigated to treat COPD symptoms.<sup>[ref]</sup>" statement<b>)</b>.</blockquote><br /><br />Note how the section that Dana cut out completely changes the meaning (which is exactly what you want to do when quote-mining). The problem, however, was that he was quote-mining the very person he was arguing with. Of course Scientizzle knew that wasn't what he meant, and he could easily point out this quote-mine. How the hell did Dana expect this to convince him of anything?<br /><br />Let me spell this out: Quote-mining is a dishonest tactic that makes you look bad when it's discovered. When you quote-mine the person you're arguing with, you're not only guaranteeing you'll be found out, but you're also ensuring that you'll not only look dishonest, but stupid too. That, in a nutshell, is Dana Ullman.Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-10124859418048970272008-03-21T18:18:00.003-04:002008-03-21T18:45:38.633-04:00Maybe they're just stupidA lot of skeptics have written about how intelligent people can be tricked into believing incredibly stupid things. But I think that sometimes, we get so caught up in listing the human fallacies in thinking that lead to such conclusions that we fail Occam's Razor: Maybe these people are just stupid.<br /><br />Bringing this to mind is the recent event you've all surely heard of by now: PZ Myers was <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php">expelled</a> from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/a_late_night_quick_one.php">Expelled</a>, while Richard Dawkins wasn't. There's no way around that one. It was simply a stupid move.<br /><br />However, a few other examples you probably haven't heard of, coming from my dealing with homeopaths over at Wikipedia:<br /><br />First, there are my interactions with <a href="http://www.homeopathic.com/main/bio_dana.jsp">Dana Ullman</a>, prominent homeopath. There are many things I can point to, but I'll limit it to one instance completely divorced from homeopathy. In this portion of a conversation, I try to explain to him how to link to a specific edit made on Wikipedia, and he's completely unable to see how this is different from linking to a section of a page. The conversation on Wikipedia is a bit disjointed, but you can see it <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Infophile#Response_to_your_question">here</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DanaUllman#Diffs">here</a>. Piecing together the relevant portions of the conversation (with some formatting changes):<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><blockquote>...For future reference, when discussing particular actions, what's most useful to others here is pointing them to the record of the specific edit which was made (the "diff"). In this case, it's at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wanderer57/Problem_with_Homeopathy_Discussions&diff=194939851&oldid=194900463. I generally get these by going to either the modification history of the article or the user's contributions, and then clicking on "last" of the line of the applicable edit and copy that address. The advantage to this method is that it goes directly to the relevant message and you also don't have to worry about forgeries, deletions, or archiving. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)</blockquote><br /><blockquote>I got your response. Thanx...but didn't I do just what you have suggested in the original posting that I made at Randy's user-page to which I linked in my Incident report. I am relatively new to wiki and am trying to be as collaborative as possible. Even though you and I don't usually agree, I hope that we can move beyond our own POV to create good NPOV stuff. DanaUllmanTalk 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)</blockquote><br /><blockquote>The difference is that you're linking to the sections in which the comment is made. When these are large, it can be harder to find the relevant comment. Try comparing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wanderer57/Problem_with_Homeopathy_Discussions">the link you used</a> with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wanderer57/Problem_with_Homeopathy_Discussions&diff=194939851&oldid=194900463">the link I showed you above</a>. You see how the one I used shows his comment directly?<br /><br />Also, be careful about exaggerating. On the admin's noticeboard, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=197067702&oldid=197067318">you claimed that Randy was wishing death</a>, though I see none of this here. Though if he did do this someplace else, I (and some admins as well) would be interested in seeing it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)</blockquote><br /><blockquote>(I posted this at my user-page, but to make your life easier, here it is) I assume that you somehow didn't read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Randy_Blackamoor#You_misquoted_me">what Randy wrote</a>: "You are a monster who sells nonsense to the sick, and the sooner you die the sooner the world will be a better place. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)<br /><br />Is being called a "monster" and wishing me to die soon any type of civility? Do you still think that this is civil and that it warrants a simple week's penalty, while many anti-homeopathy editors are seeking to ban Whig primarily because he has a good backbone for defending a minority viewpoint. DanaUllmanTalk 01:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)</blockquote><br /><br />Witness how in his last comment, Dana doesn't make any further reference to how to use Diffs, and demonstrates that he still doesn't get it by failing to use one where it would be appropriate. Maybe he's just stupid.<br /><br />And for a final example, I present to you a homeopath who doesn't understand what it means to be banned: Dr. Jhingadé. There's just no way to sum up the distilled stupid of this "doctor." I'd recommend you simply read the following sections of the talk pages: "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_32#Placebo.3F_Quackery.21.21">Placebo? Quackery!!</a>", "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_32#Read_this_Dr._Jhingad.C3.A9">Read this Dr. Jhingadé</a>", and finally, proving that even Dana Ullman thinks he's an idiot: "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scientizzle#Hmmm...">Hmm...</a>"<br /><br />If there's a lesson to take here, it's that not all woos are simply deluded by fallacies. Some are simply idiots.<br /><br /></span>Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-86517603894234093002008-03-01T16:46:00.003-05:002008-03-01T16:51:20.042-05:00Even when ghosts exist, psychics are still uselessSometimes you find a good dose of skepticism in the oddest places. Take today's <a href="http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0534.html">Order of the Stick comic</a>. (Spoiler warning if you intend to read it, which is why I'm not copying the image here.)Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-89004328382238793472008-02-17T18:01:00.002-05:002008-02-17T18:43:11.518-05:00A Skeptic's Guide to Wikipedia (Part 1)<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >Why Wikipedia Matters</span><br /><br />Imagine, if you will, a Mr. Joe Blow. Joe's your typical guy, unversed in the complexities of medicine, who one day finds an odd rash on his neck. He shows it to a couple of colleagues at work. One of them recommends he goes in to have a dermatologist look at it. The other, however, argues that that would be a waste of money. It would be a lot cheaper for Joe to go to the alternative medicine portion of his local pharmacy. There are plenty of things there that could cure a rash like that. Maybe some Homeopathy would be all he really needs.<br /><br />Now, Joe hasn't heard much about Homeopathy before, and he's getting conflicting messages from his colleagues on whether it's worth trying. So, when he gets home from work, he logs onto the internet and runs a quick <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Homeopathy&btnG=Google+Search&meta=">Google search for Homeopathy</a>. The first search result is from "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page">Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a>." Well, that sounds good, so Joe goes to read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy">Wikipedia's article on Homeopathy</a>. He starts by just reading the first paragraph:<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">Homeopathy</span> (also homœopathy or homoeopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" + πάθος, páthos, "suffering" or "disease") is a form of alternative medicine first defined by Samuel Hahnemann in the 18th century.<sup>[1]</sup> Homeopathic practitioners contend that remedies for diseases can be created by ingesting substances that can produce, in a healthy person, symptoms similar to those of the disease. According to homeopaths, serial dilution, with shaking between each dilution, removes any negative effects of the remedy while the qualities of the substance are retained by the diluent (water, sugar, or alcohol). The end product is often so diluted that it is indistinguishable from pure water, sugar or alcohol by laboratory tests but is still claimed to have an effect on consumers.<sup>[2][3][4]</sup> Practitioners select treatments according to a patient consultation that explores the physical and psychological state of the patient, both of which are considered important to selecting the remedy.</blockquote><br /><br />Now, what Joe takes from this paragraph depends a lot on his previous biases and knowledge. He might zero in on the part which says that homeopathic remedies generally are nothing but diluted water, and if there is anything left, it would just harm him. Or, he might focus on how it's been used since the 18th century and is argued to be able to cure his ailment. Or maybe he'll note from the last sentence that if he really wants it to work, he should be visiting a professional homeopath rather than simply picking something out from the drug store.<br /><br />Each person will be different here. Many will only read the lead section, a few will read the whole article, while others might skip down to sections that interest them to read about it. But the net result is that Wikipedia is the primary source of information for many people in the current age of the internet.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost">Homeopaths realize this. So do <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic">Chiropractors</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design">Creationists</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology">Scientologists</a>, and people who think <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding">Waterboarding</a> isn't torture (or at least don't want others to think it is). You can see their incentive to go in and edit Wikipedia to be more favorable to their viewpoints, so that people who read these articles will come out with a positive view of their subject, and maybe then they'll go see a Homeopath to treat their ailments.<br /><br />On the other hand, the pro-reality viewpoint doesn't have quite the same incentive to edit there. There's no direct benefit to us like there is for the anti-reality types. All we have to go on is the general incentive for why we do this: To help others avoid wasting their money or risking their lives. All of our reasons for blogging on skeptical topics apply also to Wikipedia. It's just one more place to reach an audience who's seeking information.<br /><br />But most don't bother. In a conversation on Wikipedia recently, one notable skeptic <a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=47#comment-1313">described editing Wikipedia</a> as seeming like "a long run for a short slide." Personally, I disagree. If we put as much effort into improving Wikipedia's articles as we did into blogging, I think it would have just as much, if not more, impact. The other problem he raised was that it just seemed futile. Well, maybe alone it is. That's why I'm making this post, so that perhaps as a group, we can make a difference.<br /><br />So, I'm now encouraging all of you to start editing Wikipedia in order to bring its articles more in line with reality. I plan to make further posts on this subject, time permitting, in order to give you all a brief primer on Wikipedia editing and some brief tips that I've gleaned from experience. If you'd prefer to just jump in right away, though, then go <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Getting_started">here</a> to start off, then <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Userlogin/signup">register an account</a> and get to work.<br /><br /></span>Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-52057421278263769252008-02-01T00:33:00.001-05:002008-02-01T00:34:18.219-05:00My job in a nutshellAny Unix-using programmer should get a kick out of the latest <a href="http://xkcd.com/378/">xkcd comic</a>. Now if I can just find the butterfly key on my keyboard, I'm set...Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-47124559629458404422008-01-28T23:53:00.001-05:002008-01-28T23:57:50.813-05:00Have you read this thing you say is inerrant?Right now on the Colbert Report is some nutjob who claims that every word of the Bible is inerrant. Okay, let's put aside all the provable <a href="http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html">contradictions</a> in it for the moment. Here's the problem I'm seeing: This guy has a Van Dyke (which is what most people call a goatee). The Bible makes it clear in Leviticus 19:27 that you aren't to mar your beard at all. I can see stretching this to make it okay to shave it all off, but something like a Van Dyke is clean out. This leaves two possibilities: This man hasn't really read the Bible closely, or he doesn't really believe it should be taken literally (I lump in being willing to reinterpret it in this category). Personally, I'm betting on the former, but I could be wrong here.Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-81528929308655013962008-01-23T13:56:00.001-05:002008-01-23T14:05:49.434-05:00Streisand Effect ReduxWhen will people learn? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect">Trying to censor information on the internet has the opposite effect</a>. First it was the Society of Homeopaths, now it's some nutjob named <a href="http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/tm_objectid=14557214&method=full&siteid=50081&headline=shamed-doctor-probe-name_page.html">Dr. Joseph Chikelue Obi</a> (who's done less work to actually earn a doctorate than your average undergrad). Well, you asked for it. Below the fold are copies of both of <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/01/its_the_society_of_homoepathic_thugs_all.php">Le Canard Noir's censored posts</a>.<br /><span id="fullpost"><br /> <br /> <strong><a href="http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2006/09/right-royal-college-of-pompous.html">Right Royal College of Pompous Quackery</a> - Dublin, Thursday, September 28, 2006</strong><br /><br />I had to share this with you. Following on from my recent Quack Word 'Doctor' blog, I came across the <a href="http://www.royalcam.org/">Royal College of Alternative Medicine</a> (RCAM) , a Dublin based - well, I'm not sure quite what it is...<br /><br />What caught my eye was just the shameless aggrandisement of the site. It is quite hilarious, if not a little repetitive at times. Calling yourself 'Doctor' is somewhat pompous when all you have done is paid for some international postage. However, the man behind RCAM has absolutely no shame and titles himself as the:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ClinicalSchool.org/">Distinguished Provost of RCAM</a> (Royal College of Alternative Medicine) Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM(Dublin) FRIPH(UK) FACAM(USA) MICR(UK)<br /><br />Wow! Probably, just Joe to his mates. Naturally, when you Google the qualification FRCAM(Dublin), there is only person who appears to revel in this achievement. I'll leave the rest as an excercise for the reader.<br /><br />The distinguished provost looks like he is just another pseudoscientific nutritionist, his spin being "Nutritional Immunomodulation". This is obviously a lot more clever than Patrick Holfords mere 'Optimum Nutrition', but having only one 'omnipill' is probably a poorer commercial decision that Patrick's vast range of supplements.<br /><br />Obviously, Professor Obi has had a few problems with what probably amount to bewildering comments about his site as the legal threats and press releases concerning his 'ethical' responses to criticisms cover more space than anything else. 'Ethical' is a favourite word on the site.<br /><br />The most recent press release states,<br /><br />7th September 2006 : The Distinguished RCAM Provost, Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM(Dublin) FRIPH(UK) FACAM(USA) MICR(UK) has formally accepted appointment as Chief Professorial Examiner for the Doctor of Science (DSc) programme in Evidence Based, Alternative Medicine (EBAM) of a highly respected International University in one of the British Commonwealth Protectorates.<br /><br />This new qualification is primarily aimed at Medical Graduates, Physicians, Surgeons, Pharmacists, Dentists, Osteopaths, Chiropractors, Opticians, Wellness Consultants, Herbalists, Acupuncturists, Naturopaths , Healers, Podiatrists , Chiropodists , Scientists , Healers ,Therapists, Homeopaths, Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Nurses wishing to ethically upgrade their current Qualifications in Alternative Medicine over an exceedingly intensive 12 - 36 month period of study.<br /><br />British Commonwealth Protectorates? Could that be Dublin?<br /><br />I really have no idea what this organisation is all about. But it looks like it could be getting quite big soon...<br /><br />RCAM currently has International Vacancies for One Million (1,000,000) 'Foundation Fellows' ('Movers and Shakers') ; who will independently play a highly pivotal role in diligently mentoring (and regulating) it's future Global Membership.<br /><br />So if you really think that you seriously have what it takes to become a 'Leader' in Alternative Medicine , then (perhaps) RCAM may definitely be exactly what the Doctor ordered for you.<br /><br />One million. That's a lot of quacks! And they are just to mentor (and regulate) the wider quack membership! This man has ambition.<br /><br />The Big J really hates real doctors. This is his most recent press release...<br /><br />RCAM would like to warmly commend the various Chieftans of the National Health Service of the United Kingdom for ethically and appropriately ignoring utterly misguided calls (from a rather amusing Group of thirteen Clinical Yestermen) to compel Hard-Working (and Tax-Paying) British Citizens to additionally pay for Life Enhancing Alternative Medicine Interventions out of their very own pockets - rather than get such treatments free via the NHS. RCAM would like to also categorically state that such exceedingly flawed 'G-13′ demands that the National Health Service of the United Kingdom expediently abandon Alternative Medicine altogether (in total favour of Conventional Medicine) be diplomatically treated with the very utmost contempt which such unguarded verbal flippance duly deserves ; as none of these 13 'Eminent UK Scientists' behind such calls has professionally attained Globally Acceptable Fellowship Qualifications in Alternative Medicine and as such cannot be deemed competent enough to make such sweeping 'Shilly-Shally' statements about the noble independent specialty of Alternative Medicine.<br /><br />RCAM therefore publicly advises the General Public to lawfully go about their normal Wellness-Seeking Behaviour as usual - without any unwarranted prejudice or fear resulting from such highly self-serving, morally unethical , abjectly crude , totally unprofessional, utterly unstatesmanly, morbidly barbaric, wantonly uncivilized, profanely undemocratic and unspeakably sacrilegious perpetual affronts on the therapeutically formidable institution of Alternative Medicine.<br /><br />Now, I do not have 'Globally Acceptable Fellowship Qualifications' in Santa Clause Studies to know he does not exist. But hey. I must be a morbidly barbaric and profanely undemocratic, unethical duck.<br /><br />So, struggling around the acres of pomposity I find one place where Prof Joe might be making some money. You can call him to seek his wisdom, after pre-booking an hour's slot (and handing over your credit card) for a mere 300 Euros. Alternatively, you can pay by the minute on the contact line for a trifling $10 per minute.<br /><br />Its going to cost you $20 just for Joe to say Hello and to read out his numerous titles, qualifications and names. Not bad 'ethical' work.<br /><br /><strong><a href="www.quackometer.net/blog/2006/10/ethical-quackery-monarchy-and-kate.html">Ethical Quackery, the Monarchy and Kate Moss</a> - Thursday, October 12, 2006</strong><br /><br />No, this is not about our Defender of Quackery, our Quack-in-Chief His Royal Quackiness, Prince Charles, but about the Distinguished Provost of the Royal College of Alternative Medicine, Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi. And yes, it is just a rather lame story written solely to get a picture of Kate on my blog.<br /><br />I've written a rather lazy blog on the distinguished professor <a href="http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2006/09/right-royal-college-of-pompous.html">before</a> that was just a bit of a gawp at his quacktastic <a href="http://www.royalcam.x2cms.com/index.html">website</a> and what looks like a health phone-line scam.<br /><br />Well, I've done a little more digging with Google and it has revealed a few quack gems. It has been pretty hard work, since Google returns some 6,000 pages, the vast majority just appears to be Prof Obi's self-promotion. However, if you persist in digging a few interesting facts turn up.<br /><br />So, what has the little black duck found out about the "most Controversial Retired Physician and 'A-List' Medical Celebrity, Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi"?<br /><br />Here we go...<br /><br />1. The Irish Independent <a href="http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1388027&issue_id=12415">reports</a> that his college does not exist at the Dublin address given on the web site. There's a surprise! It's just a front.<br /><br />2. The Independent goes on. "In January 2003, he was suspended by for serious professional misconduct at South Tyneside District Hospital. Among the allegations made were that he failed to attend to patients, wrote strange notes about colleagues and at one point gave a dating agency phone number to a psychiatric patient."<br /><br />3. He was being <a href="http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/eveningchronicle/eveningchronicle/tm_method=full&objectid=14557280&siteid=50081-name_page.html">investigated</a> by the police for taking thousands of pounds of a 58 year old woman to in order to cure a long standing illness.<br /><br />4. The GMC strike Dr Obi off their register for "serious professional misconduct". So much for him being retired.<br /><br />5. On another tack, Dr Obi has been involved in a little <a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0922.html">cyber-squatting</a>. This looks as if it took place while he was a doctor - always after a few quid!<br /><br />6. Since then, now self-titled Prof Obi, a few new avenues have been opened, including trying to <a href="http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/9/prweb288934.htm">entice Kate Moss</a> away to one of his 'safe-houses' in Ireland. Hat's off!<br /><br />He is quoted as saying:<br /><br /><blockquote>Under the European Convention on Human Rights, Miss Moss still has fundamental rights, just like anyone else out there, and as far as I am concerned, she is not guilty of anything until an Ethical Jury says so.</blockquote><br /><br />(I mentioned before that 'ethical' was one of his favourite words.)<br /><br />7. Prof Obi has been developing a <a href="http://autoclassic.news.prweb.com/releases/2005/6/prweb255354.htm">Penis Enlarger</a> (watch out Kate) that his own Royal College has now endorsed.<br /><br />8. At least one person (out of the targeted million) has paid Prof Obi the fees for his college to accredit them. Dr Michael Keet (8 Canards) of the <a href="http://www.reflexologyschool.co.uk">Central London College of Reflexology</a> handed over '<a href="http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1388027&issue_id=12415">hundreds</a>'. Do we feel sorry for out-quacked quacks? I guess we ought to.<br /><br />9. For those of you wanting to see behind the grand titles and see the real human being, Joseph lists his interests as <a href="http://comedy.meetup.com/45/members/1934916/">Comedy in London, Whole Food Nutrition and Christian Music</a>. On this 'Meetup' site, he describes himself as "Just a very ordinary guy . . .". That's nice.<br /><br />10. His name appears very often on the blog <a href="http://abolishthegmc.blogspot.com/">Abolish The General Medical Council</a> (GMC), often reporting something he has got up to. The blog describes itself as:<br /><br /><blockquote>An ethical blog for those who publicly feel that the General Medical Council (GMC) should be Statutorily Abolished in favour of a Medical Licensing Commission (MLC) to solely register and revalidate Doctors who practise Conventional Medicine in the UK. The Blog also recommends that the GMC/MLC hands all disciplinary functions over to an Independent Clinical Tribunal (ICT) in keeping with the EU Convention on Human Rights ; to avoid (both) Institutional Bias and Multiple Jeopardy.</blockquote><br /><br />Oooh. There is that word 'ethical' again. And 'European Human Rights'. No name is given for the blog author but the avatar is a portrait of the queen. Another apparent obsession of Prof Obi - royalty. Could the author be none other than the Professor himself, a little agrieved for his ticking off? I hope you all click through to the blog. Maybe we will show up in his stats and whoever the writer is can get in contact and confirm one way or another.<br /><br />I rather hope it is, as the final thing I turned up would just be fantastic...<br /><br />11. Is the Distinguished Provost of the Royal College of Alternative Medicine, Professor Obi now selling ethical ring-tones? I do hope so.<br /><br />Watch out Crazy Frog! Here comes the Crazy Provost...<br /><br /></span>Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-64252407447286443082008-01-07T13:27:00.000-05:002008-01-07T14:22:59.195-05:00Goose Report '08January 6th. Fucking January, fucking 6th, in fucking Canada. The snow's already melting, and the geese are already back, and yet we're not even halfway through what winter is supposed to be yet.<br /><br />You might remember that last year I clocked the <a href="http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2007/03/geese-have-returned.html">geese returning on March 16</a>. I then went on a bit about Global Warming. Most of my comments there are still valid, so go and read that and <a href="http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2007/03/convenient-myths.html">the follow-up post</a> if you haven't already. Today, my mind being a little bit blown by seeing the geese back this early, excuse me if I rant a little.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost">Okay, how the hell can so many seemingly thinking, rational people still doubt Global Warming? I can understand doubt coming from those who have a vested interest in it not being true, along with those who get all of their information form such sources. That's just confirmation bias (or lying) and Garbage In, Garbage Out respectively at work. I don't like it, but it's no surprise.<br /><br />Particularly on my mind right now is the issue of South Park creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, thanks to an episode I saw a couple days ago. They seem to really have it in for Global Warming. Now, they seem to go out of their way to attack any and everything, so an episode or two on it wouldn't be surprising or anything to worry about. I'm not going to pretend her that there aren't some people who go a bit overboard in their zeal and deserve a little mockery for it, but that apparently isn't the extent of Matt and Trey's attacks.<br /><br />From my count, it seems that South Park has, directly or indirectly, addressed Global Warming in five separate episodes: "Spontaneous Combustion," "Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow," "ManBearPig," "Terrance and Phillip: Behind the Blow," and "Imaginationland" (episodes II and III). So, it's clear that Matt and Trey really have it in for Global Warming, and it's probably a safe bet they doubt the validity of Anthropogenic Global Warming and/or the possible consequences.<br /><br />The question then is: Why? The two of them have shown remarkable skepticism in the past, taking down the likes of John Edwards ("The Biggest Douche in the Universe"), psychic detectives ("Carman's Incredible Gift"), and too many aspects of religion to mention. So what's different here?<br /><br />Getting the obvious possibility out of the way: They're right, we're wrong. I don't really buy this one, of course. Personally, I don't know enough about climate science to study everything and come up with my own, independant conclusion (to any degree of confidence that I could challenge people who study it for a living), so I'm left trusting the experts. And the conclusion among them is that AGW is real and a problem. There are, of course, dissenters, but many of them have corporate ties you'd expect to introduce a bias or are so obviously cranky that I can debunk their claims myself.<br /><br />So why don't Matt and Trey simply trust the experts here? Well, I'm guessing it's simply because they think the experts are wrong. I'm not going to hazard a guess right now as to why this is, as there are many possible ways they could have come to this conclusion, and I have no evidence for any particular one of them.<br /><br />What I will bring up here is why they stick to this belief. For this, the chapter from the paperback edition of Michael Sheremer's <u>Why People Believe Weird Things</u>, "Why Smart People Believe Weird Things" gives us a very good answer. If you haven't read that, I'd recommend checking it out for the full story, but to sum it up: Smart people are very good at defending beliefs they arrived at through irrational reasoning.<br /><br />This raises the issue of how important it is to be willing to change your mind. Personally, I've probably got a ton of beliefs I arrived at for bad reasons. I could well be wrong about many of them, and the issue at stake here, Global Warming, could easily be one.<br /><br />So I'm opening this up to the commenters. A couple issues here you could address, depending on your own beliefs: 1) Why do you think so many smart people don't believe in AGW? What led them to their initial beliefs? or 2) Try to convince me why I shouldn't trust the expert opinion on this issue. Go for it.Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-65784527038705865392007-12-30T16:02:00.001-05:002007-12-30T16:21:21.081-05:00Google himSorry for the lack of posts as of late. I've been keeping up with reading most of my watched blogs, but just haven't felt the urge to post. Well, I came across something today which merits attention.<br /><br />Near one of my favorite lunch restaurants near my parents' house, it appears that Ron Paul has set up his campaign headquarters for the area. Now, in case you haven't heard about Ron Paul yet, to sum it up, he's a quack enabler, doesn't believe in evolution or the Holocaust, and has accepted campaign contributions from neo-nazis.<br /><br />Sound like the kind of man you want to be President? Nope, me neither. Well, I noticed something on the signs on his campaign headquarters. One of them had the message "Google him." <a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Ron+Paul%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=">Let's try this</a>. At the time of my search, his campaign site is first, and the Wikipedia article on him is second. Nothing at all surprising there. However, we do come across <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004096850_aponthe2008trail28.html">this news article on him</a>. He's apparently the most googled republican candidate, which is rather unsurprising when you consider the message on some of his signs.<br /><br />You know what the problem is, though? The truly frightening information about Paul can't be found easily in the first few pages Google finds. Tch. Well, we should really do something about that. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bomb">Google bomb</a> time, perhaps? I'm not sure if it's particularly worth it here, as he doesn't stand too much chance of winning. However, he is still a congressman. Maybe if some people in his district know about his less-than-savory activities, he won't last.<br /><br />Well, if anyone else feels the urge to help redirect googlers to better information about this guy, feel free to repost the following links:<br /><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/holocaust_deniers_for_ron_paul.php">Ron Paul</a><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/why_is_ron_paul_so_popular.php">Ron Paul</a><br /><a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-pauls-friends-in-black-and-white.html">Ron Paul</a><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/ron_paul_rejects_evolution.php">Ron Paul</a>Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-1622108263819832952007-11-30T12:24:00.000-05:002007-11-30T13:26:54.490-05:00More SolutionsFor those who are still around, it was recently pointed out to me that I'd forgotten to give the solutions to the last couple of unsolved problems from <a href="http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2007/10/skeptics-circle-71.html">my Skeptic's Circle</a>. Since it's been a while, I'll repeat the problems here to remind you before solving them:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><b>Super-Scammer Secrets</b></span><br /><br />Lord Runolfr recently got a couple of e-mails from scammers, raising my suspicions that something big was afoot behind the scenes. I called up a few contacts, did some research, hired a few James Bond-alikes, and here's what I've figured out:<br /><br />There's some evil mastermind behind the whole plan, and he's about as supervillanous as they come. This of course means that he wants to capture one of my James Bond-alikes and subject him to an intricately detailed explanation of his evil plan before killing him in a creative way. Apparently, the way he's decided to go about this revelation is through an overhead transparencies with the key points of his evil plan (you'd think he'd have better technology than my high school, but he's out to make money, so he saves it where he can).<br /><br />Now of course, he's wary of this transparency falling into the wrong hands, so he's come up with a plan to keep things safe. He's figured out some method to spread the information across multiple sheets, arranging it so that if we get a hold of any two, we'll still have no idea what he's planning. So, what we need to figure out now is some possible ways he might have done this, so if we manage to get our hands on more than two, we'll know how to read them (if it's not immediately obvious). What are some possible things he could do? Remember that he's out to save money, so splitting it up to have a single word on each slide or something huge like that doesn't seem too likely.<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br /></span><span id="fullpost"><span style="font-size:130%;"><b>Solution</b></span><br /><br />While it's possible to split up the information in a simple way over many slides, the trick to this problem is finding a way to divide it up so that absolutely zero information is transmitted in a single slide, or even in two slides. Splitting it up into words or letters (or fragments of a letter) never accomplishes this, as the remaining pieces still give some information. To illustrate a way of transmitting zero information in a simpler case, where any one slide can be lost, I gave the following sample solution:<br /><br />Pixelate the presentation, and make sure the pixels are quite large and easily distinguishable. Generate one transparency that's completely random, with each pixel being randomly either transparent or 50% opaque. Then, for the second sheet, for the places where the message is spelled out, choose either transparent or 50% opaque as necessary to make the pixel result in 50% opaque. For places where the message isn't, match the pixel to the one on the other slide. The result will be the message appearing in gray text on a mixed black and white background.<br /><br />Now the trick is moving up to a case where any two slides can be lost, and together they'll give zero information. Part of what makes this problem tricky is that everyone tries to find a solution that will use the absolute minimum number of slides at first (in this case, 3). However, such a solution doesn't exist (at least that I've seen, and I tend to suspect it doesn't at all). There is, however, a solution that uses 4 slides.<br /><br />Here's how to construct the 4-slide solution: As before, pixelate the message. This time, however, instead of filling the pixels with either gray or white, we'll be filling them with one of three colors of ink. This ink will be designed to absorb one third of the visible light spectrum and let the rest pass through. For instance, we could have ink that absorbs red wavelengths, allowing blue and green light through (which appears as cyan I believe), plus ink to absorb blue (appears as yellow) and ink to absorb green (appears as magenta). If we stack the three different colors on top of each other, no light can get through, and we'll have a black spot on the image. If only two colors are in the stack, it will appear as the remaining color. If just one color, we'll get a mix of the other two.<br /><br />Now, for each pixel of the image, first determine whether it's part of the message or not. If it is, we want it to appear black. So, through the four slides, we'll arrange it so all three colors show up somewhere, plus one of them appearing twice. We'll randomly choose between all possible permutations that do this. Now, for pixels that aren't part of the message, we want them to not appear black, so we randomly choose one of the permutations that uses only one or two colors. The net result is the message appearing in black on a multicolored (or gray, if the pixels are small enough) background.<br /><br />To see that this works, image that two slides are stolen, and look at a single pixel on both of them. There are two possibilities here: 1) both slides have the same color for that pixel and 2) the slides have a different color in that pixel. In case 1, it's possible for the remaining two slides to have the other two colors, and it's also possible they might repeat this color. For case 2, it's possible the remaining color will be on one of the other slides, but it's also possible it won't be. In the end, we can't infer anything about whether or not this pixel is part of the message.<br /><br />Now, why won't this work for only three sheets? Well, let's go back to case 1 if two slides are recovered. If both slides have the same color, there's only one slide left to block more light. This third slide couldn't have both colors, so this pixel cannot be part of the message. We can't infer anything from the cases where the two slides have different colors in a pixel, but we can still gain some information by picking out some pixels we know can't be part of the message (we'll catch 1/3 of them on average, and if the pixels are small enough, we might be able to glean some of the actual message).<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><b>What Wifi Woo?</b></span><br /><br />Sandy Shwarc reports that there's been some scare over the ill effects of all the elctromagnetic radiation going through the air, but I'm not buying it. Personally, I think this is all just an excuse to avoid having to work. Confused? Let me explain.<br /><br />Take the new Ultra-Mega-Awesome Wifi tower built the other day. It had 1000 power cords going from the bottom to the top, and not one of them was initially hooked up to anything. Worse, they're all tangled in the middle so it's impossible to figure out which bottoms of wires correspond to which tops.<br /><br />Now, some poor shmuck has to go and sort them all out, and the only tools he's given are a battery and a lightbulb. They somehow expect him to to hook up the battery at the bottom to a couple of wires, then go to the top and see which wires he can connect the lightbulb to to sort them out. Maybe he could pull a few tricks like tying some wires together at the bottom or top to make long wires, but it's still going to take him quite some time.<br /><br />With that job ahead of him, you can see why he'd want to believe it shouldn't be done. Maybe if we could help him out and figure out the most efficient way to solve this problem, he'll be a bit more likely to accept Wifi. The tower's pretty tall and the only way up is by stairs, so he'd probably appreciate most if we could help minimize the number of trips he has to take, regardless of how much work he has to do at the top or bottom. How can we do this, and what is the minimum number of ascents and descents required?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><b>Solution</b></span><br /><br />The solution to this is pretty complicated, but it helps to look at a simpler case. Let's say we only have 3 wires. In this case, here's how you do it with just one ascent and descent: Start at the bottom. Tie two of the wires together. Mark both of these “2-_”. Mark the loose wire “1-_” (a group of 2 and a group of 1). Now ascend to the top. Hook the battery and lightbulb together, and connect one wire to one end of this assembly. Test each other wire on the other end, and count how many wires will allow the lightbulb to light up. If one wire will cause it to light up, then mark the test wire with “2-_”. If no wires will light it up, mark it with “1-_”. Repeat for all the wires.<br /><br />Now, at the top you'll have two groups of wires, one of just one wire, and one of two wires. You know that these correspond to the groups you made at the bottom (and the one-wire group has the single wire properly identified). To sort between the wires in the 2-wire group, we need another step. Now, take the wire in the 1-wire group and tie it to one of the wires in the 2-wire group. Mark both of these “X-2” (where X is whatever mark was in the first digit). Mark the other wire “X-1” and leave it unconnected to anything.<br /><br />Descend to the ground, and repeat what you did when you first got to the top, except this time, fill in the second digit (if it connects to zero, mark 1, if it connects to 1, mark 2). Now, at the top and bottom you'll have wires marked “1-1”, “2-1”, and “2-2”. These IDs match them all up to each other. It says nothing in your job description about untying the wires at either end, so you're done, with one ascent and one descent.<br /><br />This solution type can be extended simply to any number which is a perfect triangle (1,3,6,10,15...). For instance, with 6 wires, you'd tie up one group of 3 at the bottom, one group of 2, and one group of 1. You can then identify these groups at the top. Then, you can tie up a group of 3 taking one from each bottom group, a group of 2 taking one from the 2 and 3 bottom groups, and a group of 1 from the 3 bottom group. Go back to the bottom to sort out these groups and you've identified them all.<br /><br />The problem gets trickier, however, when the number you have isn't a perfect triangle. Since 1000 isn't one of these, we'll have to face this. But, it is possible to extend this solution to most non-triangular numbers. The trick is dump the extra wires into the group where the wires aren't connected to any others. Let's look at the 8-wire case to see this.<br /><br />At the bottom, set up three groups. The first group (1-_) has three wires not connected to each other, and not connected to any others. The second group (2-_) has two wires connected together. The third group (3-_) has three wires all connected together. Go up to the top and identify all of these groups. Now, to set up the top groups. Set up one group which takes one wire from each of the bottom groups, and tie all of these together (X-3). Set up a second group which takes one wire from each of the bottom groups, and leave all of these tied to nothing (X-1). You'll be left with one wire from the 1-bottom group and one wire from the 3-bottom group. Tie these together in the final group (X-2). Go back to the bottom and identify these groups. You'll then have eight wires, all uniquely identified.<br /><br />However, it turns out there's a problem for some numbers of wires, such as 5 and 9. If you try to do it this way, you'll have too many wires in the group where they aren't connected to anything. I won't go into all the details here, but your best solution with this method is to have the extra wires in the unconnected group on both trips. You'll end up with two wires marked 1-1. Then, connect one of those to another wire when you're at the bottom (1-1a) and leave the other unconnected (1-1b). Go back to the top, and figure out which of the wires is 1-1a by testing its circuit with the one you tied the bottom end to, and the other is then 1-1b. You'll then have figured them all out with just one extra ascent (you also have to descent to go home, but that's just a technicality).<br /><br />It turns out that this particular problem comes into play when the number of wires is one less than some triangular number. So, you get problems with 2, 5, 9, 14, and so on. The 2-wire case allows a special solution with only one ascent (attach both wires to the battery at the bottom, marking them with the pole they're attached to. Then go to the top and see which way you have to orient the lightbulb so it'll go on, and match up the poles), but the others will all require 2 ascents and 1 descent with this method to figure it out. Any other number can be done in 1 ascent and 1 descent with this method (3 wires can actually be done in a single ascent with a simple extrapolation from the 2-wire case). Since 1001 isn't a triangular number, our 1000-wire case can be done in just one ascent and one descent using our method.<br /><br />Side note: There is another, much more complicated method which will allow you to solve this problem in just one ascent and one descent regardless of the number of wires. However, the average time this method takes is proportional to the number of wires to the fourth power; while the method I've given takes time simply proportional to the number of wires squared. For large numbers of wires, the extra time the other method takes at the top or bottom would easily outweigh the time of a single ascent of descent. However, for 5 or 9 wires, it might be worth it. I won't go into it here, though.</span>Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-70667798501486040782007-11-23T14:14:00.000-05:002007-11-23T14:22:00.337-05:00Church apologizes for everythingThis just in, apparently the <a href="http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=bbf764d5-16f8-4835-8c92-d6dfce60aa3e&p=1">top bishop in Quebec has gone and apologized</a> for pretty much everything the church has done wrong. Everything he could think of, at the least. First of all, it definitely is nice that someone in a prominent position there is sorry, and I believe this is the first time I've heard any of them apologize for the child abuse that went on. However, I do have a few gripes.<br /><br />The first is motive. This bishop wasn't apologizing just because he was sorry about all that had happened. He apologized because he thought it would help draw people back into Catholicism. This doesn't mean he isn't actually sorry, and I don't doubt that this man in particular probably is, but it does mean that it isn't as big a reason for him as attracting people to the religion.<br /><br />My second problem is that although an apology is fine, what I really want is a promise to try to improve. Weeding out the bad ideas you know about is a good first step, but other bad ideas will keep popping up. You have to get down to the root causes and pluck them out. Unfortunately, this is something I expect the church never to do, as it would involve using logic instead of faith, relying on evidence instead of divine revelation, etc. In short, it would take all the religion out of religion. Not that I'd mind seeing that happen, but it's not going to.Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-50386880670128318992007-11-19T14:03:00.000-05:002007-11-19T14:02:33.053-05:00The God HypothesisI'd like to make a few comments about my recent post, <a href="http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2007/11/intelligent-planting.html">Intelligent Planting</a>. I left the narrative without any comments there, as I figured this was an allegory that worked well enough on its own. I set up a parody of Intelligent Design to better illustrate all the leaps in logic design proponents expect people to make. It starts with jumping from "it doesn't look random" to "it was designed." Then it jumps from "it was designed" to "God/Pete designed it, and he also did all these other things recorded in the Bible." Now, of course, design proponents are all about hiding their religious affiliation, but it's there, and it is their ultimate goal, whether they'll admit it or not. I also then threw in some of the other doggerel they use to justify this for good measure, particularly mocking the appeal to faith.<br /><br />That all being said, you might be somewhat surprised to learned that Intelligent Design wasn't my initial impetus for writing this story. Instead, this comes from a different argument for God which makes much the same leap in logic (from saying there was someone or something to saying it was God). This was what's known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument">Cosmological Argument</a>. When boiled down, it essentially becomes, "There was an ultimate cause for everything, therefore God."<br /><br />You might want to take a moment to read through the Wikipedia article on this argument, linked above. What I'd like to call to your attention is the simple fact of how many variations on this argument there are. The Cosmological Argument is often presented as being strictly logical, but if that were so, then you wouldn't expect these variations on exactly how the Prime Mover/Uncaused Cause/God started things. Therefore, it would seem that most or all of these arguments are likely making some assumptions behind the scenes (or are just fallacious).<br /><br /><span id="fullpost">For example, let's take the argument of Thomas Aquinas, one of the more complete versions. From the Wikipedia summary:<br /><br /><blockquote>1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. <br />2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself. <br />3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length. <br />4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something that is not an effect.</blockquote><br /><br />Few would argue with points 1 and 2, but let's take a look at point 3. Why is it that a causal chain cannot be of infinite length? Presumably this is simply stated because the thought of it seems absurd, but is it really? Let's extend things into the future. Under most modern models for the universe and many religious models as well, time will go on infinitely into the future. This means that as long as it keeps going, we'll keep on having a causal chain. Thus, the causal chain will extend infinitely into the future. Ipso, a causal chain of infinite length. (Man, have I been itching to properly use "ipso" in a sentence...)<br /><br />So, if it can extend infinitely into the future, what's wrong with having a causal chain extend infinitely into the past? It's at this point that it seems a bit more absurd instinctively, but logically it doesn't have to be. All laws of physics we know of are time-reversible, with a single exception that allows us to see order in time, the collapse of a wavefunction. If you compensate for collapse and run things backwards in time, you can see the same theme of causation occurring. Instead of a sperm and egg causing a zygote, you get a zygote causing a sperm and an egg, for instance. Running things this way, it doesn't seem so absurd that things might go on forever.<br /><br />So here we have the problem with this particular argument: a false premise. The argument may still be technically valid (the conclusion can't be false if all the premises are true), but with a false premise, it's unsound, and we have no reason to believe the conclusion given this argument. Now, this doesn't mean that there wasn't actually some first cause, it only means that this argument doesn't prove it. So, let's entertain the idea that there was a first cause now, for completeness' sake.<br /><br />What can we say about this first cause? Well, nothing, really. We can't claim it must have been intelligent, or even complex in any way, as it's easily possible for intelligence and complexity to arise from unintelligent, simple conditions, driven by a little randomness. However, we have a lot of religious people pointing to their own god and saying it fits the bill of a first cause. The argument for a first cause, even if it were valid, doesn't give us any reason to believe that the first cause is anything like their god, but that's not necessarily a problem.<br /><br />What we can do is treat their god as a hypothesis to explain the first cause. A tactic like this is often done by scientists; we have a problem, so we hypothesize something to explain it which is a bit beyond what we know. Since it's beyond what we know, it often comes with the ability to predict other phenomena we haven't tested for yet. So, we then go and test for those phenomena. If they exist, we have evidence that this hypothesis is true. We can do roughly the same thing for the hypothesis that a god was the first cause.<br /><br />The immediate problem is that invoking a god here is a gross violation of Occam's Razor. An explanation that invokes a particular brings in many interrelated claims, and has many, <i>many</i> predictions beyond the simple creation of the universe. This doesn't mean it isn't true, however; it just means that we're going to need a lot of evidence to support it. Otherwise, a simpler explanation (or less precise god) will be much preferred.<br /><br />Now, there are many deities we can choose from, so I'll only use a couple examples here, positioned at extremes. Most other deities will fall on the continuum somewhere between these, and a mix of the applicable arguments will apply.<br /><br />First up, I'm going to take the god believed in by many evangelical Christians in the US. This is the god discussed in the Bible, who did all the things claimed there. He's omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and just generally omni. He also takes a role in our day-to-day lives. He listens to and answers prayers. He smites those who displease him in any way. When people die, their souls are judged by him. If they've led a ridiculously devout life, free from even the slightest pleasure (shadenfreude over thinking about sinners going to hell excepted), they go into heaven, a place of eternal bliss. If they're even slightly off, or believe in a slightly different god, they go to hell, a place of eternal torment. (Aside: I don't particularly care if anyone believes in exactly this god; I'm just using it as an extreme example.)<br /><br />This the hypothesis to be tested. On the other end, we'll have the null hypothesis, which we'll be comparing this to. At the end, we hope to be able to reject either this or the null hypothesis. In this case, we can use the null hypothesis, "No god exists." If we find sufficient evidence for this god, we'll be able to reject this null hypothesis.<br /><br />So, what of this is testable? If you say "none of it," scroll down a bit. I've got your untestable god there. This is a god who interferes with the world. If there are natural effects of supernatural causes, they can be tested for. Anyways, there are two big points here that we can test: Intercessory prayer and smiting the heathens. Let's start with prayer. This is something that actually has been <a href="http://www.abelard.org/galton/galton.htm">scientifically tested</a>. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10547166">Repeatedly</a>. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11751349">And then some more</a>. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9375429">And again</a>, because every time, the results weren't satisfactory. Whey weren't they satisfactory? Because the tests were either poorly done, or they didn't show any effect to prayer. Even if you don't agree that the ones who showed an effect were poorly done, it's still only a marginal improvement. It's nothing compared to the effect you'd think an omnipotent god like this could have.<br /><br />But wait! "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!" I hear you cry. Ah, well there's a big exception to that. Absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence when you've properly and thoroughly looked for evidence. I call it the <a href="http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2007/06/modus-tollens-exception.html">Modus Tollens Exception</a>, as you can phrase it in the following logical form:<br /><br /><blockquote>P1: If A exists and we use method M to search for evidence, we will find evidence E.<br />P2: We used method M to search for evidence, and did not find evidence E.<br />C: Therefore, A does not exist.</blockquote><br /><br />Boiling it down to the simple logic, this is the valid structure:<br /><br /><blockquote>P1: If A and M, then E.<br />P2: M and not E.<br />C: Not A.</blockquote><br /><br />This is essentially the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens">Modus Tollens</a> argument form, with a small complication of an extra requirement in the premise. Since we're using a logical form here, my argument that absence of evidence is in this case evidence of absence is also valid.<br /><br />It's a bit harder to test the prediction that this god will go around smiting heathens, as we can't really control things here. However, if you look at what happens in the world, there isn't good evidence that this takes place. For instance, many evangelicals claimed that Hurricane Katrina was their god smiting New Orleans for all the debauchery that takes place there. The problem was that the French Quarter, which was where most of the debauchery took place, was one of the least-damaged areas. This particular claim, at least, doesn't hold water. (Ugh... I swear that pun was unintentional.)<br /><br />In any case, testing prayer alone is sufficient here. We can, of course, add to the evidence for all the other claims about this god, though it's not necessary for the time being. Since we have evidence that prayer to this god doesn't work, we can reject the hypothesis that this god exists. And no, we don't go and accept the null hypothesis that no god exists; we just say that we fail to reject it. It could well be true, but we haven't shown that here.<br /><br />Alright, now let's switch to the other extreme. Let's take a Deist god. This god created the universe, and then just kind of sat back and watched. Or maybe he went off to create another universe, or just took the next few billion years off to slouch around and watch TV. Or maybe he's a "she," or an "it," or some other gender we don't have a pronoun for. Not much is claimed about this god. In fact, aside from that he created the universe, not anything is claimed about this god. In contrast to the previous case where so much was claimed about the god that it was easy to find evidence against him, here, we don't have anything claimed at all beyond what we know happened. With this, we can't make any testable predictions about him, so we can't scientifically test for his existence.<br /><br />This is still a hypothesis, though. The problem is that it's a completely useless hypothesis. There's nothing we can do to improve upon it, or get any further evidence that it might be true. There isn't even anything we can do to differentiate it from similar hypotheses, such as saying that instead of a god, a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. Or we could say that the universe spawned yesterday from primordial slood with all the particles in just the right positions and velocities for us to be here with all this evidence for a past and memories of it.<br /><br />In the end, there's no way to reject this hypothesis. But coupled with that is the fact that there's no way to get evidence for it. There's no reason for you to actually believe in it. The fact that it can't be disproven is no reason to believe, as following that logic would lead you to believe a million contradictory explanations for the beginning of the universe. This is why science doesn't do anything with untestable hypotheses; they're utterly useless.<br /><br />In the real world, most gods people believe in fall somewhere between these extremes. They try to balance out not contradicting reality with having enough predictions to be useful. However, this doesn't really solve any problems. In order for their to be evidence of a god's existence, it has to make some predictions that later turn out to be true (and of course, can't be adequately explained without him. A god predicting gravity isn't a big deal). Simply throwing away disproven predictions and holding onto untestable ones still doesn't give anyone a reason to believe in this god.<br /><br />However, I could well be wrong. If I am, if there's some god out there with good evidence for his existence, I would in fact quite like to know about it. I'd expect to have heard of it by now, but you never know. Maybe the right study just hasn't been performed yet. In which case, I challenge any believer who believes they have a testable prediction about their god to go out and perform a study to test it. Perform it well enough, and a positive result could be just what you need to convince me. Until then, I'm happy living my life accepting the null hypothesis as most plausible.</span>Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-59312038393722841032007-11-10T14:01:00.000-05:002007-11-10T14:06:11.145-05:00Skeptic's Circle #72 and #73Bah, I've been remiss about this. I missed out on linking to the <a href="http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/10/skeptics-circle-72-you-very-naughty.html">72nd Skeptic's Circle</a> and the <a href="http://holfordwatch.info/2007/11/08/skeptics-circle-73-please-tick-the-appropriate-boxes/">73rd Skeptic's Circle</a> when they came around, so there ya go.<br /><br />In other news, if you're going to conduct a demonstration claiming that a snake not biting you is evidence of your faith and God's existence, you have to prepared to take the fact that it instead <a href="http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/224771.html">bit and killed you</a> as evidence against this.Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-32923760848675720152007-11-06T12:14:00.000-05:002007-11-06T12:56:36.582-05:00Intelligent PlantingOne day, two friends, Jim and Mike, were out hiking through the wilderness. They came upon a beautiful patch of wildflowers, and while admiring it, they struck up the following conversation:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> Amazing, isn't it?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike:</span> Yeah. That Pete sure is something.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> Pete? Who's Pete?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike: </span>He's the guy who planted all of these flowers. You didn't think they'd be arranged so beautifully on their own, did you?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> Well, actually, I did. Flowers evolved to be beautiful; it's part of how they attract bees to pollinate them or something. We can ask my friend Rick when we get back to town if you want the whole story; he's a botanist, so he should know. It's not too surprising they'd be beautiful.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike:</span> Meh. I don't buy it. Even with that, the way they're arranged is too pretty.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> I don't know, it seems pretty random to me. The human mind is good at picking out patterns, though, so the few that form randomly stand out to us and make us think it's beautiful.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike:</span> Trust me. I know design when I see it, and that patch has too many nice patterns in it to be random. Someone must have purposefully planted them that way.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> And that someone is Pete?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike:</span> Exactly.<br /><span id="fullpost"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> ... I think I'm missing a step here. I can see how your logic and way of thinking would lead you to believe <i>someone</i> must have planted those flowers – even if I don't agree with it – but how does that extend to it being a specific person? Do you know Pete or something?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike: </span>Well, no.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> Do you know anyone who's seen him? Or, maybe any newspaper articles about him planting wildflowers in this area?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike:</span> Not exactly, no.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> Then why do jump from “someone” to “Pete”?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike: </span>Well, you see, when I was a kid, my mother read this book to me, all about Pete and his work. I've grown up believing in Pete ever since, and I make an effort to spread the word about him when I can. His work shouldn't go uncredited.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> Okay, I guess that's better than nothing. I'd like to see this book sometime, though. See what all the fuss is about.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike:</span> Oh, well you're in luck. I always bring a copy of it along when I go hiking.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(Mike searches through his bag, picks out a book, and hands it to Jim. Jim starts reading through it.)</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> Huh. Well I can see where you got some of your ideas from, but this just isn't too convincing to me.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike:</span> Why not?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim: </span>Well, for one thing, it isn't very consistent. For one thing, his last name changes spelling over the course of the book. It starts off as “Gardener” – a name whose appropriateness makes me suspect this started off as a simply children's book, but I digress – but in the last chapter it becomes “Gardner.”<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike: </span>Oh, well that's just a typo.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> All seven times?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike:</span> Okay, maybe not. I think different chapters might have been written by different people, so that would explain it.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> Ah, I can see that. Especially if this just started as a children's story which got misinterpreted.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike:</span> Hey! Don't disrespect my beliefs like that!<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> Sorry, but as your friend, I feel it's my obligation to tell you that what you're saying isn't that convincing.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike:</span> What do you mean? Isn't the design of these flowers along with this book proof enough for you?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim: </span>Well, for all I know, this book could have simply been intended as fiction. The design of these flowers – which I still don't agree to, mind you – is the only real evidence you've presented. Besides, I've heard of a few different stories about this type of thing. I think I recall one similar book, except it was a guy named Phil, not Pete.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike: </span>Yeah, we get into fights with the Phil-believers all the time about this.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim: </span>That's just the point. From your flimsy evidence, all you can argue for as that someone must have planted the flowers. There's no reason I should prefer Pete over Phil or maybe Bruce, Doug, or Pat!<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike: </span>That's where this book comes in. We've got evidence that there has to be someone planting these flowers, and we've got a story about Pete doing just that. Isn't that enough to believe in Pete?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim: </span>Not really. I mean, a book like that isn't very good evidence. It's cobbled together by multiple authors, contradicts itself in many places, and doesn't even provide any way to verify any of it. And I'll remind you that I still think the layout of these flowers is simply random.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike:</span> Well you see, that's where faith comes in. I mean, logically, it might not seem to all fit together. But you have to trust in Pete, and know that he really does exist, and somehow this all makes sense.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim: </span>You say that as if blind trust is a virtue.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike: </span>Pete says it is.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> But you can't know that Pete's right unless you already accept that he exists.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike:</span> Which I do, because of my faith.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim:</span> You ever get the feeling we're arguing in circles?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Mike: </span>Pete says the circle is perfect, and therefore circular logic is also a thing of beauty.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jim: </span>I don't think I want to be friends with you anymore.</span>Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-72304826829855058352007-10-23T21:06:00.001-04:002007-10-23T21:12:45.549-04:00Let's see you argue with thisSometimes an argument occurs to you that's just so ridiculous you have to share. But that's not today. Today I have a very serious point to make, on the very serious subject of abortion.<br /><br />Now, many pro-lifers claim that life begins at conception, and that the child is a legitimate human at that point. What is it that makes them human? Well, if they stay out of religion, they'll argue about continuity of being, presence of human cells, and so on (if you have another argument, feel free to share that).<br /><br />So, hypothetical question for any pro-lifers around here: Zombies. Okay, I should probably give you an actual question, I guess. Do zombies qualify as living humans? Now, while there's debate on whether zombies are human, they're by definition dead. If they weren't dead, they wouldn't be zombies. So, zombies are not overall living humans.<br /><br />But what makes a fetus so different from a zombie? Zombies are connected to humans through a continuity of being, they're made of human cells, and even have higher intelligence and a more human form than a fetus. If zombies are dead, what is it about fetuses that makes them more alive than zombies?Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-83459670571893005152007-10-18T13:24:00.000-04:002007-10-18T16:20:24.729-04:00Skeptic's Circle #71: Solutions, part 1For those of you still hanging around and trying to solve the problems I posed you in the last Skeptic's Circle, I thought I'd do you the favor of compiling some of the solutions that have been posted. So far, I'm just going to give solutions to the problems that someone has solved in the comments, so anyone who wants to can still work on the as-yet unsolved problems. If those don't get solved in a while, I'll post the solutions for them as well.<br /><br />If you still want to solve them on your own, don't read on. Also, note that for parsimony, I'm not going to be repeating the problems here. Go back <a href="http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2007/10/skeptics-circle-71.html">here</a> if you need a refresher.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><b>Personalized Perfume Peril</b><br /><br />Flip over 48 disks, and then separate those 48 into one pile, with the other 52 in the other pile.<br /><br /><b>Creative Cake Capers</b><br /><br />As yet unsolved, at least here. This problem has been posted with solutions elsewhere on the internet.<br /><br /><b>Popping Placebo Pills</b><br /><br />Take out one pill from the first jar, two from the second, three from the third, four from the fourth, and five (or zero would work too) from the fifth, and weight them. The weight should be the expected weight of 15 placebo pills + x grams, where x corresponds to the number of pills you took out of the jar which has the real pills.<br /><br /><b>Perilous Peace Problems</b><br /><br />Push the cork into the bottle, somehow destroy the cork while making sure any remnants fall into the bottle, melt a hole in the bottle, or simply ignore the whole problem as it's more likely there is no poison gas and it's instead the pill that's poisoned.<br /><br /><b>Crazed Canting Christians</b><br /><br />As yet unsolved here. One little hint: If you make a certain observation about the problem, it becomes trivial math to find the solution.<br /><br /><b>Hidden Handbook Hassle</b><br /><br />Skeptico puts the book in his safe, and his lock on it. He sends the safe to his friend, who puts his lock on it as well, and then returns it. Skeptico removes his lock and sends his safe back. His friend removes his lock and takes out the handbook.<br /><br /><b>Weird Water Woo</b><br /><br />Tilt the glass to the side until the water just reaches the rim. If the water at the bottom also meets the edge there, it's half full. If it's above the edge, you have more than half; below, less than half. If you accidentally spill the water, you now have less than half.<br /><br /><b>Screwy Scarfe's Secrets</b><br /><br />Referring to the guys by the time it takes them to cross:<br /><br />1 and 2 cross (2 minutes)<br />1 returns (1 minute)<br />4 and 8 cross (8 minutes)<br />2 returns (2 minutes)<br />1 and 2 cross (2 minutes)<br /><br />Total time: 15 minutes. Most people end up with some solution that results in 16 minutes, but it's not optimal.<br /><br /><b>Poor Poisoned Pinheads</b><br /><br />Number all the bottles in binary, from 0000000001 to 1101101010 (which corresponds to 874. On the first day, give each of Buzz's captives a number from 1 to 5. Have each of them take a sip from each bottle that has a 1 in its binary digit corresponding to their number. For each captive that gets amnesia the next day, write a 1 in that digit, and a zero for captives who didn't get amnesia. The second day, do the same thing with the 6th through 10th digits. Once all the digits are written down, you'll have uniquely identified the poisoned bottle. At this point, make them all drink from it and throw them out on the street so they won't be able to tell anyone what you did.<br /><br /><b>What Wifi Woo?</b><br /><br />As yet unsolved here. The best solution given can do it in 4 total trips, but it's possible to do it in only 2.<br /><br /><b>Manic Motor Mythbusting</b><br /><br />Use the following program:<br /><br />Move 100m forward (label: START)<br />Move 100m forward<br />Move 100m backward<br />Skip next command unless a parachute is nearby<br />Goto SPEEDUP<br />Goto START<br />Move 100m forward (label: SPEEDUP)<br />Goto SPEEDUP<br /><br /><b>Paddling Pooch Problem</b><br /><br />As yet unsolved here.<br /><br /><b>Action/Adventure Akusai</b><br /><br />Choose to play first, and place your first disk at the center of the table. After this, match each of your opponents moves with a symmetric move across the table from him. He'll run out of moves first.<br /><br /><b>Great Galileo's Ghost</b><br /><br />I'll just quote the solutions from my comments here. Figuring out which is which is trivial, as you just have to ask questions you know the answer to, and keep repeating to sort out who's answering randomly. First, from Miller:<br /><br /><blockquote>For the Galileo puzzle, you can ask the following compound question to voip out lying clones:<br /><br />Is the following true: You will answer this with "yes" or (inclusive) you are the real Galileo.<br /><br />Similarly, the following will voip truth-telling clones.<br /><br />Is the following true: You will answer this with "no" or you are the real Galileo.<br /><br />Alternating between these two questions will eventually voip a clone with the random curse.</blockquote><br /><br />From Simon, a single-shot question:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Is it the case that you are a clone and that you will either answer this question truthfully with a 'no' or falsely with a 'yes'?"</blockquote><br /><br />My original answer to this last part was the question: "Is the statement, 'You are a clone and this statement is false,' true?"<br /><br /><b>Super-Scammer Secrets</b><br /><br />As yet unsolved completely. There are many ways you could decrease the amount of information found on a single slide, but the true puzzle is to figure out a way that whichever two slides are found, absolutely zero information is passed on.<br /><br />For a hint, imagine if the puzzle were to instead use two slides, and either alone would carry no information. The following solution would work in this case: Pixelate the presentation, and make sure the pixels are quite large and easily distinguishable. Generate one transparency that's completely random, with each pixel being randomly either transparent or 50% opaque. Then, for the second sheet, for the places where the message is spelled out, choose either transparent or 50% opaque as necessary to make the pixel result in 50% opaque. For places where the message isn't, match the pixel to the one on the other slide. The result will be the message appearing in grey text on a mixed black and white background.<br /><br />Note that this is possibly the most difficult problem here. Though it's been posed on the internet, I haven't found any solutions posted. I have solved it myself, however, so don't worry.<br /><br /><b>Harebrained Hat Help</b><br /><br />Solution by RodeoBob:<br /><br /><blockquote>Got the Hats puzzle solved. It does, however, depend on everyone being an expert at logic, and everyone following the same game plan...<br /><br />The color of the wearer's hat is the same color as the smallest group of colored hats he or she can see, and they must make their guess (and leave the circle!) at the first opportunity allowed.<br /><br />To make it clearer, let's break the process up into 5-minute rounds. (at the end of each 'round', the announcement comes on asking folks to announce the color of their hat)<br /><br />In the first round, anyone who can only see one hat of a specific color is wearing that color hat. (we know there must be at least two, right?)<br /><br />In the second round, anyone who can see only two hats of a given color is wearing that color. (we know that there must be three of each color now, since any color that were only present on two heads should have left last round...)<br /><br />The puzzle only works if everyone is looking, and if everyone leaves at the right time. If somebody falls asleep, or isn't paying attention, or loses count and misses a round, the whole thing falls apart.</blockquote><br /><br /><b>Singular Sword Slashes</b><br /><br />From Rick Taylor in the comments:<br /><br /><blockquote>In the singular sword slashes, none of the prisoners were killed.<br /><br />They all got together and agreed as follows. Whoever was last in line would call out his own hat based on the parity of red hats he saw before him. If he saw an even number of red hats, he'd call his red; if he saw an odd number red hats, he'd call his blue. That man might die, but the next in line, seeing the hats in front of him and knowing the parity of red hats including his own could deduce his hat color. The man in front of him, now knowing both the color of the hat behind him and the parity of all the hats besides his own could deduce his own, and so on to the front of the line. The executioner, hearing this and seeing he could not avoid sparing all but the last in line, arranged the hats to ensure at least he was killed, even though the 99 others were spared, and that was that.<br /><br />Only it wasn't. All one hundred silently reasoned that the executioner would have to place an even number of red hats in order to kill the last one in line. And so they abandoned their plan and used that information to save them all from last to first.<br /><br />The truly delicious part of that last solution is that even if we assume the executioner anticipated they would change their strategy to trick him (no reason to as he isn't part of the mensa cult) and put an odd number of red hats to on them, the last man in line would die, but the 99 remaining would still live, even using the wrong information. So there's no reason for them not to try!</blockquote><br /><br /><b>Ending Erroneous Expectations</b><br /><br />From Edward in the comments:<br /><br /><blockquote>We can answer the pirates problem using induction, of sorts.<br /><br />Consider the situation with 5 pirates. If it ever gets down to two pirates, the senior one can simply award all the money to himself and vote for it. With three pirates, the senior one has to convince one other pirate to vote for his plan. The cheapest way of doing this is to award the junior pirate 1 coin and keep 99. Then with four pirates, the senior one only has to convince one other pirate to join him. If it gets down to three, the middle one can't expect to make anything, so he can be bought with 1 coin. With five pirates, the senior pirate needs two others to join him. He can do this by giving one coin to each of the 3rd and 5th most senior pirates, since they'll get nothing if he dies. He would keep the other 98 coins to himself.<br /><br />Now consider six pirates and only one coin. As before, with only two pirates, the senior pirate can award all money to himself. With three, the senior pirate needs to award the one coin to the junior pirate. With four, the senior pirate can award the coin to either of the two pirates immediately below him. With five pirates, the senior pirate need to convince two pirates to join him, which is impossible. Therefore the second most senior pirate will die if it gets to him, so he will vote for absolutely any plan the most senior pirate proposes. The most senior pirate can then avoid death by awarding the coin to the most junior pirate.</blockquote><br /><br />That's it for now, so go give those unsolved problems another try if you think you're up for it!</span>Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-25846808693184005872007-10-16T12:21:00.000-04:002007-10-16T13:22:01.369-04:00Something for nothing and your universe for freeOne argument I keep running into that is supposedly evidence for God (sometimes a generic god, sometimes a specific one) is that the universe began, therefore it must have been created. Sometimes it's more elaborate than this, sometimes not. In the cases where it's just this simple, it's effectively a God of the gaps argument. Since that type of argument has been dismantled repeatedly, I'm going to focus on the more elaborate versions today.<br /><br />The most common elaboration to this argument is that the creation of the universe violates conservation of energy. "It's a well-known fact of science that you can't get something from nothing," they say. Interestingly, it seems that the people who say this sort of thing rarely have any real background in physics, much less a background in theoretical physics or cosmology. Before making big assumptions like this, wouldn't it make sense to check with someone who knows what they're talking about in this area to see if they could explain it?<br /><br />Now, if only we had a cosmologist on hand... Wait a second, I'm a cosmologist! Well, I guess I'd better try to make some sense of these problems then. So, to the claims that the creation of the universe violates conservation of energy, my response can be summed up in two simple retorts: "Says who?" and "Even if so, so what?" Allow me to elaborate.<br /><br />The first catch is that we don't know for sure that the creation of the universe actually does violate conservation of energy. First, let's keep to known science, and use an example taking place within our own universe. Let's say that somehow, a massive particle was created. Since mass = energy, this took up energy to create it. Now, what could have happened to allow this creation? A few possibilities:<br /><br />1. Some physical process took place which resulted in an excess of energy. This extra energy was converted into this particle.<br />2. Even a vacuum doesn't have zero energy. It's possible that this particle borrowed energy from the vacuum in order to form (possibly along with its antiparticle if it has other properties such as charge which need to be conserved).<br />3. This particle was created alongside a mirro version of itself which has negative mass, resulting in a net change of zero energy. Note that we've never observed negative mass particles, but our current laws of physics don't bar them from existing.<br /><br />So, let's expand to the creation of our universe. It turns out that for each of these, there's a nice parallel for the creation of the universe as well:<br /><br />1. Some physical process took place outside our universe which resulted in an excess of energy. This extra energy was converted into our universe.<br />2. Whatever medium exists outside our universe might not necessarily have zero energy. It's possible that the creation of our universe simply borrowed some energy from this medium. A parallel anti-universe might also exist to balance quantities which must be conserved.<br />3. Our universe was created alongside a negative energy version of itself, so the net change in energy is zero.<br /><br />There's also one more explanation which works for our universe, but not for the particle example:<br /><br />4. Our universe has a net energy of zero. It is possible that the mysterious phenomenon we've termed "Dark energy" actually has negative energy, and this balances out the positive energy all of the mass in the universe provides. A little catch is that there's likely much more dark energy in the universe than all the other mass, so we'd actually be at an excess if this were true. That's little problem though, as it could easily have just been radiated away or whatever outside our universe.<br /><br />So there you have it, four possible reasons why the creation of our universe might not violate conservation of energy. But even going into all that isn't really necessary. The catch is, violating conservation of energy isn't necessarily a problem when it comes to the creation of the universe. The reason for this is a bit complicated, but a simple version is as follows: Conservation of energy is an observation we've made which always seems to hold within our universe. We have no evidence that it holds outside our universe, or even that any of our laws of physics are the same out there. Therefore, we don't have reason to believe it must hold at the point of creation.<br /><br />Now, for the more complicated explanation. We actually do have one explanation for why energy (and other properties, for that matter) is conserved. The reasoning is complicated, so I won't go into it here, but the key point is that it relies on what are known as symmetries. In the physics world, a symmetry is more than simply being able to mirror something and have it be the same. What it means here is that we could move the whole frame of reference in some way, and all the physics would remain the same.<br /><br />There are three big symmetries of this type you'll know of. There's translational symmetry, which means if you move a foot to the right for instance, physics stays the same. There's rotation symmetry, which means whichever way you turn, the physics is the same. And there's temporal symmetry, which means that physics stays the same over time. There are also some others you probably haven't heard of it you haven't take college physics, such as gauge symmetry, but you don't need to worry about those here.<br /><br />The important point about this is that there's a law of physics which states that for every symmetry, there must be some conserved quantity. This is completely unintuitive, but it's provable. Not easily provable, and most people reading this probably wouldn't understand the proof in any case, but it is provable, so just trust me on this. When we apply this law, we get the following conservations from the following symmetries:<br /><br />-Translational symmetry gives us conservation of momentum.<br />-Rotational symmetry gives us conservation of angular momentum.<br />-Temporal symmetry gives us conservation of energy.<br />-Gauge symmetry gives us conservation of charge.<br /><br />The important one for our purposes is the third: Temporal symmetry gives us conservation of energy. What happens if we no longer have temporal symmetry? Well, we can no longer guarantee conservation of energy. Now, think back to the beginning of the universe. At this point, all of the universe is compressed to a single, zero-dimensional point. Are the laws of physics the same here? Not at all. Temporal symmetry must be broken at this point, so we have no reason to believe that conservation of energy must apply. The instant after it, we start to have temporal symmetry, so whatever energy we start with we're stuck with, but there's no way to say what this might be.<br /><br />So there you have it: a cosmologist's perspective on conservation of energy at the beginning of the universe. We don't know that the beginning of the universe violates conservation of energy at all. Even if it does, this isn't necessarily a problem. Even if all this is a problem, it's still at best a God of the gaps argument, and that's really no reason to believe at all.Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-25465380003487836842007-10-12T14:15:00.000-04:002007-10-12T14:22:44.297-04:00The Streisand EffectThe Society of Homeopaths really should do their research before trying to censor something on the internet. Then again, homeopaths and actual research aren't exactly the best of friends, so it's not surprising they've never heard of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect">Streisand Effect</a>. Basically, it's a trend on the internet that trying to censor some material just generates more publicity and makes the material more widely available. This is why you now see many bloggers - myself now included - reposting <span style="font-style:italic;">Le Canard Noir's</span> post, "The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing." Check out <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/10/homeopathic_thuggery_bites_the_host_of_t.php">Respectful Insolence</a> for a bit more on the story.<br /><br />So, I now present to you:<br /><br /><p></p><div align="center"><br><br /><strong>The Gentle Art of Homeopathic Killing</strong><br><br /><br />by <em>Le Canard Noir</em><br /></div><br><br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><p>The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are a shambles and a bad joke. It is now over a year since <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/71/">Sense about Science</a>, Simon Singh and the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm">BBC Newsnight programme</a> exposed how it is common practice for high street homeopaths to tell customers that their magic pills can prevent malaria. The Society of Homeopaths have done diddly-squat to stamp out this dangerous practice apart from issue a few ambiguously weasel-worded press statements.</p><br /><br /><p>The SoH has a code of practice, but my feeling is that this is just a smokescreen and is widely flouted and that the Society do not care about this. If this is true, then the code of practice is nothing more than a thin veneer used to give authority and credibility to its deluded members. It does nothing more than fool the public into thinking they are dealing with a regulated professional.</p><br /><br /><p>As a quick test, I picked a random homeopath with a web site from the SoH register to see if they flouted a couple of important rules:</p><br /><br /><blockquote>48:<br />• Advertising shall not contain claims of superiority.<br />• No advertising may be used which expressly or implicitly claims to cure named diseases.<br /><br /><p>72: To avoid making claims (whether explicit or implied; orally or in writing) implying cure of any named disease.</p></blockquote><br /><br /><p>The homeopath I picked on is called Julia Wilson and runs a practice from the Leicestershire town of Market Harborough. What I found rather shocked and angered me.</p><br /><br /><p>Straight away, we find that <a href="http://www.practicalhom.com/page2.html" rel="nofollow">Julia M Wilson LCHE, RSHom</a> specialises in asthma and works at a <a href="http://www.archwayhouse.co.uk/Homeopathy.html" rel="nofollow">clinic</a> that says,</p><br /><br /><blockquote>Many illnesses and disease can be successfully treated using homeopathy, including arthritis, asthma, digestive disorders, emotional and behavioural difficulties, headaches, infertility, skin and sleep problems.</blockquote><br /><br /><p>Well, there are a number of named diseases there to start off. She also gives a <a href="http://www.practicalhom.com/AsthmaLeaflet.pdf" rel="nofollow">leaflet</a> that advertises her asthma clinic. The advertising leaflet says,</p><br /><br /><blockquote>Conventional medicine is at a loss when it comes to understanding the origin of allergies. ... The best that medical research can do is try to keep the symptoms under control. Homeopathy is different, it seeks to address the triggers for asthma and eczema. It is a safe, drug free approach that helps alleviate the flaring of skin and tightening of lungs...</blockquote><br /><br /><p>Now, despite the usual homeopathic contradiction of claiming to treat causes not symptoms and then in the next breath saying it can alleviate symptoms, the advert is clearly in breach of the above rule 47 on advertising as it implicitly claims superiority over real medicine and names a disease.</p><br /><br /><p>Asthma is <a href="http://www.sign.ac.uk/about/press/pr29-1-03.html">estimated</a> to be responsible for 1,500 deaths and 74,000 emergency hospital admissions in the UK each year. It is not a trivial illness that sugar pills ought to be anywhere near. The <a href="http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab000353.html">Cochrane Review</a> says the following about the evidence for asthma and homeopathy,</p><br /><br /><blockquote>The review of trials found that the type of homeopathy varied between the studies, that the study designs used in the trials were varied and that no strong evidence existed that usual forms of homeopathy for asthma are effective.</blockquote><br /><br /><p>This is not a surprise given that homeopathy is just a ritualised placebo. Hopefully, most parents attending this clinic will have the good sense to go to a real accident and emergency unit in the event of a severe attack and consult their GP about real management of the illness. I would hope that Julia does little harm here.</p><br /><br /><p>However, a little more research on her site reveals much more serious concerns. She says on her site that 'she worked in Kenya teaching homeopathy at a college in Nairobi and supporting graduates to set up their own clinics'. Now, we <a href="http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/lethal-trust.html">have seen</a> what homeopaths do in Kenya before. It is not treating a little stress and the odd headache. Free from strong UK legislation, these missionary homeopaths make the boldest claims about the deadliest diseases.</p><br /><br /><p>A bit of web research shows where Julia was working (picture above). The <a href="http://www.abhalight.org/about.html" rel="nofollow">Abha Light Foundation</a> is a registered NGO in Kenya. It takes mobile homeopathy clinics through the slums of Nairobi and surrounding villages. Its stated aim is to,</p><br /><br /><blockquote>introduce Homeopathy and natural medicines as a method of managing HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in Kenya.</blockquote><br /><br /><p>I must admit, I had to pause for breath after reading that. The clinic sells its own homeopathic remedies for 'treating' various lethal diseases. Its <a href="http://www.abhalight.org/products/index.html" rel="nofollow">MalariaX</a> potion,</p><br /><br /><blockquote>is a homeopathic preparation for prevention of malaria and treatment of malaria. Suitable for children. For prevention. Only 1 pill each week before entering, during and after leaving malaria risk areas. For treatment. Take 1 pill every 1-3 hours during a malaria attack.</blockquote><br /><br /><p>This is nothing short of being totally outrageous. It is a murderous delusion. David Colquhoun has been writing about this <a href="http://dcscience.net/?p=24">wicked scam</a> recently and it is well worth following his blog on the issue.</p><br /><br /><p>Let's remind ourselves what one of the most senior and respected homeopaths in the UK, Dr Peter Fisher of the London Homeopathic Hospital, has to say on this matter.</p><br /><br /><blockquote>there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won't find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.</blockquote><br /><br /><p>Malaria is a huge killer in Kenya. It is the biggest killer of children under five. The problem is so huge that the reintroduction of DDT is considered as a proven way of reducing deaths. Magic sugar pills and water drops will do nothing. Many of the poorest in Kenya cannot afford real anti-malaria medicine, but offering them insane nonsense as a substitute will not help anyone.</p><br /><br /><p>Ironically, the WHO has issued a <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr43/en/index.html">press release</a> today on cheap ways of reducing child and adult mortality due to malaria. Their trials, conducted in Kenya, of using cheap mosquito nets soaked in insecticide have reduced child deaths by 44% over two years. It says that issuing these nets be the 'immediate priority' to governments with a malaria problem. No mention of homeopathy. These results were arrived at by careful trials and observation. Science. We now know that nets work. A lifesaving net costs $5. A bottle of useless homeopathic <a href="http://www.abhalight.org/products/index.html" rel="nofollow">crap</a> costs $4.50. Both are large amounts for a poor Kenyan, but is their life really worth the 50c saving?</p><br /><br /><p>I am sure we are going to hear the usual homeopath bleat that this is just a campaign by Big Pharma to discredit unpatentable homeopathic remedies. Are we to add to the conspiracy Big Net manufacturers too?</p><br /><br /><p>It amazes me that to add to all the list of ills and injustices that our rich nations impose on the poor of the world, we have to add the widespread export of our bourgeois and lethal healing fantasies. To make a strong point: if we can introduce laws that allow the arrest of sex tourists on their return to the UK, can we not charge people who travel to Africa to indulge their dangerous healing delusions?</p><br /><br /><p>At the very least, we could expect the Society of Homeopaths to try to stamp out this wicked practice? Could we?</p></span>Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-18570533723842998002007-10-11T00:28:00.000-04:002007-10-11T00:39:44.699-04:00Skeptic's Circle #71Welcome one, welcome all, to the 71st edition of the Skeptic's Circle. The theme for this week is logic. Logic puzzles to be precise. After all, logic is one of the best razors against irrational thinking, and like any razor it needs to be periodically sharpened. So, for that purpose I've prepared some logic puzzles for you all to work through, each one based on a post submitted.<br /><br />I've sorted the puzzles by a rough estimate of their difficulty, though the ones each person will find easiest will likely differ. Feel free to discuss the puzzles in the comments, including guesses as to the answers (though if you've heard one before, don't spoil the fun for others). Just be warned that if you go reading the comments, you might run across an answer or two that's already been guessed.<br /><br /><ul><li><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2007/10/skeptics-circle-71-easy.html">Easy Puzzles</a></span></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2007/10/skeptics-circle-71-medium.html">Medium Puzzles</a></span></li><li><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2007/10/skeptics-circle-71-hard.html">Hard Puzzles</a></span></li></ul><br /><br />I've also prepared a <a href="http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2007/10/skeptics-circle-71-quick-links-version.html">"Just the links" version</a> if you're short on time or logic, so feel free to take advantage of that.<br /><br />The next Skeptic's Circle will be hosted at <a href="http://www.quackometer.net/blog/">The Quackometer Blog</a>. Check over there for contact information to submit for next week's. So long, and happy puzzle-solving!Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30970875.post-61614362957726384322007-10-11T00:24:00.000-04:002007-10-11T10:32:23.021-04:00Skeptic's Circle #71: HardFollowing are the hard problems for this Skeptic's Circle. Math isn't as much a requirement as for the medium problems, but you'll have to compensate with a ton of advanced logic.<br /><br /><span id="fullpost"><b>Great Galileo's Ghost</b><br /><br />Cranks have always loved to <a href="http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/09/the-galileo-fal.html">compare themselves to Galileo</a>. Sick of this, one day <a href="http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/">Greta Christina</a> decided to set them straight once and for all. To do this, she decided to go on a fictional journey to the afterlife to find Galileo himself so he could explain to them why they're acting like idiots. However, when she reached the afterlife, she ran into a little problem.<br /><br />It seems that one day, Galileo accidentally touched a noodly appendage he shouldn't have, and ended up with a couple clones. On top of this, the three are cursed to always stay together and that if any yes-or-no question is posed to one of the three, they all must answer it. Any other type of question will be ignored by all three. Each of the clones plus the original has a specific curse on them, but it's unknown who has which curse. One of the curses requires the bearer to tell the truth to any question, another curse requires the bearer to lie in response to any question. The third curse causes the bearer to randomly choose between telling the truth and lying before answering each question.<br /><br />Each of the Galileos knows whether it's the original or a clone, but without knowing which bears which curse, it would be tricky to figure it out. Is there a questioning procedure that would work here?<br /><br />Now, Greta can't go back to the real world with three mixed-up possible Galileos, but fortunately, there's a way to break the curses. If any of them is ever faced with a question they can't answer (for instance, they're bound to tell the truth for this question, but the question has no truthful answer that doesn't result in a paradox), they'll go "Voip!" and vanish (so sayeth the FSM). If the two clones both vanish, the original Galileo will be freed from all the curses on him. However, he could vanish too if he's asked a question he can't answer, and if he does, it's game over. Is there a way to target out the two clones and make them vanish while keeping Galileo safe?<br /><br />If you can accomplish that, one further challenge: Can you make both clones vanish with a single question, even if you haven't previously figured out which one is the real Galileo?<br /><br /><b>Super-Scammer Secrets</b><br /><br /><a href="http://runolfr.blogspot.com/">Lord Runolfr</a> recently got a couple of <a href="http://runolfr.blogspot.com/2007/10/scam-emails.html">e-mails from scammers</a>, raising my suspicions that something big was afoot behind the scenes. I called up a few contacts, did some research, hired a few James Bond-alikes, and here's what I've figured out:<br /><br />There's some evil mastermind behind the whole plan, and he's about as supervillanous as they come. This of course means that he wants to capture one of my James Bond-alikes and subject him to an intricately detailed explanation of his evil plan before killing him in a creative way. Apparently, the way he's decided to go about this revelation is through an overhead transparencies with the key points of his evil plan (you'd think he'd have better technology than my high school, but he's out to make money, so he saves it where he can).<br /><br />Now of course, he's wary of this transparency falling into the wrong hands, so he's come up with a plan to keep things safe. He's figured out some method to spread the information across multiple sheets, arranging it so that if we get a hold of any two, we'll still have no idea what he's planning. So, what we need to figure out now is some possible ways he might have done this, so if we manage to get our hands on more than two, we'll know how to read them (if it's not immediately obvious). What are some possible things he could do? Remember that he's out to save money, so splitting it up to have a single word on each slide or something huge like that doesn't seem too likely.<br /><br /><b>Harebrained Hat Help</b><br /><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/">Orac</a> reports that the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/10/woo_infiltrates_one_of_the_premiere_trau.php">University of Maryland's Shock Trauma center has gone to the dark side</a>, citing how Reiki therapy is now being used to "help" patients. Well, I did some digging of my own, and it turns out this isn't the craziest thing they're doing. They've got something even dumber going on, called "Colored Hat Therapy." Here's how it works:<br /><br />A bunch of patients are seated in a circle, and a hat is placed on each one's head. They don't know the color of their own hat, but they can see everyone else's hat. There are many colors of hats, but each color present shows up on at least two hats. The patients sit in the room for a while, and every couple of minutes an announcement comes on the PA system, asking anyone who's figured out the color of their own hat to announce it and then leave the room. The theory goes that the magical hat energy must have seeped into their brain, and they're now cured.<br /><br />Of course, most of the time it doesn't work so well, and people guess incorrectly about their hat color, miss their chance to get it and never figure it out, or get screwed up by inferring wrong things from other people's mistakes. However, one day, purely by chance, everyone brought into the room was an expert at logic puzzles, and they all managed to figure out the colors of their hats. How did they do this?<br /><br />(Aside: When one of these experts left the room, a nurse noticed that the wound he was suffering from hadn't magically healed, and this therapy was quickly abandoned.)<br /><br /><b>Singular Sword Slashes</b><br /><br /><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/">Martin Rundkvist</a> recently uncovered a <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2007/09/doctoring_my_spin.php">unique 16th century sword</a>, and he was wondering how many lives it might have taken. Well, I did a little <strike>Tardis travel</strike> archeology of my own, and I managed to come pretty close to getting the answer before I <strike>was discovered and had to flee</strike> ran out of funding.<br /><br />It turns out this sword was used in a ceremonial mass execution. 100 condemned prisoners were brought out and given one last chance at life. They were all stood up in a line and had a hat put on their head, colored either red or blue. No one knew the color of their own hat, but they could see the color of every hat in front of them. If they guessed correctly, they were spared, but if they guessed incorrectly, they were killed on the spot. This particular sword was used for the killings, and it was so fast and efficient that none of the prisoners in front would be able to hear a sound from the death, and so would have no idea if the guess was correct (though they would be able to hear the guess).<br /><br />Unfortunately, I didn't see the actual procedure, but I did learn two things that might give us a clue as to what happened: First, the prisoners were given a chance to discuss a plan amongst themselves before the ceremony and decide on it. However, the executioner was listening in and would likely set up the hats to thwart the plan as best as possible. The second thing I learned is that these prisoners were all condemned to death for being part of a "dangerous cult" - which was actually more along the lines of Mensa. So, these are pretty smart people, and we could trust them to come up with a pretty good plan.<br /><br />Putting this all together, what probably happened during the ceremony, and how many lives did the sword take?<br /><br /><b>Ending Erroneous Expectations</b><br /><br />The <a href="http://www.sexysecularist.com/">Sexy Secularist</a> writes in about how he was able to persuade his mother against recommending the atrocious woo film <a href="http://www.sexysecularist.com/?p=131"><i>What the (Bleep) Do We Know?</i></a>. You see, personally, I know that the whole Law of Attraction thing is bull. Why? Because I was expecting at least one post sent in would have some tenuous connection to pirates and allow me to bring you this classic puzzle. But nope, no pirates. Well, screw you guys, I'm doing pirates anyways!<br /><br />A crew of 5 logic pirates comes upon a treasure of 100 gold coins. According to the rules of the logic pirates, to distribute the loot the most senior pirate must first propose a plan, and then they'll all vote on it. If at least half agree with the plan, they'll go with it. If not, the most senior pirate has to walk the plank, and then the next most senior pirate has a chance to propose a plan. This continues until a plan is accepted.<br /><br />Each pirate is perfectly logical and has the following priorities they will strictly pursue: First, they don't want to die. Second, they want to get as much money as possible. If everything else is equal, they'd rather see more of their seniors walk the plank.<br /><br />So, what plan can the most senior pirate of this group of 5 propose that will get him the most coins? Figured that out? Now, try the situation with 6 pirates and only one coin; what happens there?<br /><br /><a href="http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2007/10/skeptics-circle-71.html">Back to index</a></span>Infophilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18309973524623338264noreply@blogger.com20