| Volume 11 Number 1 | www.ntskeptics.org | January 1997 |
Oh, that reminds me of something else. You have to be blind not to notice that 2000 is approaching. For the moment we will put aside the argument of whether the new millennium begins January 1, 2000, or January 1, 2001, (the real first day of the 21st century). With the coming of the new millennium the crazies are coming out of the woodwork, predicting doom and gloom. Lest you think this is of no consequence, please keep in mind that a recent Secretary of the Interior noted that it was not necessary to practice conservation of our natural resources, since the end was nearly upon us anyhow.
That said, here is an item I picked up from some wag on the Internet. It seems a great way to put off that persistent doom master in the cube next to you. Just offer to pay him $10,000 for his house, right now in cash. You will not take possession until after the doomsday. Just make sure you get the title up front (and that the $10,000 is really a bargain).
Wait, there's more. An underwriter in Great Britain has offered to cover you in case you are abducted by aliens and impregnated. I don't think this is restricted to women, but you do have to carry to term to prove your case. This has been called a tax on stupidity, though I thought that's what the lottery was.
There's good news, too. As detailed in a recent editorial in the San Jose Mercury News, science is making a comeback in the courts. "Relying on a panel of neutral scientists, a federal judge in Oregon ruled that plaintiff's lawyers can't present evidence that silicone breast implants cause disease because their evidence is `junk science.'"
According to the story Judge Robert E. Jones "chose an immunologist, a rheumatologist, a toxicologist and a polymer chemist to evaluate the scientific documents submitted by the plaintiffs' witnesses. The judge's panel also questioned expert witnesses on both sides in a science hearing in which lawyers also participated." The panel determined that the "scientific" testimony submitted by the plaintiffs lacked scientific validity, and the judge did not allow the plaintiffs to present it in the trial.
It gets better. In their 9 p.m. slot on January 9 the American Broadcasting Company ran a full one-hour program all about junk science. It's title was Junk Science, and it's moderator John Stossel gave an excellent presentation of the whole sordid business in a very direct, but not over-bearing manner. With none of the back pedaling often seen in television documentaries on the paranormal, Stossel named names and described scientific foolishness, both private and governmental, for what it is. He even owned up for the journalistic profession, acknowledging the media often take half-baked conjectures and blow them into full scientific theories. If you know anybody over at ABC, drop them a nice note. It never hurts.
Our science teacher is dead. Carl Sagan died in December after suffering for years f rom a bone marrow disease. He was 62.
Through the television series
For example, in 1990 when Cal Thomas and Eugenie C. Scott were sparring
on TV over the Forrest Mimms/Scientific American matter, Thomas felt
compelled to challenge Scott's supposed views on the spirit world. He asked
her if she agreed with Sagan that the cosmos is all there is, all there ever has
been and all there ever will be.
Additionally, in conversations with creationists I notice a rankling tone whenever
there is mention of Sagan. They have long bristled at the attention his naturalistic
explanations of the world have received by so wide an audience. They
understand correctly that there is a large segment of the population without a
firm commitment to either creationism or evolution and that the popularity of his
lectures and his writings is swaying the argument against creationism.
It seemed to me that Sagan never took the philosophical easy-out in his defense
of science. While other speakers, either because of generosity or because of a
desire not to offend, seemed to hedge on the possibility of supernatural
explanations, Sagan always wound up saying politely but firmly that he had
never seen any substance to the supernatural. A correspondent on an Internet
list recently posted this quote from Carl Sagan's
"An interesting debate has gone on within the committee [CSICOP] between those
who think that all doctrines that smell of pseudoscience should be combated and
those who think that each issue should be judged on its own merits, but that the
burden of proof should fall squarely on those who make the proposals. I find
myself very much in the latter camp. I believe that the extraordinary should
certainly be pursued. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"Science . . . looks skeptically at all claims to knowledge, old and new. It teaches
not blind obedience to those in authority but to vigorous debate, and in many
respects that's the secret of its success."
"I believe that much 'knowledge' is indeed merely 'memory,' and that this is why
so many misconceptions persist for such a long time. . . . Because so many
people are so thoroughly schooled in the common misconceptions, however,
only the most brilliantly skeptical of them will ever discover a mistake. And
even then, it will likely be denied for generations to come."
"Rational skeptics consistently have great confidence in many things to the
point they feel entirely comfortable risking everything they value, including
their lives, on the validity of those items. They are aware, however, that such
level of confidence may not be actually justified and are receptive to additional
information on the validity of the contention."
"Of course, it is often much more fun to DISPROVE a theory. As Thomas
Huxley wrote, 'The great tragedy of science is the slaying of a beautiful
hypothesis by an ugly fact.'"
"Science deals [with nature], the only reality of which we have any certain
knowledge. . . . Those fundamentalist[s] . . . who speak contemptuously of
science . . . reveal an astonishing insensitivity to the very world they tell us
God created. Granting, then, our prior assumption of a Creator, anyone who
criticizes real science is in a direct sense criticizing God."
"Why do I think the theory of evolution is far more probable than the doctrine
of creation? Evolution does not rule out the possibility of an intelligent Creator
which should not be ruled out although it implies the Biblical account must be
no more than an allegorical version of that event.
"Further, if there is such an Creator, I'd expect It to be far more intelligent and
far more benevolent than to have, in essence, messed up the initial attempt
and wiped out all but a single boat-load of critters to get a fresh start."
"The causes of things are more interesting than the things themselves."
Skeptical Quotes
Compiled by Joe Voelkering
(Here are a few quotes from our collection of "skeptical cogitations.")
Carl Sagan
Marilyn vos Savant
Jay von Glieker
Leon Lederman
Steve Allen
J. B. Stratton
Cicero