What a ninny! (or pinhead)
Atheism and secular living from a woman's point of view.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Does the Universe Have a Purpose?
Minute Physics added some art to Neil DeGrasse Tyson's answer to the question:
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Nuttery on the Left: The Anti-GMO Hysteria
One of my friends shared this piece of shit video on Facebook.
This "Health Ranger" is also the perpetrator of Natural News: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews Curiously, this guy also happens to believe every other food myth of the radical left: raw food diets, "alternative" medicine, and whatever hits his fan from day to day.
My friend is a sucker for a lot of this stuff. Like me, she went into a field that didn't require a background in the
sciences. Unlike me, she isn't ashamed of her ignorance and fails to use her intelligence to make up for her educational lacunae. I know quite a few people like this. They're smart but not
schooled in the sciences or practiced in true skepticism. My friend
claims to be "skeptical" when in reality she's just suspicious. Not the
same thing at all.
The anti-GMO movement is particularly irksome to me because it paints all genetically-modified foods with the same tainted brush of suspicion. It would be one thing if they claimed that specific strains of GMO corn affected the environment, or that peanut allergies are due to one specific variety of peanut. But no, they don't differentiate between products. It's all suspicious.
And rather than go to pubmed and read up on the research themselves, they let crackpots like "The Heatlh Ranger" tell them what to think. Some "skepticism" there.
Here's what I found by searching pubmed: There is a possiblity that crops grown to be impervious to roundup may have residual roundup on or in them, which may affect endocrine functions in mammals (rats are the only animals studied so far). That's pretty much it.
There are issues that could indeed make GMOs bad, but there are also potential advantages too:
Not to mention, everything we eat is already genetically modified, through selective breeding and hybridization. Nothing we eat, from the banana (hear that, Kirk Cameron?) to the cow, is as it was originally found in nature.
And speaking of nature, this is the source of the anti-GMO hysteria: the naturalistic fallacy.
In some people, it borders on the religious. They revere their romanticized natural condition without really knowing much about actual nature. They believe in the magical power of food to make them live forever, or at least until 100. They pass along whatever their leaders say without questioning it. And they reject all alternate explanations for even obvious myths.
I have encountered many varieties of "food nazis." They demonize particular foods and insist that everyone else should follow their advice on healthy living. (The Nazis were big health nuts, we often forget) They don't want the rest of us to enjoy an omelet because they ignorantly believe that eggs cause high cholesterol (they don't). Or they have never been fat and they believe they know what foods fat people should eat (no long-term studies of diet have shown more than modest temporary weight loss). Or they think killing animals for food is unnatural for humans (we evolved as omnivores, not vegans).
They mean well, so you can't smack 'em. So you have to rant in a blog post. So I did.
This "Health Ranger" is also the perpetrator of Natural News: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/NaturalNews Curiously, this guy also happens to believe every other food myth of the radical left: raw food diets, "alternative" medicine, and whatever hits his fan from day to day.
The anti-GMO movement is particularly irksome to me because it paints all genetically-modified foods with the same tainted brush of suspicion. It would be one thing if they claimed that specific strains of GMO corn affected the environment, or that peanut allergies are due to one specific variety of peanut. But no, they don't differentiate between products. It's all suspicious.
And rather than go to pubmed and read up on the research themselves, they let crackpots like "The Heatlh Ranger" tell them what to think. Some "skepticism" there.
Here's what I found by searching pubmed: There is a possiblity that crops grown to be impervious to roundup may have residual roundup on or in them, which may affect endocrine functions in mammals (rats are the only animals studied so far). That's pretty much it.
There are issues that could indeed make GMOs bad, but there are also potential advantages too:
- Higher yields means less hunger and less land used for crops
- Hypo-allergenic crops can be developed
- Sterile plants won't invade natural areas
- More nutritious crops can be developed
- Crops that make it to market reduce waste
And speaking of nature, this is the source of the anti-GMO hysteria: the naturalistic fallacy.
In some people, it borders on the religious. They revere their romanticized natural condition without really knowing much about actual nature. They believe in the magical power of food to make them live forever, or at least until 100. They pass along whatever their leaders say without questioning it. And they reject all alternate explanations for even obvious myths.
I have encountered many varieties of "food nazis." They demonize particular foods and insist that everyone else should follow their advice on healthy living. (The Nazis were big health nuts, we often forget) They don't want the rest of us to enjoy an omelet because they ignorantly believe that eggs cause high cholesterol (they don't). Or they have never been fat and they believe they know what foods fat people should eat (no long-term studies of diet have shown more than modest temporary weight loss). Or they think killing animals for food is unnatural for humans (we evolved as omnivores, not vegans).
They mean well, so you can't smack 'em. So you have to rant in a blog post. So I did.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Thanksgiving Week Links (but none about Thanksgiving!)
Does the FFRF have a chance against the IRS? They took the bait from brazen preachers who scoffed at the law, and now it's up to a federal court to set things right. The other side says: "I don't know how the FFRF can claim it's been harmed by the IRS." Uhhhhhh anyone who is a taxpayer paying on the national debt has been harmed by money not being raked in. We'll see...
The Economist looks at atheism in Islamic countries.
A Washington Post blogger talks about life as an atheist in Saudi Arabia. It's enough to make me grateful for the First Amendment, among other perks of being born in the U.S.A.
A new book titled Christianity, Islam, and Atheism gets a pro-Christianity spin here. The book is published by Ignatius Press, so guess how atheists fare? (The publisher's video is hilarious)
Fundamentalists in The Netherlands gain ground in local elections. These fundies are even worse than American fundies: they don't believe women should have the right to vote!
Tibetan Buddhists continue to self-immolate in protest. China is not only unimpressed, it's angry at the Dalai Lama for not putting a stop to it. If China does nothing and his supporters continue to commit suicide, isn't China right to just wait it out?
More Baptists who wish they were Episcopalians: offended by racist pastor, parishoners petition for help from the Southern Baptist Association. Isn't local hiring and firing of pastors a principle of Baptist theology? These people will have to do what other disgruntled protestants have done: start their own church and find a pastor who will tell them what they want to hear (which in this case is better).
Is Egypt backing away from the edge? I couldn't find the clip but I heard a great quote on CNN: Egyptians had chosen an Islamist only because the alternative was from the old guard, which was a tyrannical rule. And now their Islamist president is threatening them with the same kind of suppression they had just rid themselves of. Perhaps there will be a Second Arab Spring, at least for Egypt.
Having read a little about Middle Eastern archaeology, I was reminded this week that layers in cities or settlements are dated based on burn residue. Egypt, Gaza, and Aleppo are adding another layer this week.
The Economist looks at atheism in Islamic countries.
A Washington Post blogger talks about life as an atheist in Saudi Arabia. It's enough to make me grateful for the First Amendment, among other perks of being born in the U.S.A.
A new book titled Christianity, Islam, and Atheism gets a pro-Christianity spin here. The book is published by Ignatius Press, so guess how atheists fare? (The publisher's video is hilarious)
Fundamentalists in The Netherlands gain ground in local elections. These fundies are even worse than American fundies: they don't believe women should have the right to vote!
Tibetan Buddhists continue to self-immolate in protest. China is not only unimpressed, it's angry at the Dalai Lama for not putting a stop to it. If China does nothing and his supporters continue to commit suicide, isn't China right to just wait it out?
More Baptists who wish they were Episcopalians: offended by racist pastor, parishoners petition for help from the Southern Baptist Association. Isn't local hiring and firing of pastors a principle of Baptist theology? These people will have to do what other disgruntled protestants have done: start their own church and find a pastor who will tell them what they want to hear (which in this case is better).
Is Egypt backing away from the edge? I couldn't find the clip but I heard a great quote on CNN: Egyptians had chosen an Islamist only because the alternative was from the old guard, which was a tyrannical rule. And now their Islamist president is threatening them with the same kind of suppression they had just rid themselves of. Perhaps there will be a Second Arab Spring, at least for Egypt.
Having read a little about Middle Eastern archaeology, I was reminded this week that layers in cities or settlements are dated based on burn residue. Egypt, Gaza, and Aleppo are adding another layer this week.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Petition to nominate Malala Yousafzai for Nobel Peace Prize
Ask President Obama to nominate Malala for the Nobel Peace Prize
Sign here:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/nominate-malala-yousafzai-nobel-peace-prize/DC3m0kvZ
This petition has a huge number of signers but it's Canadian (no offense to Canadians)
Change.org's petition:
http://www.change.org/petitions/malala-yousafzai-nobel-peace-prize-for-malala-yousafzai
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Do You Want to Die?
A pro-life Facebook friend couldn't help but pass along this story about a guy in a vegetative state who "communicates" via thoughts he has while in an fMRI machine.
A brain injured patient gets put into the machine and the doctor trains him to think about playing tennis or think about walking through the house, then assigns "yes" to one and "no" to the other so he can ask him some questions. The aim is to improve the "quality of life" for these patients, which is a noble goal... assuming the guy really does have higher level cognitive functioning.
Another version of the story has this seemingly amazing piece of information:
A simple google search finds that the same doctor has made this claim before, using the same methods:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5792/1402.abstract?sid=95bcd80c-ccb0-4d4e-aaf0-85460e5fff9e
That was in 2006, and in 2007 several responses to the article criticized his methods, conclusion, and lack of attention to alternate explanations for his "findings." I found that previous article and its critics in about five minutes (slowed down only by having to register with Sciencemag.org). How hard did the BBC reporter look? Or the news organizations that have been repeating it? When a story is too good to be true, shouldn't they assume that maybe it isn't?
But what really irks me is that the doctor asked the patient is he was in pain. And guess what? He's not! I'm sure the answer is at least as reliable as a Ouiji board.
But will he ask if they guy wants to continue to live in that state? No, of course not.
The coward couldn't ask the most important question, because if the guy said "no," the doctor's ambitions get launched into a whole other sphere, one that is contrary to the his wishes. After all, if these guys really want to die, then he's out of a job.
Or, he'll have to start proving that his patients lack the psychological fitness to decide to end their lives, which would call into question whether they're able to consent to participate in his research. He's no ethicist or psychologist, so the patient ceases to be his, one way or another.
I'll be keeping an eye out for his article that is supposedly forthcoming, and I'll request it from my library's interlibrary loan department if I have to, because I want to know why he's been researching the same thing for years without ever coming to the point of asking the patients if they want to be allowed to die.
Shouldn't he ask that question eventually? If I were in that state, that would be the first question I'd want them to ask me.
Another version of the story has this seemingly amazing piece of information:
"This was a landmark moment for us because for the first time, a patient can actually tell us information, important information about how they're feeling and their current situation," said lead researcher Dr. Adrian Owen on Tuesday.http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Canadian+vegetative+state+uses+imagination+tell+doctors+pain+video/7541875/story.html
A simple google search finds that the same doctor has made this claim before, using the same methods:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5792/1402.abstract?sid=95bcd80c-ccb0-4d4e-aaf0-85460e5fff9e
That was in 2006, and in 2007 several responses to the article criticized his methods, conclusion, and lack of attention to alternate explanations for his "findings." I found that previous article and its critics in about five minutes (slowed down only by having to register with Sciencemag.org). How hard did the BBC reporter look? Or the news organizations that have been repeating it? When a story is too good to be true, shouldn't they assume that maybe it isn't?
But what really irks me is that the doctor asked the patient is he was in pain. And guess what? He's not! I'm sure the answer is at least as reliable as a Ouiji board.
But will he ask if they guy wants to continue to live in that state? No, of course not.
The coward couldn't ask the most important question, because if the guy said "no," the doctor's ambitions get launched into a whole other sphere, one that is contrary to the his wishes. After all, if these guys really want to die, then he's out of a job.
Or, he'll have to start proving that his patients lack the psychological fitness to decide to end their lives, which would call into question whether they're able to consent to participate in his research. He's no ethicist or psychologist, so the patient ceases to be his, one way or another.
I'll be keeping an eye out for his article that is supposedly forthcoming, and I'll request it from my library's interlibrary loan department if I have to, because I want to know why he's been researching the same thing for years without ever coming to the point of asking the patients if they want to be allowed to die.
Shouldn't he ask that question eventually? If I were in that state, that would be the first question I'd want them to ask me.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Election Week Links
Indiana's Richard Mourdock turned to prayer to help him in the election. Andrew Phipps, the fundy speaker who organized this thing, is a dot-org! His 501C3 should be ripped up and fed to the devil! Outgoing governor Mitch Daniels gave this nutter the "Distinguished Hoosier" award.
In the end, Mourdock's rich friends couldn't buy the election. And something that gives me even more hope, Mourdock only received 60% or more of the vote in a few counties.
Fox News reports machines are switching votes from Romney to Obama... only in that direction! Apparently they don't follow the news very closely because other people are reporting votes for Obama were switched to Romney and there's video to prove it.
We don't have our first Mormon president, but we have our first Hindu and Buddhist in Congress.
The numbers:
Romney won the white vote almost everywhere. Too bad for Romney, white people are only 72% of the electorate. And women are over 50% of the electorate, and not fond of mysogynists. And non-religious people are a 12% voting bloc that politicians shouldn't ignore. Asians didn't buy Romney's economic message, either. Polls of polls saw this coming. So in the end, Moneyball beats
Or was Rove's real problem lying to himself?
...and in other news:
Church services for atheists? People are showing up at 8:30 a.m. for this. That's about 4 hours too early for me. If the local UU tries this here, I'll check it out .. if it's not too early!
An Australian Catholic priest reveals systematic cover-ups of pedophilia in the church.
The pope worries that after gay marriage is recognized, polygamy would be too. Polygamy would be much more complex, with three having to agree, and a whole boatload of other considerations, but I would back that too for consenting adults, not marriage between adults & teens as cult leaders do. I wonder how he feels about Catholics voting for Romney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)